A Few years ago I was making a point about the language and propaganda of the left and decided to illustrate the absurdity of “illegal immigrants” becoming “undocumented immigrants” by being absurd:

Sometimes words are not so much re-defined as given a twist. Let’s demonstrate

It is stigmatizing to shoppers who fail to pay for their items as “shop-lifters”. After all the people going into the store are no different that everybody else people going to the store to get the food, clothes and devices that everyone naturally wants. In fact the word “shoplifter” is patently racist and discriminates against the poor since such people are usually from the poorest classes and often of color.

In order to avoid the racism and class discrimination we should avoid the term “shoplifter” and replace it with “unremitting shopper”

Little did I know that three years later the Obama Administration would treat this as a serious policy suggestion and adopt it:.

During his last year in office there seems to be a pattern developing along these lines, particularly when it comes to how Americans talk about criminals and crime in general. The latest entry in this effort comes from the Department of Education, where Secretary John King sent out a “Dear Colleagues” letter to the nation’s colleges and universities encouraging them to stop referring to students and applicants with criminal records as… criminals. It’s such a disparaging term, isn’t it? In order to avoid the stigma that comes with breaking our laws, we should now call them justice-involved individuals. (Kyle Smith for the New York Post)

It’s only May, but I think I’ve found the euphemism of the year: According to Team Obama, criminals should now be declared “justice-involved individuals.”

Let’s be blunt, this is insane, the people who proposed it are insane and the people who support the people proposing this type of thing are the most insane of all.

And until people start bluntly saying this outloud it will continue.

As I’ve said many times, we always get the government we deserve, I just wish we deserved better.

It’s been a tough year for DaTipJar

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level

Our friends on the left and particularly in the media, are very loud and proud about declaring their opposition to guns. That is until it hits home:

If you want to know why James O’Keefe is so hated by the left, it’s simple, he shows them for what they are.

If you have a right to know who has a gun doesn’t that automatically mean you have a right to know who doesn’t?

In his examiner column today Glenn Reynolds (tomorrow’s guest BTW) talks about how the rules concerning “patriotic dissent” apparently change as desired by the holders of the meme:

“Protest is patriotic!” “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism!”
These battle-cries were heard often, in a simpler America of long ago — that is, before last November. Back then, protests — even if they were organized by the usual leftist apparatchik-groups like ANSWER or ACORN — were seen – at least in the media – as proof of popular discontent.

Yes we remember those halcyon days of yesteryear, when one could call for the murder of a president and yet simply be expressing dissent, exercising the rights guaranteed under the constitution. Who cares if some group might have fronted it. However now that the tea party has become a source of such protest…

Funny how fast the worm — or maybe it’s the pitchfork — has turned. Now that we’re seeing genuine expressions of populist discontent, not put together by establishment packagers on behalf of an Officially Sanctioned Aggrieved Group, we’re suddenly hearing complaints of “mob rule” and demands for civility.

Civility is fine, but those who demand it should show it. The Obama administration — and its corps of willing supporters in the press and the punditry — has set the tone, and they are now in a poor position to complain.

That’s why a “living breathing Constitution” is in my opinion BS. That allows people to decide it says what they want it to say rather than what it actually says (a contract).

I guarantee we will be talking about this tomorrow.

It looks like Comedy Central is REALLY trying to stage manage a successful rally:

Steve Albani:
Please note, taping for television or any other filming is strictly prohibited between 3rd and 7th Street without a media credential.

Richard Pollack sets him straight about the law:

Although it may not make any sense to you at this moment, the National Mall is not a TV set, although it may look like one.

As the former chief Washington producer for ABC’s “Good Morning America” for nine years, let me assure you that you cannot bar cameras from public walkways on the Mall. It has never happened.

And so we will be there crew and all.

It does seem a bit incredulous that a rally for “reasonableness” should exclude freely based camera crews exercising their First Amendment rights to cover your attendees walking on public property. Unless this is Prague in 1968. And unless Comedy Central own tanks. Or unless it deploys a Comedy Police with enforcement powers.

An attempt to protect their live show, or an attempt to manage news? It will be fun to see them try to stop people on public property filming and tweeting. I don’t think it will go over well with their fans. Are these people really this stupid?

I smell crashing and burning.

Update: After 2 hours of watching this I know why they were forbiding filming. It really REALLY Su*&^!

Update: Tweet of the day:

This really says it all

Remember when everyone was convinced that George W. Bush was going become a dictator and go after his opponents?

Ah how thing change in just a few years, the Wall Street Journal via Tax Prof blog editorializes:

Democrats claim only to favor “disclosure” of donors, but their legal intimidation attempts are the best argument against disclosure. Liberals want the names of business donors made public so they can become targets of vilification with the goal of intimidating them into silence. A CEO or corporate board is likely to think twice about contributing to a campaign fund if the IRS or prosecutors might come calling. If Democrats can reduce business donations in the next three weeks, they can limit the number of GOP challengers with a chance to win and reduce Democratic Congressional losses. …

Faced with electoral repudiation as the public turns against their agenda, Democrats are unleashing government power to silence their political opponents. Instead of piling on, the press corps ought to blow the whistle on this attempt to stifle political speech. This is one more liberal abuse of power that voters should consider as they head to the polls.

As DaScienceGuy notes today:

In a five minute google search I found on a US Government website (the FEC) a name under President Obama’s donators for the last presidential election. Hassan Nemazee. Too bad he is an Iranian citizen. But we will forget that one.

I personally think Sam Rayburn would be rolling in his grave.

Via Glenn who throws out this nugget

Just don’t complain when President Palin starts the investigations in 2013

To steal a phrase Heh, Indeed!