home > archive > 2004 > this article

Topsy turvy leftist language

By Bruce Walker
web posted March 15, 2004

Leftists find the plain meaning of words hard. The first amendment to the Constitution provides: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Article I is filled with all sorts of peculiar legislative powers which Leftists seem to have found as implied. Outside of Article I, the Supreme Court has also found a bewildering variety of odd "rights" -- often "discovering" these rights many decades or even centuries after the language was written.

But Leftists have no problem at all having Congress, the specific part of the constitutional structure mentioned in the First Amendment, making laws prohibiting freedom of speech of the press and of the people petitioning government for redress of grievances.

The semantic inversion is more and more common. The text of Proposition 209 in California was direct: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national original in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting."

Fifty-five percent of the people of California voted for Proposition 209 in November 1996. How did Leftists respond? Prohibiting discrimination was discriminatory! Or, to quote Orwell in Animal Farm: All Californians are equal, but some Californians are more equal than others.

Have we seen this Leftist lying so much that we just ignore it when we see it? I fear so. Think of how the Leftists have reacted to our war with Saddam Hussein: coalition forces have found no weapons of mass destruction (excluding, of course, those weapons of mass destruction that coalition forces have found.) Leftists shout that this war was all about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Conservatives and other normal people have pointed out what President Bush really said his 2003 State of the Union address: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

Sane people who can read know that President George W. Bush said that we cannot wait until Hussein gets weapons of mass destruction and the ability to use those weapons. Leftists, who have cognitive dyslexia, insert negative and affirmative words at convenient places in their thought processes. So they heard President Bush say that civilized nations must wait until Hitler has his V-2 missile and a fission bomb or until Hussein can vaporize Athens or Naples before pondering what to do rather than the president saying that civilized nations must not wait until Hussein can kill millions in minutes.

One hundred million dead victims of the Second World War would agree with what President Bush said and disagree with what Leftists believe he said, but there is more clear words about what President Bush was seeking when the coalition war against the Ba'athist Party began.

Hitler called his invasion of Russia "Operation Barbarossa." Churchill called the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk "Operation Dynamo." The allies called the Normandy Invasion "Operation Overlord." These names do not give aim behind the military operation. That is because most wars and most military campaigns are against an army or a nation, but President Bush was not fighting the Iraqi people.

So what did President Bush intend when he gave the orders to defeat the Ba'athist sadists? Did he call it "Operation Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Did he call it "Operation Contain Iraq"? Or "Operation Nail Hussein"? Leftists can muse what President Bush intended, but conservatives and other normal people grasp the simple meaning of his words.

On March 19, 2003 President Bush addressed the nation again. Before the war began, he wanted to make absolutely clear what this war was about. This is how he concluded that last pre-war address: "My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail."

Does it occur to Leftists that perhaps the goal of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was, perhaps, Iraqi freedom? Does it occur to Leftists that men will only live in peace and the world will only be safe when everyone lives in a relatively free land with an imperfect, but functioning, democracy?

France, Japan and Germany once plunged the world in global wars. Now these people may annoy us or even anger us, but America and France are not about to fight a war. Free and sovereign people hate wars, because wars murder their sons, destroy their cities and sow the seeds of future wars.

What we might have better called "Operation French Freedom," "Operation German Freedom," and "Operation Japanese Freedom" worked magnificently. The only way to do that is to make the world free. President Bush has the wisdom to trust those people who understand simple words well. These people did not need to be told the purpose of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The name of the operation said it all.

Bruce Walker is a senior writer with Enter Stage Right. He is also a frequent contributor to The Pragmatist and The Common Conservative.

Printer friendly version
Printer friendly version
Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story

Printer friendly version Send a link to this page!

Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!



1996-2019, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.