Tag Archives: Newspeak

Obamacare’s Orwellian Birth and Inevitable Collapse

Obamacare was born in ideological sin and is destined to die a catastrophic failure just as every socialist endeavor deserves to experience.

Orwellian constructs were crucial to foist Obamacare on the American people.


In retrospect, the truth is obvious. But, in his legendary dystopia, 1984, Orwell described a system of propaganda techniques which work to serve the purposes of Big Brother, the ruler of a totalitarian, centralized, bureaucratic big government controlling every facet of the lives of its subjects.

From the beginning, the Obama administration promulgated a series of Big Lies: if you like your insurance/plan/doctor/hospital/etc., you can keep your insurance/plan/doctor/hospital/etc.


Newspeak ruled the debate. Is a penalty a tax? Can the government require its citizens to buy a product – Obamacare – that it does not want? How are individual and employer mandates operative in a free society?

Doublethink was essential to get people to believe the impossible: that millions of more people could enter the system and receive better care at a lower cost despite adding layer upon layer of additional bureaucracy.


Gone down the memory hole, the debacle that was Hillarycare in the 1990s. Also dispatched to oblivion, the high quality of American health care and the poorer quality, higher cost, and rationing of socialized healthcare in other nations. Further, the abject failures of centralized planning and socialized governments worldwide wherever implemented were either forgotten and ignored.


But – as this system invented and implemented by elite central planners who glibly and arrogantly think that they know better than American citizens how those citizens should live their own lives – now, that Americans are experiencing the effects of Obamacare, they don’t like it.



Alyene Senger, “Ten Broken Obamacare Promises,” Heritage Foundation, 12/18/13, at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/12/10-broken-obamacare-promises.

John Hayward, “Grubermania continues: it’s awesome how Ted Kennedy ripped you off, isn’t it?” Human Events, 11/14/14, at http://humanevents.com/2014/11/14/grubermania-continues-its-awesome-how-ted-kennedy-ripped-you-off-isnt-it/.

Orwell: Ebola, ISIS, and Immigration

The Obama administration inhabits an Orwellian world in which the concepts of the dystopian novel 1984 thrive.

Words, under Obama, take on a reversal of meaning. Often to deadly effect.

The most transparent administration in American history cannot even admit to a smidgeon of corruption.

Remember “War is Peace?” Obama claimed to have ushered in a new era of global tranquility.[1] Now we have “Weakness is Strength[2] and “Poverty is Prosperity.”[3]

Truth itself has become malleable, like a ball of wax, in the hands of this administration. They cater to a generation raised on moral relativism, subjective truth, and historical revisionism.

But this Orwellian Newspeak is lethal!


Ebola, ISIS, and unfettered immigration are literally on our doorstep – and Newspeak prevents us from defending ourselves.


The President, his administration, and leading Democrats have repeatedly lied, claiming, “The border is secure.” The crisis of unaccompanied minors and adults from Mexico this summer belies those claims. But using their false claims for justification, the Left refuses to build a fence – the most obvious solution to the unbridled influx of illegal aliens.


According to Obama, “We’re leaving behind a stable and self-reliant Iraq.”[4] But Obama withdrew all of our troops, creating a vacuum into which ISIS plunged. By not preserving the integrity of the Iraqi border with the presence of American troops, the ISIS crisis was created. Thanks in large measure to Obama, the world is in flames (even as his people proclaim global peace).


America was Ebola-free, and, just weeks ago, Obama promised that it would remain so. But Ebola is invading America with the vengeance of Montezuma.

Obama refuses to defend America from illegal aliens by building a fence. He refused to preserve the hard-fought peace we achieved in Iraq by keeping an American presence in Iraq to keep that nation secure. Now Obama refuses to build a figurative fence of quarantine around America by issuing a travel ban from countries devastated by Ebola.

CDC’s Tom Frieden said, “A travel ban is not the right answer. It’s simply not feasible to build a wall – virtual or real – around a community, city or country.” But, of course, it is. Quarantines have been used for centuries to stop the spread of deadly contagions.


In all three crises, the same mindset pervades. In each instance, Obama and the Left denied there was a problem: the border is secure, ISIS poses no threat, Ebola can never invade America.

In each instance, Obama and the Left refused to contain the situation: no fence to stop illegal aliens from entering the United States, no troops in Iraq to preserve the victory we won, no travel ban to prevent the spread of a deadly plague-like virus.

In each instance, Obama and the Left were wrong and their current strategies to fix the problems are wrong-headed.


In addition to Newspeak – a redefinition or falsification of language – the Left also engages in doublethink – believing two contradictory things at the same time.

Even as thousands of people were crossing our southern border with impunity, the Left was claiming the borders were secure. Even as ISIS was invading Iraq and capturing whole cities and territories, Obama was calling it a JV team. Even as Ebola was ravaging much of western Africa – with many neighboring nations imposing stringent travel bans – Obama said that Americans don’t have to worry.

And still, Obama won’t build a fence – the most secure way to keep invaders out (it works for Israel).

And still, Obama won’t protect Americans from ISIS, in this case by stripping militants of their passports.

And still, Obama won’t issue a travel ban on Ebola-stricken nations – the most basic and effective way to contain this scourge.

If we continue to allow our leaders to employ these Orwellian techniques of Newspeak and doublethink to achieve their goals, then we are likely to see Orwell’s dystopia come to life before our eyes.


[1]               See “Obama Channels Orwell” at http://t.co/m6A636uORL.

[2]               See “Obama: America is Stronger Than Ever” at http://t.co/3dxkSeF8fj.

[3]               See “Obama’s Economic Colossus!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-4H.

[4]               See “’Hope & Change,’ and Other Orwellian Clichés” at http://t.co/v6fgItffhm.

American Exceptionalism is in the Eye of the Beholder

(The Sixties Coulter-Culture is Alive and Well and Seeks to Fundamentally Transform America into its Long-Sought Utopia)

For most Americans, the United States has been a force for good in the world (albeit imperfectly). To them, “American exceptionalism” speaks to the best that America has become, to the American can-do spirit which is both resourceful and generous, and to America’s reliance upon a providential God who has mightily blessed her.


For others, particularly those embracing the Sixties’ countercultural ethos, “American exceptionalism” epitomizes the dark side of Americanism. For them, America has not been exceptionally good or constructively influential but, rather, exceptionally evil, creating the chaos that we see in the world at this very moment.

President Obama’s Vision

Hence President Obama’s determined zeal to disengage America from the world, to – as author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza suggests – constrain America and its own self-interests rather than constraining the evil which would destroy us.[1]

For those who think like Obama, America is the problem, not the solution. For them, America should retreat from world affairs.

Obama and those who agree with him are wrong in a number of ways. First, America has truly been a force for good in this world, particularly when it has sought both God’s righteousness and His blessing.

Second, no matter how much they deny it, evil exists. Evil exists to do evil. Evil will never be satiated.

Third, retreating from evil never works. Evil will never be appeased. Retreat merely leaves a power vacuum in which evil can enter and thrive. Obama’s leadership vacuum is directly responsible for many of the worldwide crises so evident today, especially the empowerment of ISIS.

Obama views America as fundamentally flawed, hence his calls to fundamentally transform America. Thus, he offered “hope and change” and other Orwellian clichés. The Obama administration first denied the existence of a “war on terror,” them redefined terrorism, arguing that the real terrorists are American patriots. Even now, he opposes so-called “right-wing terrorists” more than he does Muslim jihadists.

Failing to recognize evil where it does exist (all the while believing real evil only exists in America), Obama resists accepting undeniable comparisons between Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler.

Wanting to believe the Russian “reset” worked, that his continuing world apology tour strengthens America, Obama actually claims “America is stronger than ever!

Unconcerned with what is best for America, Obama swapped five jihadist leaders for one deserter, and he created the chaos on our southern border due to his failure to grasp the meanings of simple terms like “citizenship” and “national sovereignty” and a diminished or jaundiced view of what it means to be an American.

As a direct consequence of his worldview and his foreign and domestic policies, President Obama has succeeded in fundamentally transforming America and the world.

Obama’s success derives in no small measure from a compliant media and political leaders who are in agreement with his worldview and also the employment of a wide variety of propaganda techniques, including Orwell’s infamous Newspeak.

Steve Deace on Newspeak

In an excellent Townhall commentary, Steve Deace shows how the counterculturalists of the Sixties have redefined basic terms, adapting timeless meanings to suit contemporary purposes. His entitled his essay, “The American Exceptionalism Dictionary,” presumably to suggest that – were words to mean today what they have always meant – we would not be in the many predicaments in which we find ourselves today.

Deace highlights four particular terms which have come to mean the opposite of what they once did, using Webster’s 1828 definitions as a foundation.

Rights” were once based on law and conformity to an accepted “human standard of truth, propriety or justice” but have become entitlements, primarily based upon one’s membership in a particular aggrieved group (racial, ethnic, gender, etc.).

Laws” were once objective, established, and applicable to all but are now evolving, subject to the whims of judges and politicians.

Morality” was once based on settled moral or spiritual principles which were considered absolutes, whereas moral relativism has become so exalted that “morality” is now defined as “An ancient word used only by those on the wrong side of history.”

Tolerance” once meant openly permitting a belief or action without constraint, but now requires “acceptance, validation, and participation in that which you don’t agree with.”

Fundamental Transformation

President Obama has transformed America and the world through, in large measure, through his rhetoric and, as highlighted here, his redefinition of words which were once objectively understood but now are subjectively misappropriated.

Deace concluded his column with two paragraphs worthy of including here:

“God, the ‘governor of the universe’ as ‘father of the Constitution’ James Madison referred to Him, spoke the universe into existence with mere words. Words declared our independence from tyranny. The redeemer of wayward mankind is literally the Words of God made flesh.”

“There is a reason those who plot to undo American Exceptionalism have worked so hard to capture the language. And we won’t preserve liberty for future generations until we take it back.”

Photo Credit: http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/two-cheers-for-american-exceptionalism.


[1]       Dinesh D’Souza, Drive at Five, WMAL, 8/25/14.

“Hope & Change,” and Other Orwellian Clichés

Candidate Obama promised hope and change without defining either. He received a Nobel Peace Prize for what he would do and he was hailed a political Messiah. That was an Orwellian “big lie” heralded amidst a number of derivative lies, such as the stimulus was a success and Obamacare works.


The most recent derivative lies include these pretzel-twisted contortions:

  1. The world is a more tranquil place. (Read: “Peace in our time.”) White House press secretary Josh Earnest claimed, “I think that there have been a number of situations in which you’ve seen this administration intervene in a meaningful way, that has substantially furthered American interests and substantially improved the, uh, you know, the – the tranquility of the global community.”
  2. The reset with Russia worked. (Read: “Hey, dude, the Cold War is so 1980s.”) Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claims, “What I think I demonstrate in the book, is that the reset worked.”
  3. The border is secure and there is no border crisis. (Read: “The Emperor’s clothes are magnificent!”) Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), among many on the Left, claimed “The border is secure.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), alleges, “It’s not a crisis, it’s an opportunity.”

You will remember that it was not so long ago that the Obama administration was touting Iraq as a success story, too. Obama bragged, “We’re leaving behind a stable and self-reliant Iraq.”

Another – continuing – derivative lie remains politically operative: Bush is to blame.

Obama and his cronies blame the Bush administration for the collapse of Iraq and the establishment of an ISIS caliphate, despite the peaceful and stable situation Obama inherited from Bush. Obama left a power vacuum in Iraq which ISIS capitalized on.

Obama and his cronies blame the Bush administration for Putin’s invasion/annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine when it is Obama’s weakness which has emboldened Putin’s imperialistic ambitions.

Obama and his cronies blame the Bush administration for the humanitarian crisis on the border when it is Obama’s own immigration policies and unilateral executive orders which precipitated the crisis.

This all stems from Obama’s deeply flawed view of America and his consequent inability to decisively lead the nation. Obama’s indecision arises from internal confusion. Obama facetiously claims, “I’m not partisan!” despite the reality that no one is more partisan than Obama.

During his entire presidency, reality has bludgeoned his worldview. Ideologically, he cannot change course or change policy. Psychologically, he cannot admit error and pursue another approach.

Words are all that remain. Lies, misdirection, altered definitions, threats, bold bluffs, polemical attacks, humor. All designed to enable Obama to stay the course and refute the reality that Obama is to blame.

Obama Channels Orwell

Newspeak and doublethink are Orwellian hallmarks of the Obama administration and its allies. They have elevated Newspeak to a new level.

1984 Orwell quote

Hillary Clinton recently infuriated the public by first claiming that she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House and, later, that they were “not truly well off.” This is on a par with Obama’s claim that “[raising the debt ceiling] does not increase our debt. It does not grow our deficits.”

Peace in Our Time

Obama called America’s withdrawal from Iraq a victory (some victory), took a victory lap over the Bergdahl exchange (what a deal!), and defined rampant, autocratic, and blatantly illegal actions by the IRS as “not a smidgeon of corruption.”

White House press secretary Josh Earnest claimed, “I think that there have been a number of situations in which you’ve seen this administration intervene in a meaningful way, that has substantially furthered American interests and substantially improved the, uh, you know, the – the tranquility of the global community.”

But the world has hardly been less tranquil since world War II, turmoil in the United States rivals that of the Sixties, and America’s economic outlook and sense of insecurity exceed that of the Carter administration.

The Dog Ate My Hard-Drive

Regarding the ever-growing wealth of scandals, Obama and his praetorian guard insist that there’s no there, there. Don’t look behind the curtain, there’s nothing there. As one critic put it, “The dog ate my hard-drive.”

But the public knows better. Yet the enablers continue to distort the language to support their hero. Bob Beckel is representative of those Obama defenders. He said, “You call them scandals, I call them mistakes.”[i] Some mistakes. Cover-ups – Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, VA, etc. – are “mistakes?”

Rather, these (and others) are all scandals and they are crimes. Let’s call them what they are: crimes.

Clear Meanings are Obscure

Yesterday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “state exchange” means “state exchange.” Obamacare backers contend there was a “drafting error” or the health care law is ambiguous in meaning. They assert that “state exchange” = “everybody.”

Too many liberals have difficulty understanding what words mean when those meanings conflict with their agendas. Here, they claim the meaning is debatable, ambiguous, difficult to fathom, hard to decipher.


If those words – “established by the State” – don’t mean what they say, then there is no point to making any laws at all because any laws created will mean whatever the ruling elite want them to me. Nothing more, nothing less. The Red Queen speaks. The Constitution has become a ball of wax.


[i]       Bob Beckel, Hannity, FNC, 6/16/14.

Terrorism Redefined

Last year, the Boston Marathon bombing shocked the nation. The media rounded up its usual suspects: conservatives. The redefinition of “terrorism” – indeed, the refusal to identify the source of terrorism in the world today – impedes our fight against it.

From the advent of the Obama administration, the “war on terror” was effectively over, with the United States mirroring Neville Chamberlain’s words, “Peace in our time.” But peace cannot be achieved without defeating an implacable foe committed to destroying you.

Since President Obama’s election in 2008, his administration (and useful idiots in politics and the media) have engaged in an Orwellian redefinition of crucial terms, one of those being “terrorism” and variants thereof.

This short primer shows the depths of which political and media elites will go to ignore the terrorist threat facing Americans today, and to exploit tragedies for political purposes.

Terrorism = Man-made Disaster

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano redefined terrorism: “Of course [Islamic terrorism poses a threat]. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”[1]

Words matter. Meanings matter. While Napolitano and others have nuanced terrorism out of the dictionary, the reality of its threat has escalated, with successful terrorist attacks in America and an expanding terrorist network at home and abroad.

Terrorism = Workplace Violence

The Obama administration classified the 2009 Fort Hood massacre as “workplace violence” instead of a terrorist attack. Kris Kane observes, “The Fort Hood massacre was a terrorist act, with Nidal Hasan yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’ (‘God is great’). Nidal Hasan had also repeatedly been in contact with Anwar al-Awlaki.”[2]

Denying the source of jihadist terrorist attacks, the government is shackled in its efforts to combat it.

Terrorists = Conservatives and Libertarians

While studiously avoiding (and even denying) the reality of the Islamist jihadist threat, the government targets domestic political foes. As if the IRS targeting conservatives is not enough, Homeland Security must also be involved.

“A secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center lists Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag and equates them with radical race hate groups and terrorists. This is merely the latest example in an alarming trend which confirms that law enforcement across the country is being trained that American citizens are a dangerous enemy.”[3]

Paul Joseph Watson reported, “A new study funded by the Department of Homeland Security characterizes Americans who are ‘suspicious of centralized federal authority,’ and ‘reverent of individual liberty’ as ‘extreme right-wing’ terrorists.”[4]

The study, Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008 (PDF), omits “the 1993 World Trade Center bombing” but “focuses on Americans who hold beliefs shared by the vast majority of conservatives and libertarians and puts them in the context of radical extremism.”

Terrorists = Tea Party

Liberal leaders in the House and Senate have picked up on this theme. In a closed-door Democratic caucus meeting, on August 1, 2011, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) lambasted Tea Party members, claiming, “We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Vice President Joe Biden concurred: “They have acted like terrorists.”[5]

That’s right, politically championing a smaller government – one that lives within its budget and operates under its constitutional authority – is now “terrorism.”

Terrorists = Right-Wing, Tea Party, Patriots

In the immediate aftermath of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, many commentators and members of the mainstream media jumped to the conclusion that this terrorist attack was committed by the “extreme right,” anti-government groups, or the Tea Party.[6]

Few considered the most obvious culprit: a radicalized Islamic jihadist. An astonishing banner headline appeared on the Salon website: “Let’s Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber Is a White American.” Why? Political correctness? Denial of reality? Hatred of white Americans?

Terrorists = Protestors

In an interview on April 17, 2014, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) defamed supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, saying, “These people, who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. Nothing more than domestic terrorists. … I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”[7]

These protestors, who feared another Waco or Ruby Ridge, supported a rancher against hordes of federal agents, with “dozens of our finest SWAT members from Metro, Metro black & white cars, EMT, fire rescue trucks, detention buses (a.k.a. Paddy wagons), over 50 Ranger and BLM vehicles, numerous highway patrol vehicles, and a Black Hawk Helicopter on the Moapa airfield, just to name a few.”[8]

But these peaceful protesters were “domestic terrorists” in Reid’s eyes, and in the eyes of some in the media.

UPDATE: On ABC’s This Week, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile compared Bundy to Timothy McVeigh, saying, “Remember, this is the 19th anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing. So this notion that Mr. Bundy has no other recourse but violence is – anti-government violence – is absolutely wrong.”[9] When was Bundy violent? McVeigh committed a violent act of terrorism which killed 168 and injured almost 700. Bundy was peacefully standing up for his rights and his supporters were defending him. One is an aggressive act of indiscriminate terror while the other is a defensive posture against the menacing force of government.

Terrorists = Confrontational Children

Watson has been in the vanguard of those protesting the misuse of the word “terrorist” and the misidentification of “terrorists” themselves. His words deserve careful consideration.

“White House counterterrorism and Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco gave a speech this week in which she urged parents to watch their children for signs of ‘confrontational’ behavior which could be an indication of them becoming terrorists.”[10]

“Over the last decade, the federal government has broadened its definition of what constitutes potential terrorism to such a degree that the term has lost all meaning and is clearly being used as a political tool to demonize adversarial political activism.”

“Lisa Monaco’s speech and the federal government’s track record in assailing both banal behavior and political activism as potential ‘terrorism’ serves as a reminder that the war on terror has now been focused inwardly against innocent Americans, making it all the more harder to detect actual terrorists.”

Many have observed that Obama and his colleagues seem to be waging war on their political opponents while waging peace on America’s real enemies. Under Obama, the terrorist threat has expanded worldwide, America’s global prestige and political influence have radically shrunk (the “big stick” has disappeared), and Constitutional liberties are being increasingly imperiled and infringed.

Let’s eliminate Newspeak and return to the original meaning of words such as “terrorism.” Unless we do, the terrorists and big government will win while Americans lose.


[1]       Tim Graham, “Obama-Speak: Homeland Security Secretary Replaces ‘Terrorism’ With the Term ‘Man-Caused Disaster,’Newsbusters, 3/19/09.

[2]       Kris Kane, “Obama: Fort Hood Massacre ‘Workplace Violence,’Western Journalism, 10/22/12.

[3]       Paul Joseph Watson, Kurt Nimmo, and Alex Jones, Police Trained Nationwide That Informed Americans Are Domestic Terrorists,” Prison Planet, 3/13/09.

[4]       Paul Joseph Watson,, “Homeland Security Report Lists ‘Liberty Lovers’ As Terrorists,” Infowars.com, 7/4/12.

[5]       Paul Joseph Watson, War On Terror’s New Targets: Veterans, Tea Partiers, Anti-Fed Activists,” Infowars.com, 8/18/11.

[6]       “First Impulse: Blame the ‘Right Wing’ and Hope the Bomber Is a ‘White American,’” Media Research Center, 4/29/13, and Scott Whitlock, “One Year Ago, Media Jumped to Blame Boston Bombing on ‘Anti-Government’ ‘Extreme Right,’” Media Research Center, 4/15/14.

[7]       Laura Myers, “Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists,’Las Vegas Review-Journal, 4/17/14, and Lucy McCalmont, “Harry Reid: Cliven Bundy’s ‘domestic terrorists,’Politico, 4/18/14.

[8]       Tim Brown, “Assemblywoman Michele Fiore: The Truth about BLM & Bundy Showdown,” Freedom Outpost, 4/19/14.

[9]       “Donna Brazile Likens Clive Bundy to Timothy McVeigh,” 4/20/14, https://grabien.com/story.php?id=7583.

[10]     Paul Joseph Watson, White House Counterterror Chief: ‘Confrontational’ Children Could be Terrorists,” Prison Planet, 4/18/14.