Insidious Allegations of "Civility" Are Purposeful

Now that the President has spoken, it's all supposed to be water under the bridge, huh? We're healed! Now we can be civil in our political discourse? I maintain the events following Saturday's attempted murder of a Democrat Congresswoman were not an accident; not coincidence, and not at all reaction based on emotion. It is an insidious intentional act that began years ago.

Insidious is the perfect descriptor, for the effort of progressives to blame conservatives in some fashion for the actions of a mentally deranged man is the epitome of reaction " intended to entrap or beguile;" to plant a " stealthily treacherous or deceitful" seed in the mind of the public. It is an intentional effort at "operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect." (Dictionary.com)

Allow me to refute some of this progressive insidiousness. Progressives are and have been angry for a long time. They dislike conservatives on numerous levels, but mainly because we disagree with that they wish to do and the manners they forward for accomplishing their goals. We are the roadblock to their desires. Do you see one standing in your way in a positive light? Of course you don't - it's human nature. Progressives see conservatism as the immovable object squarely in their way, thus worthy of destruction to clear their path.

Their insidious allegations were timed to first try and tie the killer to Palin, Beck & Limbaugh, using the "conservative hate speech" mantra. When it was proven the guy was mostly apolitical but clearly like most young persons, more left then right by any measure, well, progressive's knew their "it's Palin, et al" argument was debunked. So they needed a new tact. They came up with the very insidious positioning of "we need civility in political speech" and of course the calls for a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

Then came the obligatory voices for more gun legislation, knowing full well that while gun ownership is more murky, GENERALLY, lefties are not big time gun owners. Again, GENERALLY conservatism is about gun ownership and progressivism is more for gun control, so once again it is an attempt to address the ancient progressive laundry list, as is the Fairness Doctrine.

Jim Clyburn, Democrat from SC, stated "when we had the Fairness Doctrine things were more civil." (paraphrased) Yet with the Fairness Doctrine we had JFK, MLK, RFK killed. Ford shot at twice within weeks and the Reagan assassination attempt came in 1981 before the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. More civil? Like the Chicago riots in 1968? Resurrection City on the DC Mall? The Hanafi Muslims murdering DC City Councilmen and taking over the DC gov't headquarters? Like that?

The reality is for profit progressive radio was a huge commercial flop, whereas conservative talk radio is a money making enterprise in a huge way. And since every media outlet except for Fox is progressive, what better way to assume control of the airwaves than to legislate away conservative talk radio, leaving only Fox as the lone voice not run by ideological progressives?

The truth is for every instance of a target placed on a map of a Democrat congressional district there has been an equal representation or demonstration from progressives. Isn't the threat of "dragging them kicking and screaming" a rather vitriolic statement? Wasn't Obama's "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun" rather vitriolic? Obama also said to Latino's before the November election to "punish your enemies," of course meaning those against amnesty, and that would be conservatives largely. Or the Democrat Congressional representative who called for another representative, a Republican, to be "put up against a wall and be shot?"

Yet the lefties are never challenged or called purveyors of hate. Why? How is it conservative speech dissemination is "hate?" It's not, but it does totally disagree with progressives, so clearly we see why they make the claim. Polling shows 70% of the nation agree with Tea Party ideals, so unless progressives can deny conservatives to ability to disseminate their ideas, they lose and they know it. Hello? November elections? Progressive ideas were totally rejected and they are mad and in shock.

What to make of the concept forwarded in the wake of Saturday's murders that all the conservative opposition to Obama and his agenda led to the murders? The only explanation for that logic would have been if the shooter were a provable lefty. Would a conservative go after another person who also disliked the progressive/Obama agenda? That is nonsensical, hence why that line of denigration was dropped real quick when even the lefties realized such a line of disagreement would point to a progressive assassin.

Lastly, how did Palin "interject" herself into the discussion as has been the progressive attack since Palin's 8 minute Facebook video yesterday? Her name was one of the first to be accused of being somehow responsible for the killer's action as early as mere hours after the event in Arizona on Saturday morning. So lemme see...Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday all we hear is how Palin, Beck & Limbaugh are to blame, then when Palin defends herself, she's "interjecting herself?"I believe Mr. Spock would cock his head sideways just a tad, lift one eyebrow and in that Vulcan monotone announce "that's illogical."

One would have to be a fool or a progressive to honestly believe all this "let's get civil" nonsense is anything other than an insidious finger pointing at conservatism. Clearly lefties are not claiming they are the ones who are uncivil, so who else could they possibly be referring to? See how insidious it is? Feigning concern for civility indicts one or both parties and I'll be a monkey's uncle if progressives were actually pointing a finger at their own actions, therefore they were pointing the finger of insidious accusation at conservatism.

If one is foolish enough to buy this "civility" crap, you are naive to the point of my being profoundly embarrassed for you.