Democrats Redefine “Partisan”

 

democrats

 

Partisan:  a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially :  one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

~Merriam-Webster Dictionary (emphasis in bold is mine)

 

Facts are stubborn things.  That’s why when facts become a problem, Democrats simply redefine the language and voila!  No more problem. Not for them at least, but as is always the case, dishonesty has a way of harming the innocent.

We are a country that’s become destructively divided thanks to liberalism, yet just about the only time you’ll hear the word “partisan” uttered from the lips of a Democrat is when another Democrat is in trouble, and then you’ll hear it a lot.  It came up many times in yesterday’s hearing when FBI Director James Comey testified about his decision not to recommend filing charges against Hillary Clinton despite clear evidence that she broke that law and placed our national security at risk, and did so intentionally.  After watching this and other hearings where Democrat misbehavior is the subject, anyone unfamiliar with our language might have concluded that “partisanship” is what happens when Republicans hold a Democrat accountable to the law and/or to the public.  So in order to help anyone who’s confused about what partisanship really is, let’s review what happened and have a little quiz.

A U.S. Secretary of State intentionally ignored the established rules and guidelines with respect to communication procedures, and as a result placed potentially sensitive government (i.e. belonging to The People) information at risk.  This official then proceeded to have her lawyers (who have no security clearances) go through her emails and decide which ones to keep and which to destroy, and we learned that many of those destroyed concerned the government’s business (so much for Freedom of Information, eh?).  The official is investigated by the FBI, after which the FBI Director holds a press conference where he confirms that all of this wrong-doing took place but then concludes that no charges should be filed.  Oh yes, and that official is running for election to be this country’s next president.  Now let’s consider the different reactions to these events.  We have one group that’s rightfully disturbed and insists on holding public hearings to investigate, ask questions and – yes – condemn the misdeeds of this official.  We have another group that defends the official in spite of her misdeeds and instead attacks the other group.  Here’s your quiz:

Which one is “…exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance?”

This blind allegiance is a pattern with Democrats that we see again and again, hence the reason we so often hear the phrase “circle the wagons” used to describe the actions of Democrats whenever a fellow Democrat comes under fire.  That doesn’t mean Republicans never engage in partisanship, but how are people supposed to know when real partisanship occurs after they’ve been brainwashed to believe that seeking the truth and holding people to account for misbehavior is what is meant by “partisan?”  And to make matters worse, the news agencies are all too eager to go along with this dangerous ruse.  Like too many others they have no appreciation for the harmful game they’re playing along with.

Why should it matter so much when a word here or there gets abused?  Language, to a society, is like the unseen nuts and bolts that hold a space shuttle together.  Those nuts and bolts are underappreciated until enough of them fail to cause a disaster.  Likewise, language is a critical tool for preserving our liberty, and when we allow it to be destroyed one word at a time just for the benefit of one group’s self-serving pursuits we lose some of that precious liberty.

Those who won’t stand up for liberty deserve to lose it. Don’t acquiesce to the Left’s corruption of our language.

 

~CW



Categories: Political

9 replies

  1. Remember comedian Jackie Mason? He intentionally used the wrong words in sentences and it was funny. The Dems have taken that to an all new high, except it’s not funny. Illegal immigrants become undocumented workers, muslim terrorists become refugees, and on and on…

    They see our phrasing of words and our stance on issues as harsh, so it’s done in attempts to soften us and win people over to their side, which in turn gives them the freedom to waste more of our money. Memo to the dim Dems – it’s not working.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “…Illegal immigrants become undocumented workers, muslim terrorists become refugees…”

      Great points, Kathy. The use of these “softer” terms is how the elites signal to the lemmings on which side of the fence they must line up. They may as well be winking while they do it.

      Like

  2. I’m like you, Curtis. I don’t believe in the altruistic Democrat. Whether it be power, someone else’s wealth or ego gratification they strive for, there’s nothing noble or selfless about “progressivism.”

    What angers me about the Trumpets is how easily they threw off the principles they claimed to be fighting for all these years the minute something new and exciting in the form of Donald Trump showed up.

    Like

  3. Ah yes, CW, liberals love to change the meaning of words to their liking. The also change procedures and even eliminate terms they feel are politically incorrect.

    My theory on the whole Hillary email ordeal was that she was being as transparent as possible throughout the process. After all, everyone had access to her emails and our national security secrets including our enemies. I want to change the meaning of the word transparency to include stupidity.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m sorry Patrick but only liberals get to redefine words!

      Great point about Hillary’s transparency! In her effort to obscure her communications from the American taxpayers she exposed our national secrets to everyone else. Talk about irony…..

      Like

  4. You’ve hit upon one of my pet peeves, CW. That is the left’s penchant for redefinition in general. Liberals (democrats) will always try to redefine our language to benefit their agenda. That’s why they’ve taken a perfectly good descriptive word like “partisan,” and redefined it to benefit their political position.

    It is their style to redefine a person, place, or thing to suit their narrative. Look at Hillary. Democrats have had to redefine the meaning of “successful” in order for her time as First Lady, senator, and Secretary of State to be viewed in a positive light. She was an abysmal failure at every one of those jobs, yet she’s vying for POTUS as if she’s been a pillar of achievement.

    And here’s another attempt to redefine another perfectly good word: “qualified.” It is defined as “having the qualities, accomplishments, etc. that fit a person for some function, office, or the like.

    Under that definition, does Hillary have the qualities to be POTUS? Not unless our president also carries the “Liar-in-Chief” title and has exhibited all of the traits of a career criminal. Where are her accomplishments? Within the past year, a number of news vehicles have asked both folks on the street and political figures to name Hillary’s accomplishments. There haven’t been any responses that were serious.

    And if trying to redefine both Hillary’s qualifications for the presidency and her stellar integrity wasn’t enough, how about liberals (democrats) now trying to redefine men into women when they “feel” like they ought to be women. Transgendered is just another word for a gender redefined based on a liberal whim.

    I apologize for high-jacking the post, but I thought that liberal’s reliance on “redefining” things was worth expanding. I’ll stop now, before I get on a real rant!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I used to believe that Democrat voters at least wanted what was good for America in their eyes. No longer! They want what is good for themselves and other Democrats! The nation can be damned for all they care!

    I tend to see the Branch Trumpidians in a similar vein, but they genuinely believe his proposals will be better for the country, no matter how ignorant the ideas actually are.

    I’ll excuse ignorance, but can’t excuse intentionally destructive behavior.

    Liked by 2 people

    • CW, I have no idea how the Dems would see my post, nor do I give a flying flip what they think about it! I stated the truth as I see it, and criticized Trump in the same post. I have also criticized the GOPe extensively for years!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: