Thanks for Your Civility, Charles Blow of the New York Times……..

even though you still are wrong about your assertions.

The American Leftwing and the culture it has created for 2011  America, both yours and mine,  is an overwhelmingly powerful antiAmerican collection of   antidemocratic, foul thinking often foul mouthed and foul speaking and writing, collection of misfit thugs who defend some kind of  Maginot line of Marxist autocracy and intolerance to save its political winnings against the traditional American Christians, the scourges of private enterprise, and against the America they have created.

These misfit thugs see themselves as protectors of the unprotected…….anyone who joins the victimhood clans of the American Leftwing Democrat Party……a Party whose entire philosophy is based on suspicion and hate……caused, curiously enough, by Christians and folks in private enterprise…….the folks who gave the world the government and culture devoted to ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” and had set aside a listing of certain Right for mankind who reside within its borders.

These misfit thugs sell hysteria rather than support clarity of ideas.   They call the Christian-free enterprise American, homophobe, sexist, xenophobe, anti-unionist, racist, antimuslim, uneducated and  any other name which helps them avoid discussing issues.

Whether they are aware of it or not, this is the decades-old, actually a couple centuries old political path of the Marxists who have sabotaged any and all governments where Marxism has developed its priests and priestesses and the local population goes on with its daily business not realizing what has happened to their hardening, more befulddled culture of disunity.  PEACE is always the word to screen Marxist disorder.   Always….even in nations  after the order of Marxist dictatorship has been established.

I have read and quoted writings of Charles Blow of the New York Times in the past.  I have considered him one of the countless HACK leftwing writers who dominate the American world of mass media communication today, certainly of those at the New York Times, repeating what has been memorized, not what is or actually has been.

A “Hack”  writer has meaning.  It is a writer who has memorized certain political cliches of life which trigger his emotions, but not his mind, to attack and destroy the messenger rather than analyze the truths and assumptions (or lack of them)  of the message.   The hack   values feelings.  Reason becomes valuable only when usable.  Lefties  will react in writing and speech based on feelings.   It’s difficult in a free sociey  to defend Marxism.  Therefore, the Marxists pretend the democratic society is tyrannical.

Mr. Blow believes  “that the preponderance of it (violent rhetoric)  comes from the right, and that it has the potential to manifest in massacres like the one in Tucson.”    The ‘preponderance idea is an outrage.   Where was Mr. Blow been during the GW Bush years.   Where have been the bombings, the killings, the riots , the arsons  endemic to the Left during the Cultural Revolution of the late 1960s or at the Peace demonstrations or in Seattle when the World’s economists met some years age…..?  Who is the rightwing Bill Maher on televison?

Dennis Prager is passionate about his conservative views for  America.  He seeks the best view based on his story in life…. He encourages clarity….(which should have  been taught in the American classroom) in order to compare ideas so one can measure the validity or truth of  one  idea versus another, trumping the emotuional with the mind.   Let the better idea win….

Charles Blow wrote:

“Immediately after the news broke, the air became thick with conjecture, speculation and innuendo. There was a giddy, almost punch-drunk excitement on the left. The prophecy had been fulfilled: “words have consequences.” And now, the right’s rhetorical chickens had finally come home to roost.

The dots were too close and the temptation to connect them too strong. The target was a Democratic congresswoman. There was the map of her district in the cross hairs. There were her own prescient worries about overheated rhetoric.

Within hours of the shooting, there was a full-fledged witch hunt to link the shooter to the right.

“I saw Goody Proctor with the devil! Oh, I mean Jared Lee Loughner! Yes him. With the devil!”

The only problem is that there was no evidence then, and even now, that overheated rhetoric from the right had anything to do with the shooting. (In fact, a couple of people who said they knew him have described him as either apolitical or “quite liberal.”) The picture emerging is of a sad and lonely soul slowly, and publicly, slipping into insanity.

I have written about violent rhetoric before, and I’m convinced that it’s poisonous to our politics, that the preponderance of it comes from the right, and that it has the potential to manifest in massacres like the one in Tucson.

But I also know that potential, possibility and even plausibility are not proof.

The American people know it, too. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday, 42 percent of those asked said that political rhetoric was not a factor at all in the shooting, 22 percent said that it was a minor factor and 20 percent said that it was a major factor. Furthermore, most agreed that focusing on conservative rhetoric as a link in the shooting was “not a legitimate point but mostly an attempt to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad.” And nearly an equal number of people said that Republicans, the Tea Party and Democrats had all “gone too far in using inflammatory language” to criticize their opponents.

Great. So the left overreacts and overreaches and it only accomplishes two things: fostering sympathy for its opponents and nurturing a false equivalence within the body politic. Well done, Democrats.

Now we’ve settled into the by-any-means-necessary argument: anything that gets us to focus on the rhetoric and tamp it down is a good thing. But a wrong in the service of righteousness is no less wrong, no less corrosive, no less a menace to the very righteousness it’s meant to support.

You can’t claim the higher ground in a pit of quicksand.

Concocting connections to advance an argument actually weakens it. The argument for tonal moderation has been done a tremendous disservice by those who sought to score political points in the absence of proof.

Immediately after the news broke, the air became thick with conjecture, speculation and innuendo. There was a giddy, almost punch-drunk excitement on the left. The prophecy had been fulfilled: “words have consequences.” And now, the right’s rhetorical chickens had finally come home to roost.

The dots were too close and the temptation to connect them too strong. The target was a Democratic congresswoman. There was the map of her district in the cross hairs. There were her own prescient worries about overheated rhetoric.

Within hours of the shooting, there was a full-fledged witch hunt to link the shooter to the right.

“I saw Goody Proctor with the devil! Oh, I mean Jared Lee Loughner! Yes him. With the devil!”

The only problem is that there was no evidence then, and even now, that overheated rhetoric from the right had anything to do with the shooting. (In fact, a couple of people who said they knew him have described him as either apolitical or “quite liberal.”) The picture emerging is of a sad and lonely soul slowly, and publicly, slipping into insanity.

I have written about violent rhetoric before, and I’m convinced that it’s poisonous to our politics, that the preponderance of it comes from the right, and that it has the potential to manifest in massacres like the one in Tucson.

But I also know that potential, possibility and even plausibility are not proof.

The American people know it, too. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday, 42 percent of those asked said that political rhetoric was not a factor at all in the shooting, 22 percent said that it was a minor factor and 20 percent said that it was a major factor. Furthermore, most agreed that focusing on conservative rhetoric as a link in the shooting was “not a legitimate point but mostly an attempt to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad.” And nearly an equal number of people said that Republicans, the Tea Party and Democrats had all “gone too far in using inflammatory language” to criticize their opponents.

Great. So the left overreacts and overreaches and it only accomplishes two things: fostering sympathy for its opponents and nurturing a false equivalence within the body politic. Well done, Democrats.

Now we’ve settled into the by-any-means-necessary argument: anything that gets us to focus on the rhetoric and tamp it down is a good thing. But a wrong in the service of righteousness is no less wrong, no less corrosive, no less a menace to the very righteousness it’s meant to support.

You can’t claim the higher ground in a pit of quicksand.

Concocting connections to advance an argument actually weakens it. The argument for tonal moderation has been done a tremendous disservice by those who sought to score political points in the absence of proof.

“Immediately after the news broke, the air became thick with conjecture, speculation and innuendo. There was a giddy, almost punch-drunk excitement on the left. The prophecy had been fulfilled: “words have consequences.” And now, the right’s rhetorical chickens had finally come home to roost.

The dots were too close and the temptation to connect them too strong. The target was a Democratic congresswoman. There was the map of her district in the cross hairs. There were her own prescient worries about overheated rhetoric.

Within hours of the shooting, there was a full-fledged witch hunt to link the shooter to the right.

“I saw Goody Proctor with the devil! Oh, I mean Jared Lee Loughner! Yes him. With the devil!”

The only problem is that there was no evidence then, and even now, that overheated rhetoric from the right had anything to do with the shooting. (In fact, a couple of people who said they knew him have described him as either apolitical or “quite liberal.”) The picture emerging is of a sad and lonely soul slowly, and publicly, slipping into insanity.

I have written about violent rhetoric before, and I’m convinced that it’s poisonous to our politics, that the preponderance of it comes from the right, and that it has the potential to manifest in massacres like the one in Tucson.

But I also know that potential, possibility and even plausibility are not proof.

The American people know it, too. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday, 42 percent of those asked said that political rhetoric was not a factor at all in the shooting, 22 percent said that it was a minor factor and 20 percent said that it was a major factor. Furthermore, most agreed that focusing on conservative rhetoric as a link in the shooting was “not a legitimate point but mostly an attempt to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad.” And nearly an equal number of people said that Republicans, the Tea Party and Democrats had all “gone too far in using inflammatory language” to criticize their opponents.

Great. So the left overreacts and overreaches and it only accomplishes two things: fostering sympathy for its opponents and nurturing a false equivalence within the body politic. Well done, Democrats.

Now we’ve settled into the by-any-means-necessary argument: anything that gets us to focus on the rhetoric and tamp it down is a good thing. But a wrong in the service of righteousness is no less wrong, no less corrosive, no less a menace to the very righteousness it’s meant to support.

You can’t claim the higher ground in a pit of quicksand.

Concocting connections to advance an argument actually weakens it. The argument for tonal moderation has been done a tremendous disservice by those who sought to score political points in the absence of proof.”

Further comment:   Keep your eyes and ears open, Mr. Blow.   Start amassing evidence to prove your guesses and assumptions are as accurate as they should be.   Maybe then you can begin to wonder what is it in Marxism which so appeals to you.