Progressives love to use language manipulation as a weapon. They understand that they can influence (read that deceive) people who are not paying close attention simply by using different words to describe things that would otherwise elicit a negative reaction in the average person. Now, I say Progressives because their affinity for word manipulation is among the most easily documented and demonstrated. But in reality, this tendency to abuse language is not peculiar to the Progressive movement. It is common to everyone who has ever sought to deceive others for personal gain. In truth, we even use it against ourselves. However, where the public trust is concerned, the manipulation of language for the intentional purpose of deception crosses a line because it promotes chaos and subverts the rule of law.
Here’s an easy example to see and understand:
The sector long has opposed use of the term, seen by some as having an inherently negative connotation that doesn’t accurately describe the awesome technology and potential positive uses of today’s unmanned aerial vehicles.
“The key word is the word ‘systems.’ That’s the word we hope the public will understand,” he said. “There is a human being in the system. The human being is what makes the system. When you say the word ‘drone,’ you don’t think of a human being in control. That’s the real reason why” not to use the word “drone,” he said.
There’s just one small problem with the drone industry wanting people to stop calling their drones, drones. The dictionary says that’s what they are:
3: an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control
You see, by definition, it doesn’t matter if there is a person in ‘the system,’ the ‘system’ is still a vehicle piloted by remote control: a drone.
So why would the drone industry want people to call their vehicles by another name? Simple: the industry doesn’t want you to associate their product with the mission for which it is intended to be used because they know that people understand what that mission is. The motivation here is identical to that which drove the Progressives to change their name to “Liberals” after Wilson destroyed the Progressive label in the early 20th Century.
Another, more complicated but more important example was the use of U.S. military force in the Libyan Revolution. The Obama Administration refused to call it a war. Nor did they invoke the War Powers Act. Instead, they referred to what was clearly an act of war as a ‘kinetic military action.’ This didn’t fool anyone, as you can see by the following stories:
The Obama administration has come up with a remarkable justification for going to war against Libya without the congressional approval required by the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Police action, conflict, hostilities and now “kinetic military action.” They’re all euphemisms for that word that this White House and many before it have been so careful not to say: War.
Just in case you are wondering what ‘euphemism’ means:
In other words, Obama ‘put lipstick on a pig’ (actually, he denied reality; which when done with intent to deceive is commonly known as a lie). Why? Because it would have opened him to legal action on several fronts had he had been honest and called it what it was: an unconstitutional act of war on a sovereign nation.
Do you remember how the political Left attacked Reagan over the invasion of Grenada? At least there was a U.S. interest in extracting American citizens from Grenada. Where was the U.S. interest in helping the Libyan rebels? In addition, where was the Obama Administrations concern over the fact that the Libyan rebels had been connected to Al Qaeda by U.S. military intelligence?
As the Obama administration openly considers arming Libyan rebels to repel forces led by Col, Muammar al-Qaddafi, reports that “flickers” of al Qaeda may be present among the fighters has raised fears extremists could take advantage of an unwieldy situation to gain power in a new Libya.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conceded Tuesday that the administration is not fully aware of exactly who is running the armed rebellion. She announced the Obama administration has appointed an envoy to the interim national council that comprises the ragtag rebel army.
Now ask yourself this question: if you are fighting an organization that has openly declared war on your country and has vowed to destroy you; and organization that has already attacked your country, killing more than 2,000 of its citizens; don’t you think you would make good and sure they are not connected to any rebel organization you are about to arm? And, if there was any doubt at all as to whether or not the weapons you wanted to give that rebel organization might fall into this enemy’s hands and be used against your military and maybe even against your civilians in more attacks, would you go ahead and arm those rebels anyway? If you did, and it was later found out that the enemy was connected to the rebels and your weapons did fall into enemy hands, you would be guilty of breaking multiple laws, as well as treason.
Oops, what’s this?
A former U.S. attorney representing Benghazi whistleblowers is claiming that 400 surface-to-air missiles were “stolen” and “taken from Libya” and are now “in the hands of some very ugly people.” He also said the Obama administration is “deeply concerned” that the weapons may be used to shoot down airliners.
But not to worry. Obama can avoid any risk of treason charges by calling this the source of this story “conservative commentators,” thereby changing them from news media to ‘hated villain.’ He can also discredit the whistle blowers, who Obama and his Party have always supported when it serves their agenda. All he has to do is call them traitors by suggesting they are ‘leaking’ secrets, or label them ‘racists‘ and ‘conspiracy theorists.’ Do you see how this works? Pay attention and you will see that this is exactly what is happening.
The fact is, had Obama openly admitted to what Libya was – and act of war – he would have exposed himself to legal jeopardy under the Constitutional definition of treason and the War Powers Act (itself a Constitutionally questionable law):
President Obama is facing a swell of bipartisan criticism for continuing military engagement in Libya without congressional approval. Even supporters of the Libya intervention have complained that the administration is flouting the law.
But then, this story leads us to yet another: Lawlessness: Subverting the Rule of Law through Denial
/* Style Definitions */
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;