This horrible event shows things that are wrong in today's America:

 

This is contrary to the articles that suggest that this may be the end of the American  dream. That, perhaps, forging displaced people into a nation was an experiment  doomed from the start. 

 

But this horrible event merely shows that the political division between the left and  the right, where the left went 40% to the left and the right 15% to the right according  to Andrew Sullivan (a homosexual conservative), is such that there are those who  decide to solve their political grievances not in the American democratic way but  by assassination. Just like in the 19th century authoritarian Russia where it became  customary to take potshots at a whole succession of Czars, sometimes with fatal  consequences.

 

The liberal media are falling all over themselves by asking "will the right take any  lesson from it?" Such a specious question merely perpetuates the criminal intentions  of those who engage in such assassinations. Who were the would be and the actual  assassins of the president and Charlie Kirk? (The hammer attack on Mr. Pelosi by  a Canadian citizen was a robbery by a disturbed person.)

 

So who were these assassins? They were the men of the left. Therefore, the proper  questions to ask is "will the LEFT take any lesson from this?"

 

I have said many times that if a president is put into the White House by the majority  of my countrymen, whether he is a Democrat or a Republican, he becomes my  president as he is now representing my  country. The politically unsophisticated "not  my president" has no place in the American politics.

 

For the American democracy can work only by a consensus, which implies  a compromise. And if I disagree with the president who was voted in by the majority  of my countrymen, I will work diligently to make sure a candidate more of my liking  is voted in the next time.

 

This is what the American democracy means and assassinations are not part of  it. I would observe that it is frequently the younger generation of Americans who  harbor such wayward ideas that are incompatible with democracy.

 

Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die for his political opinions. Having said that and  being a conservative, I must also say that while agree with some of Charlie Kirk's  opinions, I do not agree with all of them.

 

First, some of the Charlie Kirk's statements may just be an inelegant expression  lacking the ability to convey his thoughts properly. That was true when he said that  "some gun deaths may be worth the price of defending the Second Amendment  to the Constitutions of the United States." This is like when the London University  professor and a Marxist Eric Howsbawm said that "40 million who perished in  Stalin's Gulag may be worth the price of progress," nonsense like that.

 

I agree with Charlie Kirk's opinion on transgender people and disagree with the  homosexual lifestyle as he did.

 

But he also said that when he sees the black pilot he says to himself "boy, I hope  he is qualified." I understand what he meant and I sure hope he did not mean  the black people are not qualified to fly planes. The heroic and exceedingly  successful fighter squadron of black Tuskegee Airmen in WW II is the proof of  that. We are long past beyond such decadent views of colored people having  successful blacks in all walks of life.

 

I think what Charlie Kirk meant by his comment on the black pilot is that it harks  back to the inability to express the thoughts correctly. For I believe what Charlie Kirk meant by that is the very fact that what happened under the Affirmative Action was that less qualified blacks were accepted in place of more qualified whites 

merely on the basis of quotas (university admissions and the test scores of  applicants stand as proof of that).

 

Yet, such poorly worded rhetoric, however based in facts, causes some unhinged  assassins to act by shooting the messenger.

 

Ivan Orisek

Forestburgh, NY