About President Obama’s “Conspiracy Theory” Straw-man Argument – Some Things Never Change

by Scott Creighton

It’s somewhat refreshing to see the Peace Prize “winning” president resort to self-righteous indignation and straw-man arguments when confronted with a simple question: is it really a “conspiracy” when so many Americans are concerned that you want to take their guns?

The president’s cool demeanor frayed only once – when challenged over his use of the term “conspiracy” when discussing whether his government wanted to take people’s guns from them. “Yes! I think it’s fair to call it a conspiracy!” he said. Guardian

President Obama held his little “town hall meeting” last night on CNN. It was stuffed full of hand-picked citizens asking pre-approved questions of the president about “common sense” gun control, the last real agenda on the president’s itinerary now that he’s passed a fascist insurance mandate and several fascist surveillance/1st amendment limiting bills (USA Freedom Act and CISA (formerly known as CISPA))

The exchange between Anderson Cooper and the president had a decidedly rehearsed feel to it. The Guardian doesn’t really do it justice in their brief description of it. Here is part of what was said;

Cooper: Is it really a “conspiracy” when so many Americans are concerned that you want to take their guns?

Obama: yes. It is fair to call it a conspiracy. What are you saying? Are you suggesting that the notion that we are creating a plot to take everybody’s guns away so that we can impose…

Cooper: not everybody’s

Obama: martial law is a conspiracy? Yes. That is a conspiracy. I would hope you would agree with that. Is that controversial… except on some websites around the country?

The staged question that set this discourse in motion dealt with the conspiracy theory out there suggesting Obama want’s to collect all 350 million guns from the 65 million households where they reside. Obviously, as Cooper tried to point out, that is a deliberate oversimplification and exaggeration. A “straw-man” argument in other words.

Here is the video:

Let’s break this down, shall we?

We know Obama is working diligently to impose what he calls “common sense” gun ownership reforms in this country before he leaves office. He is also looking to implement a program to register all firearms in America. Firearm registration is a particularly hot topic for gun rights activists because they understand, rightly so, that gun registration can be a precursor to confiscation.

Obama laughing it off by saying he’s only going to be in office for another year, so “why would he do that?” ignores the proven fact that he is setting up the next president with certain powers just as Bush/Cheney did for him. And he certainly continued with their agendas, did he not? So, registration and confiscation could easily be something on the next president’s agenda. Can you imagine the next Bush or Clinton doing that? I can.

But the reality here, the more pressing reality, is even more sinister than that.

“Common sense” gun laws are about restricting constitutional protects for CERTAIN citizens and in fact removing those protections without due process (yet another constitutional right, by the way)

And it’s not a “conspiracy theory” to say that President Obama has already endorsed such measures and in fact campaigned for them.

“Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.” Barack Obama

Prior to 9/11, the no-fly list had a total of 19 people on it. Now, at last count, it’s up to 47,000. There is no easy way to appeal such a determination and being placed on the no-fly list can be done for a number of ridiculous reasons.

Does anyone really think there are 800 terrorists running around in this country? If that were the case, do you think the FBI would need to fabricate terrorist plots for them to foil? It’s absurd.

There are several ways to end up on that list. One is by saying or writing something someone doesn’t like:

There are numerous complaints from non-violent political activists who say they ended up on a no-fly list for something they said. Former Princeton University professor Walter Murphy told The Guardian that in 2007, he was denied a boarding pass in Newark International Airport.  He suspects it was because of a high-profile lecture he gave that had been critical of then-President Bush. In 2012, Wade Hicks, the spouse of a Navy lieutenant, claimed he was told he was on a no-fly list. He thinks it was because of comments he made about 9/11. Fox

Another is by refusing to serve the FBI as a paid informant setting up some patsy for a terrorism entrapment sting:

According to a federal lawsuit heard in New York this summer, four Muslims say they were put on the no-fly because they refused to spy for the FBI. The men’s names were removed from the list but they sued FBI agents for damages. Fox

So there we have at least 4 US citizens who were added to the no-fly list as punishment for not playing ball with the FBI.

According to President Peace Prize, “What could possibly be the argument for allowing guys who refused to entrap some other citizen to buy a semi-automatic weapon?”

In other cases, people can be put on the no-fly list for Tweeting things that might undermine contemporary ideas.

So I guess President Peace Prize might then say “What could possibly be the argument for allowing people who wont shut their big mouths to buy a semi-automatic weapon?”

Using the no-fly list as a determining factor in his “common sense” gun control effort is clearly a violation of several constitutional rights. That’s the argument and it shows that indeed the whole point of this “common sense” agenda of his is not about denying gun rights to all citizens, but rather a select few who either act or think (or write or give lectures) in a way that is opposed to our status quo group-think.

And as it just so happens, Obama’s representatives are meeting today with leading tech industry businesses to figure out how they can sanitize the internet and get rid of the radicalizing thoughts that are out there.

Anyone else see a pattern developing?

As to the “conspiracy theory” smear…

It’s not a conspiracy theory to suggest that certain actors on the public stage have had a desire to disarm certain OTHER members of society for a very long time. As Obama says, this is “uncontroversial”

Here is Eric Holder back in 1995, then a U.S. attorney, talking about the “hearts and minds” campaign to “brainwash” the public about the 2nd amendment and guns in general. He talks about asking public schools to spend a certain amount of time EACH DAY propagandizing the young kids against guns and gun ownership. It’s important to remember, Eric Holder later created the Fast and Furious scheme to send illegal guns over the border into Mexico to help our beloved drug cartel kill and maim thousands of Mexicans so they could take control of all the drug dealing in the country. A real hero that Holder was, right?

Also to the “conspiracy theory” claim…

During the Clinton administration, especially in the beginning, President Clinton made gun control a major focus of his administration. He passed the federal assault weapon ban and the Brady Bill which imposed a five day waiting period for the purchase of handguns and required the seller to submit the buyer’s name to local authorities for a background check.

The point here is this:

“Clinton may have called the bill a “good beginning” for more gun control legislation. Many credit Clinton’s skills at building coalitions and using the public stage to keep pressure on getting the bill passed.” Wiki

Indeed there is a conspiracy to push for ever more gun control legislation. From Eric Holder back in ’95 to the Clintons even earlier, this agenda has been on the table for quite sometime.

It is not about breaking down 65 million doors and sweeping up 350 million guns. That’s a clownish straw-man argument that I don’t hear anyone of any relevance making.. not even CNN’s Mockingbird Anderson Cooper.

But it is about being able to set up national agencies that will use all sorts of criteria to separate various individuals from their constitutional rights like:

  1. Freedom of Speech
  2. Right to Due Process of Law
  3. Right to Bare Arms

That is a fact.

And as Obama’s dream team of alphabet agencies meet with the likes of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Twitter and Facebook to figure out ways to silence dissenting points of view on the internet, it’s absolutely fair and reasonable to worry about another such over-reach being implemented in the name of protecting the Homeland.

It’s not a conspiracy theory Mr. President, it’s conspiracy fact. Just like your desire to sell out the entire country by signing the TPP and the TTIP just as soon as you can. It’s a fact.

And no amount of staged town hall meetings, feigned self-righteous indignation or crocodile tears will change that fact or change the fact that some of us out here can still think for ourselves and see through your hearts and minds campaign to your truer nature.

Someone once walked out of President Obama’s office just after he first moved in and said “that man has no moral center”

I guess some things never “CHANGE”

One Response

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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

%d bloggers like this: