Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor.
James Russell Lowell
[Which is why we were supposed to have a Republic with a constitution which enumerated limited powers to the government and with guaranteed rights to the people. Unfortunately people found out they could ignore the constitution without consequences and we now have something much closer to a democracy with all the adverse effects.–Joe]
The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.
Karl Marx
[Just because Marx happened to be right about this year’s election doesn’t mean he had even a glimmer of a solution to the problem. Super Tuesday wasn’t.–Joe]
I took notes during Bush’s Big Speech the other day, but I’m only now reporting on it. The wheelbarrows full of cash that I regularly get from the NRA for parroting their extremist (pro-Liberty) politics aren’t nearly enough to keep me interested in blogging on other subjects in a timely manner.
I did not count the number of applause lines (most of those clapping probably weren’t listening anyway. They only notice that the nodding drunk sitting next to them is clapping for something, so they follow along). I did count the number of times Dubya used certain terms. Thankfully, he went light on his usual equating of democracy with Liberty– that’s always bugged the hell out of me. Not that I think he’s figured anything out– he just had other things to say, namely that he buys fully into the man-made “Global Climate Change” racket. Smartly, he avoided using the term “Global Warming” favoring the more universal “Climate Change” instead.
He used the term “Liberty” eight times, which is eight times more than your average Democrat would use it in a whole career of public speaking. “Freedom” was used fully ten times, but then, a Marxist will speak of “freeing” us from corporate tyranny, and such. Bush used the term in the correct sense pretty much every time, which is odd considering that he was at the same time adamant in his assertion that the path to technological progress starts with government subsidy and proceeds from there to more government subsidy, where it finally arrives at a level that qualifies for a whole big bunch of more government subsidy.
“Bipartisan” was used twice, and in the Left-Speak sense only. He was referring to the “no child’s behind left alone” act and something thoroughly vague about “entitlement solutions”, which brought the most brilliantly unenthusiastic, apathetic, if not contemptuous, applause imaginable. Quite impressive. Throughout the speech, this wasn’t the sort of disingenuously enthusiastic applause you gave at the Kremlin, or during one of Saddam’s speeches in the hope that you wouldn’t be taken out and shot a moment later. No, this was true, unguided, unmotivated, wandering, bored, limp, listless, hollow, comfortable apathy, the depths of which are seldom seen in the faces of ordinary men– some of the scarce honesty seen that night.
The word “victory” was not used– too “divisive” to speak of American victory I suppose. He did mention “defeating” the enemy in the War On An Emotion 4 times, so there’s that.
One of his genuine moments was when he was honoring the servicemen and servicewomen, and their families. This is in sharp contrast to our last president, who saw these people as a means to his self aggrandizement. There was some genuine applause there too, and they deserved more.
“Purpose” was used twice, but without defining the particular “purpose” he had in mind, if any. It’s a potentially nice word. Marx and Lenin had a “purpose” though, too.
Bizarrely, he used the “O” bomb (Oath) once. That could come back to bite him– he indicated that he may have been aware of the meaning and purpose of the Oath of Office, so any violations must hereafter be considered willful, and any tolerance of the violations of others must be considered complicit.
“Unity” was never used. Good choice that. Who wants to be “unified” with one’s enemies? Likewise, he only said “change” once and in reference to his course in Iraq– not in the Change to More Socialism sense use by the Left. That was for us to infer from his many calls for subsidy and restriction.
Our president promised one executive order– a requirement that all earmarks be debated in the open, and voted on, outside of committees. That’s a teeny weeny start– sort of like a starter’s pistol that was never loaded and just goes “click”. Congress is now spending three trillion of our dollars per year, as opposed to the 2.2 trillion they spent when Bush took office (That’s now a hair under 10 thousand dollars from every man, woman and child in this country, per year, or 40 thousand for a family of four, and rising fast. That’s more than the total incomes of most working people around the world). I’ll clap a few times when I see that total number drop for eight years in a row. Until then, republicans are to be seen as a slower path to pure socialism, compared to the faster path offered by Dems.
Watching Pelosi chewing something in the background was a little funny, and a little sickening (I felt I was back in jr. high school all over again, and I didn’t like it the first time). Watching the Congresscritters on the floor was amusing and instructive. When Bush said something about terrorist surveillance, the floor was split perfectly down the middle– Dems sitting and Repubs standing. Same when he mentioned tax relief– no Democrat would ever even USE the term, much less recognize it when a Republican uses it. If anything, “tax relief” to a democrat would be relieving people of their money by taxing them. Republicans recognize that when tax rates drop, we get more productive and they get more of our money to spend. Democrats hate productivity altogether.
I liked the part where he told anyone who thinks their taxes should be higher that the IRS accepts checks and money orders (maybe he never heard of cashier’s checks, which are good for much higher amounts). So send it in, bitches, and shut yer yaps!
When Bush called for up or down votes on court appointments, the Dems sat down. Yeah– screw the Constitution if it means we can’t have what we want. Who’s gonna do anything about it?
Probably the stupidest thing he said all night (and this is amazingly, stunningly, monumentally stupid, such that historians and psychoanalysts will marvel at this phenomenon for generations to come. It will be in textbooks as a demonstration of the lemming-like nature of human group-think) was that “We” need a “Lawful Way” for foreign workers to “come and support our economy”. Either Bush is a blithering idiot, he hopes we’re all blithering idiots, or I am wrong in believing that the U.S. has always had multiple “Lawful Ways” for foreign workers to come here and support themselves, which, in turn, helps to support the economy. Which is it? WTF? Hello? No one picked up on that, so I’ll have to allow that I may be wrong– maybe this country never has had any means by which people could come here legally to work. And maybe I’m a lemming. Apparently no one knows for sure. Apparently, no one in Congress has ever read one of their own bills– you know, the immigration bills they’ve been passing for the last, oh, 219 F>@*ing years and then forgetting– the ones they pass with zero expectation of enforcement. This is a stupid party wherein people have been overdosing on stupid for so long that they’re addicted to stupid and will apparently get the cold sweats and die if deprived of regular, heavy doses of stupid.
In the end, Bush had used many very nice terms and cute words and phrases (still can’t pronounce nuclear– hasn’t anyone told him? Dude, it’s NUKE, LEE, ERR, OK? Say it!) all carefully contrived to throw a little bone to this and to that disparate interest, as if to satisfy everyone. It didn’t work. It never works. It only shows that he is without solid principle– that every mutually exclusive interest to which he panders (thinking himself clever in the process) will see him correctly as a political push-over, lost, a fake, and a hypocrite, searching nervously for the next buzz-phrase to quell our suspicions– to find the dimmer switch for that light-bulb over our heads and turn it down. In other words, a typical, run-of-the-mill Republican.
But to be a part of the spectacle. That much they have.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill
[Applicable today because of the discussion over at Munchkin Wrangler. Via Tam.–Joe]
Ninety eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hardworking, honest Americans. It’s the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity. But then, we elected them.
Lily Tomlin
[Politics can be pretty depressing at times.–Joe]
Uncle discusses, “How do we win this political gun battle?”, asks for some help, and gets this suggestion. Then Sebastian offers this.
There is some good stuff there but there were a few items left out.
I recently found out about the site http://green.msn.com/. It’s a site for environmentalists with a significant slant toward the viewpoint, “It doesn’t matter what the cost is if it’s for the environment”. What I found most interesting was the reason for the creation of the site. It wasn’t that MS management particularly shared that viewpoint. It was that there was a major sponsor willing to spend advertising dollars on such a site. MS threw the site up in record time and started collecting the dollars because the viewpoint all MS management does agree on is, “Don’t leave loose money on the table.”
Similar analysis of many of the anti-gun groups reveals money is the significant motivator for them too. For example GunGuys.com gets grants from the Joyce Foundation. The one guy that runs that family of sites gets hundreds of thousands of dollars plus all the donations he can get by dancing in the blood of victims whom most would have had better survival chances had they been armed.
There are no principles–it’s all about the money. Just look at me and all those wheelbarrows full of cash I get for accepting marching orders from the Apex of the Triangle of Death.
Sunday night I drove from my home in Moscow, Idaho to my secret bunker in the Seattle area in preparation for another week of work for The Borg. The road was compact snow and ice from home to Vantage when I got on I-90. Most of that drive was across the desert of Eastern and Central Washington.
Yes, desert. Othello, Washington only gets about 8.4 inches of precipitation per year. A desert is defined as getting less than 10 inches per year. The picture below was taken a few miles east of Othello:
Quick! Tell Algore global warming is destroying our deserts!
I received the following story from an email list I subscribe to. It’s just a funny story but I do sometimes wonder if this sort of thing might have contributed to our current political mess. Politicians, and the people that elected them, ignore and deliberately bend the first principles of our Constitution and even the philosophical underpinning (yes, Ayn Rand’s book Philosophy: Who Needs It has made big impact on me) of how we determine truth from falsity and right from wrong. Little by little the nature of our government morphs into something completely unrecognizable and unrestrained by the founding document.
A new monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand. He notices, however, that they are copying from copies, not the original manuscripts. So, the new monk goes to the head monk to ask him about this. He points out that if there were an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies.
The head monk says, “We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son.” So, he goes down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original. Hours go by and nobody sees him. So, one of the monks goes downstairs to look for him. He hears sobbing coming from the back of the cellar, and finds the old monk leaning over one of the original books crying.
He asks the old monk what’s wrong, and in a choked voice comes the reply…”The word is ‘celebrate.'”
Even in the simple story above it would be tough to change. All those centuries of tradition and the hundreds of collaborating volumes by “great teachers” who based their scholarly works on simple clerical errors. Who would be willing to say their greatest leaders through the ages were mistaken and totally wrong?
So, what was the fatal error or errors of our founding documents that allowed the replication errors to be introduced and never corrected? It’s not as if we were actually making copies of the copies. The original documents are available and other than perhaps the question of a comma or two no one questions the integrity of copies.
I believe there is a single flaw that allowed this to happen. This fatal flaw permeates our state constitutions as well as our U.S. Constitution. That flaw is that there is no punishment for those that violate the Constitution. If a politician votes for a law, another signs the law, the judges, the police, and the prosecutors enforce the law. If it is later declared to be unconstitutional the very worst that happens to all of the people involved is they say, “Whoops.” Hence there is nothing to lose for them when they engage in illegal activities. How can you expect any other outcome than what we have today? Imagine how your children, your employees, employer, your local merchants, your banker, your neighbors, etc. would behave if they could cheat, steal, lie, and injury people and the worst that would happen to them is they had to say, “Whoops, I’m sorry.” That is what has happened to our governments.
I keep wondering how to restore our Constitutions (yes, I remember Jack Anderson’s quote–I deal with him in that post). There needs to be some punishment for those who violated the constitution. But the same judges, prosecutors, and police who violated the constitution would be reluctant to convict themselves. One thing that might work is a separate branch of government whose sole task is to prosecute violators of the constitution. But at this point I don’t think our government needs to get any bigger. I have a better plan. This plan will not only eliminate the problem of unconstitutional laws being passed and enforced it will also reduce the size of government.
Joe’s Enforcement of Enumerated Powers (JEEP) would be implemented as follows:
Expect a rapid and dramatic reduction in the size of government and strict adherence to the enumerated powers.
See, that wasn’t so tough was it?
Promote JEEP, it’s the for the good of our children.
A perceptual consciousness is unable to believe that ideas can be of personal importance to anyone; it regards ideas as matter of arbitrary choice, as means to some immediate ends. On this view, a man does not seek to be elected to a public office in order to carry out certain policies–he advocates certain policies in order to be elected.
Ayn Rand
Philosophy: Who Needs It, page 49
[I don’t need to point out the application of this quote in the current space-time context.–Joe]
Sebastian asks, “Why is it that anti-gun folks love pushing bills in response to tragedy that would in no way shape or form have even remotely prevented it?”
It probably was a rhetorical question but it fit in so well with the book I’ve been listening to, Philosophy: Who Needs It by Ayn Rand, that I felt compelled to offer some answers.
There are several plausible answers to Sebastian’s question and they are not exclusive, it could be several of them are correct depending on the individual and the tribe they belong to. More on “the tribe” later but first a quote from Rand, page 9:
Those who seek to destroy this country, seek to disarm it–intellectually and physically. But it is not a mere political issue; politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas. It is not a communist conspiracy, though some communists may be involved–as maggots cashing in on a disaster they had no power to originate. The motive of the destroyers is not love for communism, but the hatred for America. Why hated? Because America is the living refutation of Kantian universe.
Today’s mawkish concern with and compassion for the feeble, the flawed, the suffering, the guilty, is a cover for the profoundly Kantian hatred of the innocent, the strong, the able, the successful, the virtuous, the confident, the happy. A philosophy out to destroy man’s mind is necessarily a philosophy of hatred for man, for man’s life, and for every human value. Hatred of the good for being good, is the hallmark of the twentieth century. This is the enemy you are facing.
And from page 41, where the tribe reference originates in this post:
As an example of the principle that the rational is the moral, observe that the anti-conceptual is the profoundly anti-moral. The basic commandment of all such groups, which take precedence over any other rules, is: loyalty to the group–not to ideas, but to people; not to the group’s beliefs, which are minimal and chiefly ritualistic, but to the group’s members and leaders. Whether a given member is right or wrong, the others must protect him from outsiders; whether he is innocent or guilty, the others must stand by him against all outsiders; whether he is competent or not, the others must employ him or trade with him in preference to outsiders. Thus a physical qualification–the accident of birth in a given village or tribe–takes precedence over morality and justice. (But the physical is only the most frequent apparent and superficial qualification, since such groups reject the nonconforming children of their own members. The actual qualification is psycho-epistemological: men bound by the same concretes.)
With that background I offer several possible answers to Sebastian’s question. All come, perhaps in a somewhat obscure manner, from the first few chapters of Rand’s book.
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
Ben Franklin
[And behold! There came upon the country the Democrats. Then the Republicans became tempted and they too became as like Democrats. And there was much wailing and sorrow for the righteous knew the end was near.–Joe]
In the past there has been some criticism of the NRA’s response to the current administration’s brief in the Heller case. Some thought it was a bit tepid. The latest alerts from the Apex of the Triangle of Death will quiet most critics. Here are some of the points they make:
This post was brought to you by a wheelbarrow full of cash from the Apex of the Triangle of Death.
The U.S., fortunately, is still on a demographic expansion wave and will be till at least 2050. But if the Islamists achieve their dream of nuking “crusader” cities, they’ll make crusaders out of the U.S., too. And this time, a West with a chauvinized America at its head would smite the Saracen with weapons that would destroy entire populations and fuse Mecca into glass. The horror of our victory would echo for a thousand years.
I remain more optimistic than this. I think there is still an excellent chance that the West can recover from suicidalism without going through a fevered fascist episode and waging a genocidal war. But to do so, we have to do more than recognize Stalin’s memes; we have to reject them. We have to eject postmodern leftism from our universities, transnational progressivism from our politics, and volk-Marxism from our media.
Eric Steven Raymond
February 11th, 2006
Gramscian damage
[This quote is nearly two years old but with the current situation of having blantent communists having good chances of winning the White House this fall and Islamic extremists still wanting to nuke our cities Raymond’s excellent post deserves more attention.–Joe]
They are Blue citadels and bastions of power, pure and simple, and the ultimate effect of this proposal is that it exploits the “states making side deals” blind spot in our constitution to implement a bald power grab on the part of the cities.
Having studied history carefully, I’ve got to say that this is the sort of thing that future historians may well file under chapters with grim titles.
geekWithA.45
Converting a Republic to A Mere Majoritarian Exercise…
[There are far to many history chapters with grim titles. Majority rule without “checks and balances” is responsible for a lot of them.–Joe]
It’s probably because I’m “different” but Sebastian’s statement here just strikes me as odd:
The gun vote was a primary driver for making sure Bush won the White House in 2000 and 2004, and the NRA endorsements he received played a big role on that. The Heller case is arguably the most important struggle gun owners have ever faced, and I don’t think its unreasonable to demand something greater than lukewarm support from The Administration on this matter.
The first thought that crosses my mind is, “Did someone think we got a receipt when we gave Bush our votes?” In other words, are people irritated because Bush was “paid off” and didn’t stay paid off? But that is probably just because I think differently than most.
Bush said, essentially from day one, that he would sign the AWB if it came to his desk. Yet gun owners voted for him because he was better (much better) than the viable alternatives. So what should we expect? He didn’t say he was our lover, he just said he wasn’t our enemy.
I’m not happy with the DOJ brief, but I can’t say that I’m at all that surprised or even particularly unhappy with it. It’s better than the alternative had Gore or Kerry been elected.
And via local (Troy, Idaho) IPSC/Steel shooter Mike Brown is a lawyer and offered these thoughts on the DOJ brief:
The Solicitor General here is defending the interests of his client (the US Government). While the brief explicitly reaffirms that the Justice Department’s position is that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right they are apparently concerned that the DC circuit opinion establishes a two pronged “categorical” test for whether a weapon is protected:
- if it bears a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” and
- is “of the kind in common use at the time” the Second Amendment was adopted.
Their fear is that if the Supreme Court adopts this test then ALL federal gun control could be struck down especially where it concerns weapons that are especially suitable for militia service (i.e. full auto M4 carbine). The Solicitor General is arguing for a more wisy washy standard to be applied so that “reasonable” regulation of firearms are allowed.
As a sidebar on this topic: the Oregon Supreme Court adopted the same kind of standard for determining which weapons are protected under their state constitution- that is why switchblades are legal in OR: they are the “modern analogue” of swords which were in common use at the time of the adoption of the state constitution.
We just received an RFQ (Request For Quotation) from a jobber here in the U.S. who supplies products to the military, along with the original U.S. Army RFQ that was sent to them. It is for one item. One, very well-known, standard item that has been in manufacture by one company and sold by the thousands to the general public for many years. We all know what it is, we all know how it works, we all know that it has a model number, and it is not terribly expensive
The Army RFQ is 38 pages long– that’s 38 full, 8.5″ x 11″ pages.
There’s more. The 38 page RFQ comes with side notes added on (and just so we’re clear; if you were to print it out it would take more than 38 pages). The RFQ does not give the manufacturer or the model number of the desired product– just a small photo, a vague description and the overall length (which, by the way, does NOT match the length of the model in the supplied product photo). They just couldn’t pull that off with only 38 pages plus notes, but I (as anyone in the business would) know exactly what they want.
In the side notes, we learn that “Quotes shall be limited to 40 pages”. I’ll keep that in mind and try to really restrain myself.
Just in case you’re wondering; I am not kidding.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
P. J. O’Rourke
U.S. journalist. Parliament of Whores
Preface, “Why God is a Republican and Santa Claus Is a Democrat” (1991).
If you parse their sentences, the speech of the Left can be at times befuddling. That is, unless you understand their unique usage of terms. So that you may better understand Left-speak in the future, I offer the following glossary. This is by no means an exhaustive list. Here are some of the more common and/or more recent examples. You might want to print this and keep it on-hand for those times when you are unable to avoid Left-speak:
Border Security: Racism
Change: Socialism. Example: “I am the candidate of ‘Change’.”
Children: Government. (Variations are, “The Children” and “Our Children”) Example: “In our ‘Compassion’ ‘We’ are creating this new entitlement program for ‘Our Children’.” (see “Compassion” and “We” below)
Climate Change: See “Global Warming” below. Climate change is slightly more flexible in that no matter what happens, it is bad, Liberty is to blame, and socialism, as for all things, is the solution.
Common Good: Socialism
Compassion: Desire for government intervention. Example: “‘We’ must approach all issues with great ‘Compassion’.” (see “We” below)
Compromise: Letting go of your silly, ignorant and outdated American ideals of Liberty, and moving always in the direction of pure socialism as a way of showing those who want to destroy you that you are not closed-minded, stubborn, silly, ignorant or outdated. You are then closed-minded, stubborn, silly, ignorant and outdated again when the Left wants you to cave-in the next time they want something, which starts approximately three seconds after you last caved.
Criminal: Victim– especially a victim of the exploitative middle and upper classes. (No one would ever do anything to hurt anyone else, except when goaded into it by the horrible conditions created by the adherents of capitalism)
Dissent: Dissent is a good thing– it is one of the things that makes America great (so long as we are talking about a leftist dissenting with anyone who favors Liberty. In all other cases, see “Divisiveness” below).
Divisiveness: Speaking ill of or disagreeing with socialists and socialism. Divisiveness is one of the worst things in our society today and is largely perpetrated in talk radio, blogs, private conversations, etc., by members of the pig Bourgeoisie. This can be cause for legal action, since it could in theory cause other people to question socialists and socialism, thereby “harming” them. (You have no right to harm another person unless that person is being ‘Divisive’, in which case it is encouraged).
Economic Justice: Socialism (see “Social Justice” below)
Education: Socialist education. Example: “‘We’ must support ‘Education’ for the sake of ‘Our Children’s’ future.
Fairness: Socialism
Global Community: Most of the population of the world lives under some form of socialist tyranny, often very brutal socialist tyranny. Americans have historically lived much better lives due to our relatively higher levels of freedom and Liberty. For this we are to hate America (if anyone is poor or unhappy, it can only be the willful doing of the more prosperous) and we are to strive to make America more like the rest of the world (poor and oppressed) as a show of solidarity, thus achieving the “Global Community”. (See “Peace” below)
Global Warming: (See “Global Community” above)
Illegal Immigration: A thoroughly meaningless term invented by racists, purely as an epithet. Attempting to use “Reason” to explain it will reinforce your status as a racist.
Judgmentalism: Thinking for one’s self in one’s self-interest, i.e. making decisions or value judgments based on principles, evidence, and rational thought. In the eyes of the Left, this is one of worst crimes that could be committed, especially if it results in your becoming a successful American pig. (see “Reason” below)
Liberal: Socialist. This is an impossible term to use correctly without adding qualifiers. Most liberals hate being called liberals. “Liberal” has become an epithet in the eyes of the socialist, either because it implies that one is an advocate of Liberty, which socialists aren’t, or because it correctly describes them as socialists. No one knows for sure which. (Archaic: One who advocates Liberty. Thomas Jefferson would have considered himself a liberal. Today’s liberals would consider Thomas Jefferson a “Judgmental” and “Divisive” pig. If he were president, they would engage in “Dissent” with a vengeance.
Need: This wonderfully flexible term can mean anything the socialist wants it to mean and can change from one instant to another. Example: “You have far more than you ‘Need’ so ‘We’ are going to take it from you and use it for the ‘Education’ and ‘Safety’ of ‘Our Children’.” (see “We” and “Safety” below)
Open Mind: One that unquestioningly embraces socialism as the answer to all things.
Peace: The lack of meaningful opposition to socialist, Marxist, Fascist, communist or jihadist military expansionism, as in, “It’s time to stand up and fight for ‘Peace'”.
Progressive: Socialist. We once spoke of “progress” as that which improved our productivity, opportunity and standard of living. Like many of the terms they use, the Left has turned this one around exactly 180 degrees.
Reason: This word is not used by the Left except when describing it as a “weapon” used against the oppressed classes. Instead they use the word “reasonable” as in “reasonable restrictions” (any restrictions) on your Liberties (see “Compromise” above and learn to be “Reasonable”).
Safety: Existence under strict government oversight. Some examples are “Airline Safety”, “School Safety”, “Home Safety”, “Gun Safety”, “Workplace Safety”, etc.. Example: “It is the job of our elected officials to ensure our continued ‘Safety'”.
Scientist: Increasingly, this term is used to silence all discussion or debate. In this sense, a “Scientist” is one who is enlisted by government interests to place a stamp of approval, under the guise of irrefutability, on socialist programs or laws. Example: “Any decent ‘Scientist’ will tell you that man-made ‘Global Warming’ is a real and present danger, and that our ‘Safety’ must be ensured through swift action.” Previously, the term “Clergyman” or “God” served a similar purpose, and does so to this day in certain Muslim circles. (Archaic: A person engaged in the scientific process, with full disclosure and peer review, as a means of testing theories and discovering knowledge)
Social Justice: Socialism (see “Economic Justice” above)
Sustainabe: Under never-ending, complete government control. Example: “A market-based economy is not ‘Sustainable’.”
Tolerance: Tolerance [of socialists and socialism]. Failure to tolerate socialists and socialism is something that should not, and will not, be tolerated.
Unity: Similar to “Peace”, unity describes a situation in which all opposition to socialists and socialism has been effectively silenced.
Universal Health Care: Socialized medicine, i.e. socialism—specifically, a means by which you would be obliged to support or tolerate a certain political party or doctrine in order to save your very life.
We: We socialists. We the collective. This is a subtle term, but it has a powerful meaning. Saying “We” this and “We” that reinforces the collective thinking of the “Progressive” a bit like a mantra. Example: “‘We’ must ensure the ‘Safety’ of all through ‘Education’ for ‘Our Children’ and with ‘Progressive’ programs such as ‘Universal Health Care’, ‘Social Justice’, ‘Tolerance’, ‘Peace’, and by fostering the ‘Unity’ of the ‘Global Community’, through the advocacy of ‘Change’ while working with the ‘Scientists’.”
I’ll be compiling more as I come up with them. Reader submissions are welcome.
There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.
Alexis de Tocqueville
[Tocqueville died in 1859. Some things never change.–Joe]