‘It is common for these terms (liberal and conservative) to be used as synonyms for “left” and “right” and for those terms to be automatically associated with the Democratic and Republican parties. No matter how far the two parties shift along the political spectrum together, or where they go, this common semantic error leaves the impression that our current politics are still rooted in the Constitutional definition of our republic. Politicians and their “mainstream” media constantly conjure the illusion that “moderate” politics results from compromise between the two parties.

‘If you can control the language, you can control the people. And the people, too often, accept the use of language offered to them without considering whether it lies. If you think it doesn’t matter, consider the young voters; who go to the polls without the benefit of a decent civics education, historical perspective, or instructive life experience. Have you called Hillary and Barack “liberals” and voiced your disdain for “liberalism”? According to The Random House Dictionary, you have said that you oppose individual freedom and that Hillary and Barack support it. No wonder so many of our naïve youth call “conservatives” Nazis and fervently support the far left!’

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/08/17/america-without-%e2%80%9cliberal%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cconservative%e2%80%9d-representation/?cp=0#comment-73082

I can’t help being intrigued by the recent and current Democratic administrations strange disconnect with the word, “Is”.

In the Clinton years we were made to understand that the definition of the word “Is” was mystically fluid and essentially unknowable. Wild Bill himself told us that certain key revelations were decipherable only if the hieroglyphic-like ambiguity of the word could somehow be gleaned.

No such confusion for Barrack. In Obamaspeak it is crystal clear that the the underlying meaning of the word “Is” is a consistent and unequivacal, “Isn’t!”

Joe told me about your encounter at Oskosh. Thanks for the great story.

My dad flew a B-17 in the war (493rd BG in Debach). I printed a copy to send him.

Blessings,

Wes Reynolds

Libertarians, of the limited government stripe in my case. The left’s claim to the term has no resonance. Unlike “conservative” the term “libertarian” actaully means something: A preference for minimal or no government coercion. That’s not what lefties support.

You correctly characterize the left as statists – increasingly they are “soft fascists” – and so they have no legitimate claim to “libertarian.” As you point out, when they illegitimately claim the label they base it on a preference for minimal or no social pressure. Uh-huh – as soon as the Human Being, Mk. I is replaced by their New Socialist Man version.

Meanwhile, if you don’t like the social pressure of a particular group, leave it.

The title Libertarian is also being co-opted by the left, beyond just their hyper privacy/national security issues, (privacy which curiously doesn’t extend to my 1040), to as well being a nihilistic, non-judgmental cultural philosophy. In this world we end up with Libertarianism meaning, liberty from any undesirable consequences of human behavior.

To describe the left, I think the term Statist, meaning the expectation for the solutions to the human condition to be flowing down from an Elitist State works well. But what does that make us?

Your enemies are in your own ranks.