It's always revealing to listen to what liberals conclude from the statements of those they hate. It tells you how they think and what their prejudices truly are.
In the case of "Morning" Joe Scarborough and Al Sharpton, this morning's discussion of an editorial, Stand and Fight written by Wayne LaPierre and published in The Daily Caller, demonstrated just how their racism informs their understanding of what others say and the assumptions they make about their audience and supporters. It reveals their biases (and their elitist bigotry).
First Offense: Cartel Gangs Are Entering America Across Our Under-protected Border
What were the offending words? Well first, Wayne LaPierre dared tell the truth about the recent influx of members of Latin American drug cartels coming to our cities:
". . . Latin American drug gangs have invaded every city of significant size in the United States. Phoenix is already one of the kidnapping capitals of the world, and though the states on the U.S./Mexico border may be the first places in the nation to suffer from cartel violence, by no means are they the last.Mr. LaPierre did not say "all Latinos were criminals," nor did he imply as much. The source of those thoughts are the minds of Messrs. Scarborough, Sharpton, and their ilk, minds mired in what former President George W. Bush called "the soft bigotry of low-expectations," and filled with hatred and contempt for those they can't understand. They are ignorant, arrogant minds projecting their own secret (and perhaps not even consciously held) prejudices onto average Americans and gun-owners, whom they hold in contempt.
The president flagrantly defies the 2006 federal law ordering the construction of a secure border fence along the entire Mexican border. So the border today remains porous not only to people seeking jobs in the U.S., but to criminals whose jobs are murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping. Ominously, the border also remains open to agents of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Numerous intelligence sources have confirmed that foreign terrorists have identified the southern U.S. border as their path of entry into the country . . ."
Mr. LaPierre committed an unforgivable sin; he told the truth and in doing so (compounding his error) he dared mention one of those special, protected ethnic groups one dare not mention in any negative way lest he violate the strictures of political correctness.
Merely by pointing out that among those crossing our borders are members of MS-13, Los Zetas, and the like--a substantial number of whom now sit in our prisons--he spoke the truth that may not be spoken.
Mr. LaPierre's statement reflects that for many law-abiding Americans, the presence of these ruthless, violent criminals constitutes sufficient threat to themselves, their families, and their communities for them to be armed with "high capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles.
For liberals and their pet pseudo-conservatives, it's an unforgivable sin for which he must be punished--ridiculed, isolated and targeted. He violated one of the unwritten laws of political correctness--A conservative is racist if he speaks the truth about specially protected ethnic groups.
These "Beltway-to-Boston-Corridor" elites don't have to deal with these problems, but residents in border-states and poor people trapped in inner-cities face them daily. These threats are growing in America and the the feds and police are powerless to stop them.
Liberals, like Al Sharpton, and their pseudo-conservative lapdogs, like Joe Scarborough, zero in on the words "Latin American" and play the race-card. Implying that to mention them proves racism. Guilt-by-association, is used to smear anyone who disagrees with their radical anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment agenda.
Second Offense: Looting Occurred In South Brooklyn After Hurricane Sandy
LaPierre's second, even graver, offense was in mentioning South Brooklyn and the rampant disorder that occurred subsequent to Hurricane Sandy:
". . . After Hurricane Sandy, we saw the hellish world that the gun prohibitionists see as their utopia. Looters ran wild in south Brooklyn. There was no food, water or electricity. And if you wanted to walk several miles to get supplies, you better get back before dark, or you might not get home at all.
Anti-gun New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg had already done everything he could to prevent law-abiding New Yorkers from owning guns, and he has made sure that no ordinary citizen will ever be allowed to carry a gun. He even refused to allow the National Guard into the city to restore civil order because Guardsmen carry guns! . . ."
Most revealing in this attack, neither Mr. Sharpton nor Mr. Scarborough hesitated a second in imagining that Mr. LaPierre was casting aspersion on African Americans. It never occurred to either man that many within the South Brooklyn community would or could want to protect themselves from those looters, whatever their race.
Do they believe blacks are only capable or rioting? Has their own "soft-bigotry of low expectations" led them to make an assumption that, quite frankly, never even occurred to me until they mentioned it?
Worst Offense: Second Amendment Is A Sacred Trust
Wayne LaPierre's cardinal sin. however, is that he interprets the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution literally and accepts our Founding Fathers at their word; for that, he must be demonized, he must be punished.
Having informed himself of the intentions of our Founding Fathers and their grave concerns about an over-reaching federal government, he dares defy the illuminati of the "Beltway-to-Boston" elite who have relegated our Constitution and the Bill of Rights to the status of "a quaint, out-dated,. document that contains some interesting ideas, but that should not be too closely adhered to."
Mr. LaPierre and many others of us who have actually studied the issue of "gun control" and who have read the writings of Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al; we who have studied The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, understand that those brilliant, highly educated men had a deep and abiding fear of creating too powerful of a central government and knew that any government they devised, no matter how carefully, might eventually fall prey to those who desire power over others and would gravitate to those seats of power.
If, as Joe Scarborough and the others in the anti-gun movement assert, our Founding Fathers never envisioned firearms that use 30 round magazines and could fire them in rapidly, then it is just as true that they never envisioned a government comprised of men who abandoned real professions to be life-long professional politicians--seeking only greater power over the very people they were elected to serve.
Neither assumption is true, of course. Professional politicians (like the prostitutes they patronize and all too often mimic) have been around since the dawn of governments and these very wise men certainly had knowledge of the evolution of firearms before their time and the gradual reduction in size, increases in fire-power, and greater portability of such weapons--they or their contemporaries had seen the the Puckle Gun and the Nock Gun and Organ Guns had been designed by Leonardo DaVinci.
It's liberal arrogance that presumes these men vision incapable of imagining a further evolution of firearms. It's a specious argument . . . and an irrelevant argument.
Whether or not the framers of our Constitution were capable of foreseeing the invention of high capacity magazines and "assault weapons,' the principles they espoused and the reasoning behind them were based on the concept of a citizenry armed with weapons equal to those possessed by the standing armies of the time and hold true today.
It is clear that the intent behind the 2nd Amendment was to provide for an armed civilian populace as a counter-balance to a national standing army (Federalist #46) . . . as a deterrent to any attempt by those in power to over-step the bounds of their legitimate, constitutionally constrained powers.
The possibility that average citizens might not be able to depend on the police for their security and safety escapes liberals. They can't imagine a scenario like Wayne LaPierre described, in which police are no longer funded . . . but I can . . . and I wrote about a similar situation that occurred following Hurricane Katrina.
People like "Reverend Al" and "Morning Joe" prefer President Obama's view that our Constitution is "a charter of negative liberties" and more of an encumbrance to what they deem "good government" than it is the defining outline by which our government is supposed to be structured. They also appear to believe that our rights are defined in the Bill or Rights and the Constitution (damn that pesky 9th Amendment).
Educated, knowledgeable people like Mr. LaPierre and we who stand in support of the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution) pose a threat to them. We are hated by them, because we threaten their agenda, thus--taking a page Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals--they attempt to ridicule and lie about us, what we believe, and who we are.
"Backwoods, Redneck, Hillbillies"
These guys believe those in the "Beltway-to-Boston Corridor" have a superior understanding of the issues, our government, and our nation. The aura of arrogance that surrounds people like Scarborough and Sharpton and those self-congratulatory "luminaries" who daily grace the set of Morning Joe and engage in an orgy of mutual back-slapping radiates like the afterglow from a nuclear detonation.
The assumption that mere proximity to the halls of government, or being within them somehow makes their opinions and beliefs more authoritative than those held by us "yokels and rubes" out here in the hinterland, is as ludicrous as the imaginings of the elites of Hollywood's that being paid large sums of money for pretending to be someone they're not while speaking words someone else has written makes their judgment superior to that of those who pay those exorbitant prices for tickets to attend their increasingly unimaginative, banal, and mostly boring movies.
Mr. Scarborough, you are wrong. You understand nothing about the intent and meaning of the 2nd Amendment and nothing of the people you sneer at. We are not loonies running around in camo-gear pretending to be militia-men, we are common, ordinary people who understand a hell of a lot more than you about our Constitution, our Founding Fathers and our rights.
You are a man of no principles; corrupt and preoccupied with an obsession of appearing sophisticated in the eyes of your liberal friends at MSNBC. Yes, on occasion you revert to conservative principles--when it suits your purpose--you profess to be a "small-government conservative," yet you believe that the police are more trust-worthy than the average law-abiding citizen (events in L.A. prove differently).
You believe that the actions of a few individuals--all of whom broke the laws and were identified as potential threats to themselves and their neighbors--provide just cause to restrict the rights of all citizens.
You believe that we should pass laws that the FBI has admitted had NO EFFECT on crime, just because they're popular in the polls.
You place political expediency above doing what is right.
Mr. Scarborough you are symbolic of what is wrong with our nation and our government. When elected officials place their careers as politicians (and pundits) over doing what is right, then they have betrayed the trust to which they pledged an oath. You are callow, corrupt, and wrong.
Oh, and just because polls indicate the popularity of a cause, it is not a justification for passing laws, if it was then chocolate ice cream would be free.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!