Shaun King, writer for The Intercept and BLM leader, minces no words with his excoriation of the white population in this country. From his camp (that would be the Leftist, Communist, Socialist, Fascist and Regressive one next to the Antifa rallies where they're burning the president in effigy), there are only three solutions to the problems of mass shootings in this country.
- Send all Whites away from this country permanently, because in his words, “…the most problematic aspects of being white in America are given a pass that nobody else receives
- Keep Whites here and ensure that the American majority is shut completely out of the electoral process and not have a voice in their political parties because they obviously are much too volatile a race to make rational decisions
- The complete confiscation of guns from every citizen and an abolition of the 2nd Amendment
I would love nothing more than to just show one or two examples of King's ignorance and unhinged and slavish devotion to the government as God, but there are so many glaring displays that I'm compelled to answer the outrageous and baseless charges one by one.
As tens of thousands enjoyed a music festival on the streets of Las Vegas, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada, was perched 32 floors above them in his Mandalay Bay hotel room. Paddock had 19 rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammo — supplies that are plentiful in a nation that has more guns than people. A few minutes after 10 p.m., Paddock opened fire on the unsuspecting crowd. They were sitting ducks.
No expensive wall along the Mexican border would’ve prevented this. No Muslim ban stopping immigrants and refugees from a few randomly selected countries from reaching our shores would’ve slowed this down.
May I add a few more things to that list, since we're apparently going there? The unfortunately misguided statement that King made above is that nothing could have prevented this. No one on the Right (at the very least) has ever argued that point. In fact, the only people who have, have been the Leftocrats who are whining about guns (but only after there's an attack). The Right has NEVER argued that point and agrees vehemently with this. Your point, Mr. King, is on the wrong side of the argument. We agree with that statement.
However, the Mexican border wall will reduce the number of rapes, murders, thefts, human trafficking, and drug-related overdoses and gang shoot-outs dramatically, cutting the numbers of these crimes in more than half!
As well, the Muslim ban will reduce the incidents of domestic terror, terror camp construction, sex slave indoctrination of little girls and boys, Taharrush (the “rape game”), stabbings, bombings, murders, Female Genital Mutilation, and honor killings dramatically, cutting the numbers of these crimes in more than half.
If you still want to play the whole “never would have prevented this tragedy” game, though, by all means, let's!
No carbon tax or Climate Change measure that has been introduced by the Left would have prevented this shooting in Las Vegas. No legislation in Congress to say that taxpayers have to pay for transgender sex-reassignment surgery in the military would have prevented this terrorist attack. No single-payer healthcare plan or the saving of Obamacare would have prevented this horrible situation. No federalizing of the United States' police departments would have prevented this circumstance. No “taking the knee” in the NFL would have prevented this tragedy.
Do I need to go on? Are you beginning to see the uselessness of your argument yet, Mr. King?
So before you begin attempting to use OUR argument on the Right about why guns ARE necessary in the hands of private citizens in order to prove YOUR point on the Left about what might not have been prevented, you may wish to crack open your faded and dog-eared copy of “Rules for Radicals” and consult the proper side of the discussion.
Paddock, like the majority of mass shooters in this country, was a white American. And that simple fact changes absolutely everything about the way this horrible moment gets discussed in the media and the national discourse: Whiteness, somehow, protects men from being labeled terrorists.
All right, that's more like it. Now you're back on track again. Except for one teensy, little problem. While it's certainly true that Whites in this country make up the majority of mass shooters, King slyly shifts the argument in his favor by opting to take the “sins of omission” route on the following added statistics about White mass shooters:
- A plurality of the white mass shooters are Leftists. I enjoy pointing out that Lincoln was assassinated by a white Democrat actor, Kennedy was killed by a Democrat radical Communist, Robert Kennedy by a Democrat radical Islamist, Martin Luther King, Jr., by a Democrat Segregationist, and Reagan was shot by a Liberal Democrat obsessed with Jodie Foster.
- Many of those same Leftist White mass shooters were also converts to Islam or sympathizers of Islam and did these things to impress their adopted brethren.
Oh, and P.S., these men WERE listed as terrorists.
When an individual claiming to be Muslim commits a horrible act, many on the right will tell us Islam is the problem. For centuries, when an act of violence has been committed by an African-American, racist tropes follow — and eventually, the criminalization and dehumanization of an entire ethnic group.
How do you like this bait and switch? Did you catch it? It's subtle, but effective. “When an individual CLAIMING TO BE MUSLIM commits a horrible act…”
Did you see it there? You see, in radical Leftism, Muslims CANNOT commit horrible acts. It is impossible. Obama's administration began that narrative, being partial to the Quran himself over other books of faith, and set that line of thinking as the official stance of the United States government. So, now you understand why someone “claiming to be Muslim committing a horrible act” is a poser; a person who is not REALLY Muslim, but just someone who is attempting to…how did they explain it? Oh yeah, “hijack the religion!”
Quick question, Mr. King? If white Conservative Christians kept killing and bombing innocent people, would you be stating they were “individuals CLAIMING to be Christians?” That's what I thought.
Also, take in his point about black Americans. Racism, he says, is what “criminalizes an entire ethnic group.” Well, Mr. King, can the point about Whites being inherently prone to war and oppression be considered racism and, for that matter, criminalizing an entire ethnic group? Or is it the type of racism claimed by Black activists where only Whites can be racist and no one else? Which is it, Mr. King? Do you subscribe to that proclamation?
Privilege always stands in contrast to how others are treated, and it’s true in this case, too…
You mean, like Hillary Clinton? Is that what you mean by privilege? Like when O.J. Simpson murdered his ex-wife and her boyfriend and he was acquitted? Like that type of privilege?
White men who resort to mass violence are consistently characterized primarily as isolated “lone wolves” — in no way connected to one another — while the most problematic aspects of being white in America are given a pass that nobody else receives.
Stephen Paddock’s whiteness has already afforded him many outrageous protections in the media.
All right, Mr. King, let's see if your statement and belief stands up to scrutiny, shall we? You say that white mass shooters are ALWAYS listed as “lone wolves,” while all others are just terrorists, right?
The New York Post in June of last year did an expose on the whole “lone wolf” mystique that appeared to have both President Barack Hussein Obama and his zealots on the Left enthralled with the idea that they could shirk off responsibility on the part of the Islamic faith by utilizing these two powerful words. Obama would sometimes alternatively use the words “lone actor,” as well, to keep us guessing.
The NY Post writer, Paul Sperry, posits that every single attack by Muslim terrorists cannot be “lone wolves” and explains why. He makes an exhaustive list of Muslim terror attacks where the media, without any factual evidence or background on the attackers, came out with the “lone wolf” narrative almost immediately (at times, within mere hours of the attack).
The point is that Mr. King makes an assertion based on an opinion at this moment in time which doesn't hold water historically. In fact, I would venture to say that more Islamic terror has been labeled as “lone wolf” attacks than any other terrorist activities. Therefore, this Fake News notion that Paddock's whiteness somehow afforded him “protections in the media,” doesn't play out with sincerity or honesty; besides the fact that who cares! He was a killer! Should it matter if he was White, Black, Brown or Orange? Honestly.
Just consider President Donald Trump. This morning, Trump tweeted, “My warmest condolences and sympathies to the victims and families of the terrible Las Vegas shooting. God bless you!” That’s fine, but Trump doesn’t even seem angry. It’s peculiar that he didn’t call the shooter a “son of a bitch,” like he did the NFL players who took a knee during the national anthem. He didn’t create an insulting nickname for Paddock or make an immediate push for a policy proposal.
Compare that to how Trump treats incidents where he believes the assailants are Muslims. After a bomb exploded in the London subway, Trump tweeted that the attackers were “loser terrorists” — before British authorities had even named a suspect. He went on to immediately use the attack to push his Muslim ban.
“…he didn't call the shooter a ‘son of a bitch,' like he did the NFL players who took a knee during the national anthem.”
That's because, a) He's dead, and b) He was a terrorist. You don't call a terrorist a “son of a bitch,” at least not in New York, you don't. That is reserved for taxi drivers who drive past you without a fare in the back seat, for someone who cuts you off in traffic, for some drunk singing Barry Manilow songs out in the streets at 3 a.m., for the guy who lets his dog crap on your Brownstone front doorstep every morning, for the officer who tickets your vehicle for not switching it to the alternate side of the street before 10 a.m. (whether or not it's a woman or a man who ticketed you), AND it's for the NFL players who choose to tell you as an American that you're garbage, your country is garbage, and everything you believe in is garbage.
Terrorists, on the other hand, require a much different level of swear words and denigrating speech. They are truly defined by the very worst curses you can dig up from your repertoire in your youth.
Of course, that's a New Yorker. I can't speak for other states. Although I have family in New Jersey who are very good with creative cuss words.
“After a bomb exploded in the London subway, Trump tweeted that the attackers were “loser terrorists” – before British authorities had even named a suspect. He went on to immediately use the attack to push his Muslim ban.”
Do you really believe, Mr. King, that the President of the United States is completely shielded from information in foreign lands, that he's not in constant contact with leaders of other nations and getting updates on terror situations from them and his own national security staff? Do you honestly believe that this is the equivalent of the Obama's “Well, I believe the police acted stupidly,” in Boston when it turned out that they HADN'T? After all, Mr. King, you can cry about Trump all you want, but…HE WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE TERRORISTS…Muslims all!
We must ask ourselves: Why do certain acts of violence absolutely incense Trump and his base while others only elicit warm thoughts and prayers?
How sad that this man is utterly devoid of truth and honesty.
When it comes time for the Leftists to sit back and evaluate their shortcomings, I really hope and pray that “with the warmest thoughts and prayers” that they can see the folly of their radical behavior and call things what they are, not by race or color, but by outright despicable disregard for human life.
Image: Capital Research Center