The Mystery of Leftist Thought, Part 2

(Unpublished in May, 2007**)

Why is it that liberals often have such difficulty with simple English vocabulary? Words that the average fifth-grader can easily comprehend often seem to confuse Leftists and Democrats. They frequently misunderstand the proper meaning and usage of such words as:
MAJOR, USE, PUBLIC (that one is especially troublesome) , PRIVATE,
MASS, COMMON, WEAPONS, GENERAL, PROVIDE, SPEECH,
FREE, CENSOR, PROMOTE, FAIR, FREEDOM, DISCRIMINATE.

Take, for example, a simple phrase from very early in our nation's history: "...provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare..." which is from the preamble to our Constitution. Now, this example may represent more than just a simple misunderstanding of a few words. The liberal misinterpretation of the words provide and promote may be symptomatic of a common leftist ailment, constitutional dyslexia. In their view of the government's role in our lives, they often transpose the two words, and think it proper for the government to provide for the welfare (consisting of all basic needs) of people (housing, food, clothing, medical care, education, job training, employment, transportation, daycare, etc.) and they seem satisfied, increasingly so, with our government merely promoting our common defense.
Worse yet, they have obviously changed the use of the word common to mean individual, to accurately describe the type of Welfare that the government is now providing for millions of people.

Another pair of words that liberals have come to interpret for the opposite of their original constitutional meanings are public and private. Owing to their collectivist worldview, liberals tend to desire that nearly all property be as publicly accessible as possible. This is related to, but not the same as, their confusion with large private properties (like shopping malls or many sports stadiums) actually being privately owned, even though the "public" is usually the primary visitor to these places. They would prefer that the government just go ahead and take as much private property (the good stuff, anyway) away from selfish, greedy capitalists as possible, since government would be much wiser and fair in determining the use of that property.


**(I think this piece was prompted, in part, by the atrocious Kelo vs. City of New London decision at the US Supreme Court.)

Rep. Delahunt happy to expose patriot to al Qaeda

We had an elected Leftist in our House of Reps that was actually HAPPY to expose and identify one of our own public servants (fighting against our enemies in the GWOT) to our enemies.
Thank God Bill Delahunt (D) Massachusetts, is no longer serving in the US House, but he should have been impeached for his enemy-sympathizing activities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEDR7ghl7AU

***(From 2008)

Party affiliation is a matter of convenience

Or: Why Barack Obama isn't a Socialist

One reason that many conservatives don't register as Libertarians, or join the Constitution Party or the American Conservative Party is a matter of having an effective voice in the political landscape, although some Republican standard-bearers haven't been particularly articulate about the conservative message lately. It's unfortunate that Newt Gingrich is so misunderstood and disliked by a great many apolitical Americans (and hated by Democrats), as he's a brilliant messenger of conservative principles and the ideals that made America the greatest country in the world. (Which is why he's demonizd by Democrats.)

Most conservatives might feel very welcome in the aforementioned parties, but they wouldn't accomplish much, just like any 3rd Party in America currently. They'd be simply too insignificant, numerically. And that's as it should be. Third parties in American politics are only spoilers to the serious and practical participants in the legitimate competitions to determine how we govern ourselves. They only succeed when there's an extraordinary ingredient in an election like celebrity (Exhibit A: Jesse Ventura) or wealthy self-financing. (Exhibit B: Ross Perot. Oh wait- that's right, Perot didn't win; he only spoiled it for Bob Dole, a fine man and devoted servant of his country, but a lackluster and weak messenger for conservatism.)


***(I'm not sure when I wrote this. I carelessly saved a spacing-edit before noting the   original date. No matter, it's timeless.)

Victim-Victors make lousy winners, lousy policy

CLEANING OUT DRAFTS. Here's another post I started, but didn't get back to punctually. Began January 30, 2009. Updated at posting.


Gone are the crowds of adoring supporters, some of them fainting from the sheer euphoria of being in His presence. That was then, this is now. The Oval office is a much lonelier place than the campaign trail, especially when not everyone agrees with you, when not everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Having little real experience governing, and no experience as an executive, perhaps Barack Obama can be forgiven for not knowing the difference between campaigning and governing.

We shouldn't really be surprised that class warfare continues from Democrats, even though they won the election and now control everything in Washington. But the derisive attitude they continue to express should be avoided by the White House, at least, and one hopes that an air of graciousness would start to permeate the President's public pronouncements.

Some would characterize him as still being in campaign mode, with allusions to "the last eight years", etc, because Barack Obama does seem to have difficulty expressing his ambitions for our country without the context of contrasting them with Bush or that old straw man, "some people". He imfamously chided, (according to reports) Republican John Kyl, "I won", when asked about his seeming disinterest in hearing views from the other side of the aisle. That's a tad too similar to the playground kid demanding the game be played "his way" because he brought the ball.

In his inaugural address, Obama gloated “On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord." He assigned "petty grievances and false promises...recriminations and worn out dogmas" to those who preceded him, and referred to their legitimate policy differences as "childish things".

He accused his predecessors of "protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions", and self righteously promised "We will restore science to its rightful place…".

Perhaps his hubris revealed itself most when he charged us all to "...begin again the work of remaking America". Remaking America?! He makes it sound as if the entire country, how it operates and what it stands for, is broken down, dysfunctional, and in need of a complete overhaul.

He dismisses honest policy disagreements between parties as "...the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long" and declares that they "no longer apply…". Is he signaling an end to free speech within the halls of Congress (and without?), that he'll not tolerate any dissent from his stated goals and agendas? The kind of dissent he and other Dems claimed was "the highest form of patriotism", when it came to opposing the Bush Administration, especially on the war in Iraq?

A line from his speech that he probably thinks is right up there with "Ask not, what your country can do for you..." and "With malice toward none...", is one that his VP, Joe Biden, liked so much that he repeated it today at the announcement of the T.F.M.C.W.F. I suspect, however, that the line, "...a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous", will not, despite it's poetic ring, be chiseled into the marble of the future Obama Monument, because it's premised on a false accusation about our nation: that we favor only the prosperous. The prosperous are favored by prosperity itself. Our economic system (capitalism, as of 3:00pm CST 6/9/2009- Check back in a week to see if we're still capitalists...) does, by design, favor success. Successful ventures prosper. Favoring the prosperous does not mean that we neglect the unprosperous individuals in our midst, but they can't be "favored" more than successful, productive ventures and people now can they?

The use of the unnamed straw man "some people" is a popular one for Obama and Biden (and some journalists), as well as vague allusions to past affronts by others. Proclamations of "we will restore" and "we are ready to lead once more", with references to "starting today" and "once again", and "the time has come" crop up frequently in the president's speeches.


"The measure of our success will be whether the middle class once again shares in the economic success and prosperity of the nation," pontificated VP Joe Biden. When our nation is economically successful and posperous, so IS the middle class. I suppose regrettably from the progressive perspective, many in the middle class cease to be middle class when there's shared prosperity, and those folks move into the upper class. By definition, the middle class remain as prosperous as at any time- that's what put's them in the middle.