Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are exploiting the killing of five police officers in Dallas to push a range of assaults on the U.S. Constitution, including a decades-old plot to federalize America’s local police departments without any semblance of constitutional authority. In between subtly demonizing law-enforcement officers as racists and touting the controversial Black Lives Matter movement, the two Democrat Party standard-bearers also seized on the Dallas police shootings to promote further infringements on the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Critics, though, including among America’s police forces, blasted the Obama administration and its allies for fueling a “war” on law enforcement.
The establishment plan to federalize and militarize America’s state and local police forces has been underway for decades. In recent years, though, the Obama administration has pushed the agenda further and faster than ever. Among other schemes, the White House has used “executive actions,” as well as bribe money provided by Congress and threats of lawsuits, to impose a wide range of unconstitutional federal “guidelines” and controls on law enforcement. Some critics referred to the schemes as “Common Core for police,” a reference to the administration’s abuse of federal bribes to impose dumbed-down national “standards” on America’s local school systems. The United Nations has even called on American police to obey what UN boss Ban Ki-moon called “international standards.”
Under the U.S. Constitution, though, police powers were not delegated to the federal government. That means those powers are reserved to the states, communities, or the people, as made explicit in the 10th Amendment. As such, American law-enforcement functions have generally been the responsibility of state, county, and local government, hence the close to 18,000 state and local law-enforcement agencies across America. Under the American federalist system of self-government, those police forces have traditionally been funded and controlled by the local communities they are supposed to protect and serve, making them accountable to the elected leaders of those communities rather than Obama. This system has served as a powerful check against centralized power, making any bid for full-blown national tyranny extremely difficult to impose.
But the establishment wants to change all that and shackle Americans under a national police force that serves not local communities, but the out-of-control executive branch of the federal government. And with the latest incidents to exploit, including two recent fatal shootings of citizens by police and the massacre of Dallas police officers, Obama and other federal supremacists are once again standing on dead bodies working fiendishly to federalize American police departments — a plot Obama and his minions have been working on, with limited success so far, for years. Now, with presumed Democrat presidential contender Hillary Clinton fully on board with the scheme, Obama is doubling down on his previous efforts.
Speaking on July 9 in Poland after a recent NATO summit there, Obama touted his lawless “task force” on so-called “21st century policing,” which was created via executive order last year in the wake of the Ferguson chaos fueled by billionaire Obama ally and Rothschild protege George Soros. “I want to start moving on constructive actions that are actually going to make a difference, because that is what all Americans want,” Obama declared, falsely suggesting that “all” Americans agree with his extremist agenda to usurp control over local police forces. The “actions” he referred to involve imposing the illegal “recommendations” offered by his illegal “task force,” including national standards for police.
Presumed Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton has been pushing the same agenda. In an interview on ABC, for example, Clinton argued that “we” need to “put in place guidelines to ensure that every police officer understands what is expected of him or her.” “A routine traffic stop, a routine arrest, escalating to the point where a gun is drawn and a life is lost,” Clinton rambled. “That’s why I am absolutely calling for national guidelines about the use of force. Every single one of our police officers should be trained and retrained in understanding how to avoid force.” Of course, in the real world, police officers are already trained and re-trained in how to avoid using force if and when it is possible. The Obama administration’s legions of armed federal bureaucrats, however, have been caught openly training to shoot elderly Americans, children, and pregnant women, even while officially demonizing hundreds of millions of mainstream Americans as extremists and even potential terrorists.
In a separate interview with CNN, Clinton reiterated the call for federalizing police. “As I said, we need national guidelines to really set out when force should be used and especially when deadly force should be used,” she said, without citing any provision in the Constitution that would authorize such training or explaining why more federal training and guidelines would be superior to the training and guidelines communities and states already provide. “Some police departments have really taken that to heart.” Clinton did not specify which local or state police departments she believed were eager to become vassals of a potential Hillary Clinton administration, but it is unlikely that many officers or police chiefs want to be placed under the thumb of federal bureaucrats rather than serving and being accountable to their communities. The feds have already been caught teaching local police to view political bumper stickers as indicators of extremism and terrorism.
Between fomenting hatred of the police and traditional America, the radical establishment-backed allies of Clinton and Obama have been pushing the same agenda to federalize law enforcement. Discredited race hustler Al Sharpton, for example, who in a 1992 videotaped speech called for his supporters to start “offing the pigs” and slaughtering “crackers,” said last year that the Justice Department should “take over policing in this country.” The controversial figure, who owes millions in taxes but regularly visits the Obama White House, acknowledged that “we’re going to have to fight states’ rights.” Ironically, perhaps, grants from the out-of-control Obama Justice Department were linked in 2014 to a rap video promoting the murder of police officers. Obama himself famously launched his political career at the home of a Castro-backed communist terror leader, Bill Ayers, whose terrorist group murdered multiple American police officers and was plotting to murder millions of Americans with help from foreign governments, according to the FBI agent who infiltrated the group.
The UN, meanwhile, known to critics as the “dictators club,” has made a similar push to centralize American law enforcement. From constantly demonizing local American police forces as trigger-happy racists to urging the federal government to trample on the Constitution and usurp control over law enforcement, the UN has become increasingly bold in recent years. After the killing of Dallas officers, the UN released a press release blasting an alleged “high level of structural and institutional racism” among American peace officers. The bizarre screed also called on the U.S. government to promote “Black lives matter,” a term associated with a UN-linked racist movement that even leading black American police chiefs have blasted as a “radical hate group.”
The scandal-plagued UN chief, who now claims to lead the “Parliament of Humanity,” also demanded last year that American police adhere to what he called “national and international standards.” His own police and “peace” troops, though, have become infamous around the world and especially in Africa for raping and sexually exploiting children, murdering protesters and civilians, supporting Islamic militias engaged in the mass slaughter of Christians, and much more. It was not clear whose “international standards” the UN chief wanted to impose on American police.
Critics, though, are sounding the alarm about the push to federalize America’s police departments. “Americans everywhere should be very concerned about oversight of local police agencies,” explained former police detective Jim Fitzgerald, the national field director for The John Birch Society, the parent organization of this magazine. The constitutionalist group, which has chapters in all 50 states, has been running a campaign for decades called “Support Your Local Police — and Keep Them Independent.” The effort is meant to, among other goals, build support for local police while protecting local communities from having their police departments turned into tentacles of an all-powerful federal government.
“These steps to exercise and take control over police departments should raise a red flag among police officials and give deep concern to anyone who understands the history of national police forces,” continued Fitzgerald. “Have we so soon forgotten the Gestapo and the KGB, both national police agencies, that terrorized the citizens of Germany and Russia and led to the imprisonment and deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men and women? Has there ever been a national police force that benefited the citizens who live under it? Never!” Fitzgerald is currently traveling the country speaking about these issues and working to educate citizens and build support for local law enforcement.
Americans must resist the anti-constitutional effort to strip local communities’ ability to govern themselves and control their own police departments. The federal government has no legal authority to nationalize or federalize law enforcement. And even if it did, it would be a terrible idea, as even recent history has shown. Indeed, the agenda to impose a national police force on America is extremely dangerous. In addition to protecting and serving their communities, America’s local law-enforcement agencies represent a powerful bulwark against any potential future effort to impose tyranny on the American people. And so, the establishment’s agenda to undermine that bulwark must be strongly opposed.