The Disarmament of the Virtuous: Relativism Meets Presidential Policy
If a man is unable to tell the difference between a bottle of medicine and a bottle of cyanide, it is clear that this man has a problem. Whether he needs a stronger prescription for his eyeglasses or has a blurred sense of reality, this man is clearly a danger to himself and to others. Those close to him should seek medical assistance for him before any damage is done; just ask Mr. Gower.
So, what to say to President Obama and to those close to him? It was revealed this week that during last month’s Inaugural Parade, the Bravo Company Marines out of Marine Barracks Washington, who were marching in the Parade, had been disarmed.
Footage from the Parade confirms that their rifles had their bolts removed. These Marines have put aside their own personal comfort and safety to pledge to defend this nation and its citizens. They enlisted and were accepted into the Corps, surmounting physical and mental challenges just to qualify for acceptance, yet they cannot be trusted with the very weapon they’ve sworn to use in our defense.
Not only is this gravely insulting to these brave men who drill daily in order to hone their proficiency with their rifles, but it is indicative of a frightening malady. The President and his Administration are unable to discern the composition of the threat facing us. They offer flaccid explanations about “workplace violence” involving an Islamist operative who slaughtered fourteen people. They refused to condemn the torture and murder of Americans in Benghazi as a “terrorist attack” until the public outrage overwhelmed their poll margins. A company of U.S. Marines is deemed a threat while a lunatic screaming “There is no god but Allah!!” while emptying his magazine into a pregnant mother is “workplace violence”.
What is the message here, Mr. President? Who is the enemy? Is the Secret Service unable to inspect each rifle before the Marines are allowed on the Parade grounds? Are this company’s sergeants and officers unable to determine if the men under their command are a threat to the CiC? These men are trusted to defend American interests, and to die doing so, but not trusted enough to carry an unloaded rifle with a bolt near the President? How does this work when the President goes skeet shooting “all the time”? Does he send Jack Lew in to confiscate all shells and disable all firing pins before he sets foot on the range?
There is only one explanation which explains why the President would willingly disarm a company of Marines in his Inaugural Parade. The President and his Administration are doing what liberals always do: projecting. President Obama doesn’t know who the enemy is and who our friends are, so he assumes that everyone else is as feckless as he. He cannot tell whether Iran is an enemy or just someone who needs a hug after being scolded by George Bush. He thinks gangs of rapine Egyptian thugs reflect the magic of democracy. Hordes of lice-ridden Marxists with trust funds occupying Wall Street inspire our intrepid leader to reflect that they’re “not that different from some of the protests we saw coming out of the Tea Party”. When you’re a moral relativist, it is virtually impossible to distinguish between a group of law-abiding grandmothers who are urging fiscal restraint and a ramshackle hobo-town, erected illegally as a homebase for illicit drug use, raping female participants, and the concealment of convicted felons. Honestly, not really that different…
If I was a Marine General or a Secret Service Director in Obama’s employ, I would simply take the next logical step. If the CiC wants to disarm my men, why should they be carrying rifles at all? In fact, why should the Secret Service even be armed? If the men who protect this nation cannot be trusted with a rifle bolt, why should we trust them with a rifle either? I would disarm all of the men on the President’s detail. Have them stand guard with no weapons at all and see how that suits him.
Our President’s moral relativism is clouding his discernment to a dangerous degree. The reason why the political divide is so vast in our day is because we are no longer to agree on even the most basic of foundations: who are the bad guys?
Over the past century, the Left has had a steadily devolving moral compass. In the middle of the last century, the Left decided to rewire their compass to point South, deciding that the “good” was actually “bad” (see “Hanoi Jane” for reference). Over the past 30 years, they’ve taken a further step and removed the needle entirely from their compass. As moral relativists, they don’t believe in good or evil. There are no bad guys, just guys who are misunderstood or have been abused by colonialism and greed.
This view is fine, when held by the guy slogging frappacchinos at your local java shack. Not so fine when held by the man in the highest office in the land. The President is supposed to have the keenest judgment in the land. Ours cannot tell a friend from a foe. Even worse, he seems reticent to even admit that we have any enemies.
“When you disarm [the people], you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred.” – Machiavelli
