Obama plans to nationalize State and local police forces to make them focus on fighting white “racism” in much the same way that his “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) farce focuses on attacking “Islamophobia” rather than Islamist terrorism. Under Obama’s plan, black violence and its causes will be ignored if possible; if they can’t be ignored, they will continue to be minimized.
As I suggested in The Contempt Obama and Clinton Have For America,
In response to public concerns about potential Islamist terror attacks, Obama turned the nation’s “war on terror” into a “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) farce, the focus of which has been largely on promoting the agenda of CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamist organizations. To that end, the Department of Homeland Security has stricken the study of Islam from its teaching materials and banned the use of words such a “jihad” from the lexicon of Federal law enforcement officials. Its primary focus has been on combating “Islamophobia,” rather than on preventing Islamic terror attacks.
As I also noted in the same article, The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is closely allied with Black Lives Matter and other racist Black groups.
It seems quite likely that CAIR, et al, are assisting Obama in structuring His program to federalize State and local law enforcements to make it focus on white “racism,” while continuing to encourage or at least to ignore black racism and violence.
As reported by Breitbart today,
President Barack Obama is warning his angry supporters that more violence and “rhetoric” by the Black Lives Matter movement could derail his campaign to federalize state and local police forces. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
For the moment, Obama and his deputies are simply pretending that the Dallas attack had nothing to do the Black Lives Matter movement, despite the killer’s decision to explain his anti-cop, anti-white motives to Dallas police. “The shooter is not reflective of the large movement to bring about change that was out in Dallas to peacefully demonstrate,” Jeh Johnson, Obama’s loyal head of the Department of Homeland Security, told a CBS interviewer on Sunday. [Emphasis added.]
But the growing wave of attacks on cops has put Obama on the political defense, and his supporters may spin further out of control to create more riots or attack that would delegitimize his campaign to federalize state and local police forces — and also damage Hillary Clinton’s election chances. [Emphasis added.]
Although Obama condemned violence against law enforcement personnel, he said this as well:
The flip side of that … [I] would hope that police organizations are also respectful of the frustration that people in these communities feel and not just dismiss these protests and these complaints as political correctness, or as politics or attacks on police. There are legitimate issues that have been raised, and there’s data and evidence to back up the concerns that are being expressed by these protesters. [Emphasis added.]
Victor Davis Hanson, in an article titled Have we reached a point of no return? published today by National Review, traces Obama’s promotion of and reliance on racial disharmony to suit His political ambitions.
“Punish our enemies” characterized Obama’s approach to race and bloc voting. Each time an explosive racial confrontation appeared on the national scene, Obama — always in his accustomed academic intonations — did his best to exploit the issue. So the Skip Gates farce was leveraged into commentary about police stereotyping and profiling on a national level. The police officer in the Ferguson shooting was eventually exonerated by Obama’s own Justice Department, but not before Obama had already exploited the shooting for political advantage, as part of a larger false narrative of out-of-control racist cops who recklessly shoot black suspects at inordinate rates to the population (rather than in the context of their national incidence of contact with police). [Emphasis added.]
Yep.
When the full video of Obama’s Dallas address is available at YouTube, I’ll update this post. In the meantime, here’s a summary from The Washington Times.
President Obama defended the Black Lives Matter movement Tuesday at a memorial service for five slain Dallas police officers, saying bigotry remains in police departments across the U.S.
While paying tribute to the fallen officers for sacrificing their lives to protect others from a sniper, Mr. Obama also called on law-enforcement agencies to root out bigotry.
“We have all seen this bigotry in our lives at some point,” Mr. Obama told an audience of several hundred at a concert hall in Dallas.
“None of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments. We know this.”
Here’s the only video I have found thus far; it focuses on gun control.
UPDATE: H/t Conservative Tree House for the full video and the suggestion to pay attention beginning at 32:20.
What do you think?
danmillerinpanama 
I agree with your opening paragraph. However, I don’t understand how Obama or anyone else could believe it’s possible “to nationalize State and local police forces” under our constitutional system. The most he could possibly do would be to aggressively insert federal investigators/prosecutors into local situations, e.g., the Michael Brown case. That’s bad enough, but it’s a long way from there to “nationalizing” police forces.
That’s pretty much what the “CVE” entities do. If a State/local LEO begins an investigation of suspicious Islamist activity, the FBI, Homeland Security, et al intervene and say, in effect, “go away; this is a federal matter.”
Apparently, under Obama’s plan for State/local LEOs, they will be provided training and other help in not offending Blacks, just as they now are on how not to offend Muslims. If State/local LEOS don’t cooperate, Federal funding and other help (equipment, for example) can be withheld. By asking for and accepting Federal funding, etc., State and local governments have paved the way for that to happen.
OK, and I agree that what you described is overly intrusive and usurps state/local authorities. However, it’s a completely different thing from “nationalizing.” That would mean that the federal government would have complete authoritative control over all law enforcement at every level, to include hiring/firing, training, and daily operations. The former is a matter of policy and current law, ill-conceived as it may be; the latter would be blatantly unconstitutional and even the Obama administration couldn’t get away with it. It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but matters of policy and law are fairly easily changed, while constitutional arrangements are not.
Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word….
Pingback: Obama to BLM Supporters: Cool it For Now | danmillerinpanama | THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE