SubscribeWAGE WEB WARFARE AGAINST THE LIBERAL ESTABLISHMENT: Sign Up For The GrassTopsUSA Action Alert And Get The Latest News And  Hard-Hitting Commentaries Delivered Straight To Your Inbox.

 

 

Masters Of Manipulation – Lib-Speak VI: A Lefty-Con for the Age of Obama
GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Don Feder
01/08/2013


        
Leftists are masters of language manipulation. Through clever clichés, their ideology permeates the popular culture. These catchphrases come with built-in assumptions/delusions about the way the world works – or doesn’t. (Expressions like "pay their fair share of taxes" incorporate a certain mentality about the issue at hand.) Swallow the cliché whole, and the hook is firmly embedded.

         This is Part VI of my ongoing series on language mutilation – "Lib-Speak: A Lefty-Con for the Age of Obama." At the end, there are links to Parts I-V.

         Killed by a Gun – (AKA Killed by gun violence) – Liberalism’s serene faith in gun control is rooted in its rejection of free will and the unshakable belief that every social ill can be solved with another law. "Killed by a gun" (or "Killed by gun violence") epitomizes this mindset.

 

 

        

         After the Newtown, CT. murders, the left’s response was excruciatingly predictable. "270 Chicago Children Killed By Guns Since 2007," shrieked a headline on the Huffington Post. "Since the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, the number of Americans killed by guns has not let up," U.S. News informed it readers a year earlier.

         If there was only some way to reach these guns while they’re still young and impressionable (before they become hardened semi-automatics), perhaps they could be reformed.

         Because they refuse to hold individuals responsible for their actions ("It was in his DNA." "He came from an abusive background."), liberals blame the instrumentalities of crime, specifically, guns. "Killed with a gun" recognizes that the gun was a means used to commit a crime. "Killed by a gun" implies that an inanimate object was somehow responsible for a criminal act – that guns send out mystical emanations causing otherwise average people to do horrible things.

         Note, it’s not "270 Chicago Children Killed By Failure to Restrain The Dangerous Mentally Ill." Liberals oppose involuntary commitment and believe dangerous loons have a constitutional right to roam free, until they shoot up a grade-school classroom. For that matter, how about "270 Chicago Children Killed by Ultra-Violent Movies and Sick Video Games"?

         Regarding the supposed inherent danger of firearms, facts are irrelevant. That homicide rates tend to be higher in areas with strict gun control, that murder rates have declined as gun ownership has proliferated over the past 30 years, as well as the revealing hypocrisy of anti-gun newspapers posting armed guards in their lobbies to keep them safe – all are dismissed as spacious arguments by the gun lobby unworthy of serious consideration.

         Guns don’t kill people. Liberal logic does.

         Bullying – Liberals live to create victim groups. The latest is the victims of "bullying." The absurd lengths to which this is now carried was brought home this past Christmas, when some parents charged that allowing students in Missoula, Montana to sing Christmas carols was a form of bullying. An elementary school in Mansfield, Mass. replaced its annual Christmas concert with an anti-bullying assembly. Hark the PC indoctrinators sing!

         Once thought to be confined to members of the varsity football team pushing kids with pocket protectors into lockers, it now transpires that "bullying" is a ubiquitous feature of American life. Got victims?

         An April 2011 paper on the website of the Washington State Department of Labor and Industry explains that bullying in the workplace includes: "unwarranted or invalid criticism" (your boss criticized you unfairly – how awful!) "exclusion or social isolation," "being given unrealistic deadlines" and "excessive monitoring or micro-managing." Jean Valjean had it easy. You thought you had an obnoxious, overbearing, boss? Turns out you were a VICTIM of bullying.

         With a definition this loose, little wonder that, according to Zogby, almost 50% of the work force says they’ve either been bullied or witnessed bullying on the job. Besides schools and offices, bullying reportedly occurs in homes ("Mom’s criticism was invalid and unwarranted. Help!"), nursing homes, playgrounds and the military. Apparently, and this has yet to be verified, there are drill instructors who are unduly critical of recruits in boot camp and speak to them harshly.

         In 2011, President Barack Hussein Obama (whose life has been an unending series of travails) confessed to a group of students that growing up in Hawaii, he too was a victim of bullying because of his "big ears and the name I have." Dumbo bullying?

         The solution offered to this Sluggo-epidemic is more laws, brainwashing (excuse me, sensitivity training) and a lot of wailing and hand-wringing. Students confused about their sexuality are said to be especially vulnerable to being bullied. The answer proffered is curricula that indoctrinates for the LGBT agenda, Days of Silence (usually occasions to bully Christian students, not that anyone cares about them), pink triangles and a ban on the expression of biblical values.

         Thus, bullying becomes yet another excuse for the left to suppress speech – not that they’re bullies, mind you!

         Camelot – The establishment’s worshipful designation for the Kennedy years – reputed to be a legendary realm where culture, refinement and nude romps in the pool were in full flowering. By extension, whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, elegance holds sway, unlike Republican administrations, where Slim Jims and Coors are served at state dinners and guests wipe their mouths on their sleeves while belching loudly.

         The designation came from the musical of the same name, popular in the early ‘60s, where Britain’s mythical King Arthur ruled over a court noted for chivalry and romantic love – an apt comparison only if JFK was Guinevere on speed.

         Even an otherwise astute observer like Bill O’Reilly fell prey to this nonsense in his New York Times bestseller, "Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot," which nonetheless chronicles John F. Kennedy’s chronic infidelities – including deflowering a 19-year-old intern on his wife’s bed, high-priced hookers, sharing a mistress with mafia don Sam Giancana and an affair with ‘50s sex goddess Marilyn Monroe. If there was anything remotely resembling class in the Kennedy White House, Jackie was the only one who had it.

         The myth of JFK as a renaissance president was carefully cultivated by Kennedy sycophants like Arthur M. Schlesinger and Theodore Sorensen. Yes, Kennedy read books (imagine that!) and had cultural events at the White House. But to call the JFK presidency Camelot is to confuse nobility with lechery.

         The left is always looking for a successor to John F. Pendragon, and believes it has found one in Barack Fitzgerald Obama. (Sadly, referring to him by the initials BO really doesn’t work.) In the 2008 campaign, the cloying Chris Matthews proclaimed: "Today, for a brief shining hour, the young got to see what we saw, not gauzy images of Camelot, but the living spirit of the New Frontier." You can almost smell the incense wafting from the recesses of Matthews' fevered brain and hear the temple bells, as the monks chant "K-e-n-n-e-d-y…K-e-n-n-e-d-y."

         "In short, there’s simply not a more congenial spot for happily-ever-aftering than here in Camelot" – except for a Roman orgy or a party at the Playboy Mansion.

         Negative Campaigning – The past campaign was devoid of media-whining about negative campaigning for a very good reason; the negativity came entirely from the president and his allies. When Republicans talk about their opponents’ leftist advocacy or associations, the media call it negative campaigning and you can hear the howls of outrage from Delaware to Denver. When Democrats roll in the mud and slime their opponents, the media whistle a cheery tune and look the other way.

         Team Obama went negative early in 2012, painting Romney as a venture-capital vulture (picking over the bones of companies he’d killed), a meanie who snatched health insurance from cancer patients, and a let-them-eat-cake plutocrat blasé about the fate of 47% of the electorate.

         Eagle Scout Mitt responded with Obama’s-"a-nice guy" who’s in over his head. As a result, in exit polls, even among voters who thought the economy was the most important consideration, Romney only got a bare majority (51% to 47%). The choice offered voters was a well-meaning incompetent (Mitt’s description of Obama) or a heartless corporate corsair (Obama’s description of Romney). Not surprisingly, they went with the affable boob.

         The media is excruciatingly selective in the way it defines negative campaigning.

         On the few occasions during the 2008 campaign when John McCain mustered the courage to criticize Obama’s pastor of 19 years at the Church of God Damn America, it was met with media expressions of shocked indignation, as if it was hitting below the belt for the Republican candidate to note the racism and rabid anti-Americanism preached by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright week after week, and this did not, in any way, reflect on Obama’s thinking or the way he would govern.

         The media uses allegations of negative campaigning (which the public is said to loathe) to intimidate Republicans into running wuss campaigns against character-assassins.

         Essential Government Services – The concept is a weapon of mass destruction deployed against proposed tax and spending cuts. How will this impact essential government services, the establishment frets?

         Really essential government services can be summed up in three words – guys with guns. The rest is welfare, income redistribution, crony capitalism, waste and inefficiency. Guys with guns (soldiers and cops) are the only essential government services and the only things the government does well. Okay, throw in firefighters and courts that serve their intended purpose.

         What else is there? Courts, which should be impartial arbiters, twisting the law to legislate by decree? Schools that spend a fortune to turn out functional illiterates and historical ignoramuses? A foreign-policy establishment in the business of managing American surrender? Bridges to nowhere? Public works that are vehicles for patronage? Environmental regulations that castrate energy development? Paying farmers not to plant and then giving the poor food stamps because the cost of food is artificially high?

         While almost every other category of federal spending rises steadily, in some cases precipitously, over time, as a share of the nation’s economy, spending on guys with guns in the military has declined dramatically – going from 7% of GDP in 1965 to 3.6 in 2012, and estimated to decline further to 2.5% by 2020 under Obama’s Code Pink defense policy. This is another variant of the principle that government rewards failure and punishes success.

         The expression "essential government services" is an incantation used to ward off budget cuts and get the information-deficient masses kowtowing furiously to big government.

         Disproportionate Israeli Response – AKA, self-defense. Israel is supposed to be the Middle East equivalent of the Lone Ranger in the ‘50s TV series, shooting Qassam rockets out of terrorists’ hands without injuring the civilians Hamas uses as human shields.

         In the November jihad out of Gaza, Israel made 1,500 targeted air strikes against centers of terrorism, individual leaders and tunnels used to smuggle in rockets. In the process, 133 so-called Palestinians were killed, 53 of them civilians. A total of six Israelis died.

         According to the law of proportionality, Israel should have magically limited civilian deaths on the other side to 6, or arranged for another 127 of its people to die to balance the ledger. Complaints about disproportionate Israeli responses (from the Russian foreign ministry, the UN, various EU governments and the American left) overlook the following:

         1. Israeli missile strikes are always in response to the latest Palestinian provocation.

         2. Israel attempts to limit civilian casualties by advance warnings of its missile strikes. Hamas strikes without warning.

         3. The terrorists deliberately locate their installations in civilian areas, then (when Israel retaliates) their sympathizers whimper that too many civilians are killed, because Zionists don’t care about human life.

         4. Israel (naively) seeks a negotiated settlement. Hamas seeks the annihilation of Israel – genocidal fun in the sun.

         The concept of a disproportionate response is never applied to Israel’s enemies..

         In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI quoted a Byzantine emperor to the effect that Islam wasn’t too cool. The response included riots, condemnation, death threats (in London, religion-of-peace protestors carried signs calling for the pope’s execution), the shooting death of an Italian nun in Somalia, the murder of two Iraqi Christians, and arson attacks on churches in the West Bank and Gaza.

         A disproportionate response to mere words? Perish the thought.

Other Articles In The Series:

Lib-Speak I – A Lexicon For The Age Of Obama
Lib-Speak II - A Left-Icon For The Age Of Obama

Lib-Speak III - A Left-Icon For The Age Of Obama
Lib-Speak IV - A Left-Icon For The Age Of Obama
Lib-Speak V - A Lefty-Con For The Age Of Obama

Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com.