Change The Words To Get The Desired Result

[Flanders]

Incidentally, whenever contemporary revolutionaries decide to overthrow their national governments their primary military objective is never the armory —— it is always TV and radio transmitters.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?116514-Occupied-amp-Not-Occupied&p=2980134#post2980134

demagogue (noun)

1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

2. A leader of the common people in ancient times.

Saul Alinsky (1909 - 1972) was not the first, nor will he be the last wannabe tyrant to seek political power by controlling the language.

He who controls the language controls the masses. Saul Alinsky

Socialists/Communists went one step further then ancient demagogues by first creating a crisis, then locking in opponents with the words and phrases that define the topic.

Print has been creating political crises for a long time, while radio, and television, are a godsend to demagogues. The few voices fighting back are overwhelmed by a tyranny of numbers on the same platforms Socialists have been infiltrating for a century.

The same technique used to control the language is used on different manufactured creations. For some unknown reason nobody ever called Socialism’s facility unethical.

Guardian newspaper of London will no longer refer to “climate change” in its stories.
No, the iconic, left-leaning broadsheet hasn’t become a convert to climate skepticism.
Instead, the paper is upping the ante, directing its staff to use the terms “climate emergency” and “climate crisis,” the Washington Examiner reported.

Guardian to staff: Use 'climate crisis' in stories
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 05/18/2019 @ 5:34 pm

https://www.wnd.com/2019/05/guardian...is-in-stories/

NOTE: There is no more obvious proof of FOX network’s explicit liberalism than the face time given to National Public Radio’s Mara Liasson, and Juan Williams who came to FOX from NPR:

Pro-life advocates were stunned to read a guide published by National Public Radio on how to properly use phrases while reporting on the abortion debate, and found it to be brazenly partisan.

The guidance cautioned reporters against describing the "fetal heartbeat" bills as referring to the heartbeat of a fetus — they instead say the heartbeat can be detected weeks before the embryo develops into a fetus.

The guidance objected to the terms "late term abortion" and "partial birth abortion," and claimed those phrases had "ideological baggage" that implied the fetus was viable when the abortions were operated.

The guidance also said not to use the phrase "abortion clinics."

We say instead, "medical or health clinics that perform abortions." The point is to not to use abortion before the word clinic. The clinics perform other procedures and not just abortions.

Another section cautioned against phrases that would lead the reader to believe an aborted fetus was a baby.

The term "unborn" implies that there is a baby inside a pregnant woman, not a fetus. Babies are not babies until they are born. They're fetuses. Incorrectly calling a fetus a "baby" or "the unborn" is part of the strategy used by antiabortion groups to shift language/legality/public opinion.

Ramesh Ponnuro of the National Review excoriated the guidance as "unself-consciously propagandistic" in its support of the pro-abortion side of the debate.

"It turns out that the longstanding practice of NPR has been to use the terms that are favored by one side of the abortion debate," he added. "Guess which one!"

"Every single word-usage option is resolved in favor of language preferred by those who support liberal, widespread access to legalized abortion, against those who would further restrict the practice," responded Quin Hillyer in the Washington Examiner. "Throughout the notice, the tone drips with contempt for pro-lifers."

May 22, 2019
NPR issues guide on what phrases to use in abortion debate — and it's shamelessly biased
Carlos Garcia

https://www.theblaze.com/news/npr-gu...on-angers-many

XXXXX

As a reminder of how obscenely biased taxpayer-supported National Public Radio really is, see the notice its honchos sent to its staff last week about how to use terminology with regard to abortion.

NPR's coverage of abortion is pregnant with bias
by Quin Hillyer
May 21, 2019 04:49 PM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...nant-with-bias

Finally, you can find hundreds examples where Communists/Socialists took control of the language in order to define a manufactured crisis. Here are a few classics:

A woman’s health instead of abortion.

A woman’s choice instead of population control.

Undocumented instead of illegal alien.

Common good instead of welfare.

International law instead of United Nations law.

Humanitarian crises instead of no borders.

Caring for children instead of chain migration.

Universal healthcare instead of socialized medicine.

The end of war instead of global government.

The New World Order instead of abolish national sovereignty.

Immigrants are looking for jobs instead of looking for free stuff.

[Flanders]

Finally, you can find hundreds examples where Communists/Socialists took control of the language in order to define a manufactured crisis. Here are a few classics:

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed a new rule that would revise the definition of discrimination “on the basis of sex” under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act to no longer include “gender identity” and “termination of pregnancy.”

With the passage of the ACA, the law directed HHS in Section 1557 to apply existing civil rights laws to health care, including Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded programs.

I hope Trump is successful changing it back to the truth.

In 2016, the Obama administration’s HHS redefined discrimination “on the basis of sex” to include “termination of pregnancy” and “gender identity,” which they defined as one’s perception of being “male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female.”

Consequently, religious organizations challenged the ruling in 2016, and a federal court put the rule under injunction, prohibiting HHS from enforcing it. Lawsuits are ongoing in several states, challenging the Section 1557 definition. A complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas argues that “by redefining a single word used in the Affordable Care Act…HHS has created a massive new liability for thousands of healthcare professionals unless they cast aside their medical judgment and perform controversial and even harmful medical transition procedures.”

Now the Trump administration’s HHS wants to reverse the definition of “on the basis of sex” to be congruent with the definition used by statutory law and other federal agencies, including the Department of Justice. Roger Severino, director of HHS’s Office for Civil Rights, said the plain meaning of the law HHS is tasked with enforcing does not match the Section 1557 definition.

“When Congress prohibited sex discrimination, it did so according to the plain meaning of the term, and we are making our regulations conform,” he said. “The American people want vigorous protection of civil rights and faithfulness to the text of the laws passed by their representatives. The proposed rule would accomplish both goals.”

The new proposed rule would also remove the phrase “termination of pregnancy,” because that fails to include Title IX religious and abortion exemptions. Instead, HHS is proposing to use the same language as Congress, which states that, “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require or prohibit any person, or public or private entity, to provide or pay for any benefit or service, including the use of facilities, related to an abortion.”

Earlier this month, HHS announced a new rule protecting conscientious objections for health-care providers whose religious beliefs conflict with procedures such as abortion or assisted suicide. Critics of Friday’s proposed rule argue this will allow health-care providers to discriminate against transgender patients.

Severino said HHS’s goal is to further the health and well being of all Americans, and that this rule does not change that.

“The rules have to be done in concert with existing law. It does not mean that entities are in any way restricted in providing health care,” he said. “This rule does not go in and tell people how to practice medicine. It is about non-discrimination.”

Trump Administration Proposes Revision Of Obama-Era Definition Of Sex Discrimination
May 24, 2019
By Madeline Osburn

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/24...iscrimination/

[CharacterAssassin]

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed a new rule that would revise the definition of discrimination “on the basis of sex” under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act to no longer include “gender identity” and “termination of pregnancy.”

With the passage of the ACA, the law directed HHS in Section 1557 to apply existing civil rights laws to health care, including Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded programs.

I hope Trump is successful changing it back to the truth.

In 2016, the Obama administration’s HHS redefined discrimination “on the basis of sex” to include “termination of pregnancy” and “gender identity,” which they defined as one’s perception of being “male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female.”

Consequently, religious organizations challenged the ruling in 2016, and a federal court put the rule under injunction, prohibiting HHS from enforcing it. Lawsuits are ongoing in several states, challenging the Section 1557 definition. A complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas argues that “by redefining a single word used in the Affordable Care Act…HHS has created a massive new liability for thousands of healthcare professionals unless they cast aside their medical judgment and perform controversial and even harmful medical transition procedures.”

Now the Trump administration’s HHS wants to reverse the definition of “on the basis of sex” to be congruent with the definition used by statutory law and other federal agencies, including the Department of Justice. Roger Severino, director of HHS’s Office for Civil Rights, said the plain meaning of the law HHS is tasked with enforcing does not match the Section 1557 definition.

“When Congress prohibited sex discrimination, it did so according to the plain meaning of the term, and we are making our regulations conform,” he said. “The American people want vigorous protection of civil rights and faithfulness to the text of the laws passed by their representatives. The proposed rule would accomplish both goals.”

The new proposed rule would also remove the phrase “termination of pregnancy,” because that fails to include Title IX religious and abortion exemptions. Instead, HHS is proposing to use the same language as Congress, which states that, “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require or prohibit any person, or public or private entity, to provide or pay for any benefit or service, including the use of facilities, related to an abortion.”

Earlier this month, HHS announced a new rule protecting conscientious objections for health-care providers whose religious beliefs conflict with procedures such as abortion or assisted suicide. Critics of Friday’s proposed rule argue this will allow health-care providers to discriminate against transgender patients.

Severino said HHS’s goal is to further the health and well being of all Americans, and that this rule does not change that.

“The rules have to be done in concert with existing law. It does not mean that entities are in any way restricted in providing health care,” he said. “This rule does not go in and tell people how to practice medicine. It is about non-discrimination.”

Trump Administration Proposes Revision Of Obama-Era Definition Of Sex Discrimination
May 24, 2019
By Madeline Osburn

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/24...iscrimination/

Why do you promote and advocate for a Marxist USA?

[Flanders]

. . . you can find hundreds examples where Communists/Socialists took control of the language in order to define a manufactured crisis. Here are a few classics:

Good lord! Democrats added the term itself to the list:

Tucker Carlson criticized media coverage of President Trump's Oval Office address on the Wednesday edition of his FOX News show.

"One thing to know about our national media: if Democratic leaders are saying it, reporters are saying it too. No matter what it is," Carlson said. "You often hear conservatives complain that our media are “liberal.” That’s giving them far too much credit. What they really are is obedient, like Shih Tzus begging for a snack. If Nancy Pelosi called for invading Canada tomorrow, all the news anchors would be telling you how Ottawa is the real threat. They’re flunkies, humorless little functionaries doing their sad little jobs."

Full monologue:

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: In a televised address to the country last night, the president made his case for why America needs a wall on our southern border, and why that wall is so important that it’s worth shutting down the federal government to get it.

Democrats remained unmoved. Their leaders in Congress, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, delivered the party’s initial response. Their words were then echoed with mechanical precision by Democrats up and down the chain, from sitting members of Congress all the way down to the leftwing lady muttering in your local dog park. “Talking points” doesn’t do justice to the rhetorical discipline here. It was like watching a 3-D printer at work, churning out carbon copies of stilted propaganda, one after the other. A miracle of replication. You might even call the Democratic response, “manufactured”:

Rep Raul Grijalva: I’ll state that this is a manufactured crisis that’s been manufactured by the Trump administration

THE DNC’S TOM PEREZ: This is a manufactured crisis, Bill

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: How he manufactures crises like immigrants seeking legal refuge

SENATOR TIM KAINE: What the president is doing is manufacturing a crisis

PELOSI: President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis

SCHUMER: This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis

One thing to know about our national media: if Democratic leaders are saying it, reporters are saying it too. No matter what it is. You often hear conservatives complain that our media are “liberal.” That’s giving them far too much credit. What they really are is obedient, like Shih Tzus begging for a snack. If Nancy Pelosi called for invading Canada tomorrow, all the news anchors would be telling you how Ottawa is the real threat. They’re flunkies, humorless little functionaries doing their sad little jobs.

Watch them at work:

CHUCK TODD: Folks, the President has manufactured one heck of a political crisis for himself.

CNN’s Amanda Carpenter: Donald Trump is manufacturing a national security crisis.

CNN’s Jen Psaki: You will hear them say is that this is a manufactured crisis. It’s not a national security crisis

JASON JOHNSON: From Nancy Pelosi down to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, no one will give him a dime for this project

MSNBC’s NICOLLE WALLACE: Because it’s manufactured

CNN’s JOE LOCKHART: It's a manufactured crisis for the president to get a political win

MSNBC’s STEVE SCHMIDT: We have a president who will lie and lie and lie some more. This is a manufactured crisis.

Those are the mindless lies they’re telling you. What are Democrats actually proposing as an alternative to the wall? We can answer that with some authority because on January 3rd, House Democrats passed their own proposal that they say would secure the southern border. What would it do? Nothing that isn’t being done already. The Democratic bill provides the same funding for partial fencing, border security technology, hiring more customs officers, and so forth, that we already have. In other words, the Democratic “border security plan” is the status quo. Their argument is that things work fine right now. Instead of spending another dollar to secure our border, Democrats in Congress have just proposed spending $12 million to investigate reparations for slavery. Just to give you a sense of their priorities. Everything is more important than border security.

That would be fine if our current security was working. It’s not. It’s likely that more 20 million people are already living in our country illegally. That’s more than two and a half times the entire population of New York City. The actual number may be bigger. We have no real idea. Which is the point. It’s totally out of control.

The problem isn’t that the Border Patrol doesn’t have the right technology. The problem is that our politicians don’t care to fix it. If they did, they could solve the problem in an afternoon. Borders are not complex. It’s not likely we’re trying to cure pancreatic cancer here. Our best minds are stumped. Hardly. What worked for Hadrian will work for us. It works for Israel right now, and a lot of other places. Walls work. That’s why people still build them. Everyone knows that. The rest is a charade. We should at least admit what’s happening. What you saw last night wasn’t two parties bickering over the best way to solve a shared problem. Just the opposite. In this case, one side’s problem is the other’s solution. For Democrats, a porous border is a good thing. It’s means more low-wage workers for their donors. It means more compliant voters to replace the millions of Americans they’ve alienated. And then there’s the emotional payoff. Democrats feel good about letting in poor people from the third world. These are people who don’t make a lot of complicated demands about healthcare, or unfunded pensions or what their kids are doing to do for a living. They’re not whiny, like Americans. They’re just grateful to be here. Democrats love people like that. They’ve come to love them much more than they love you. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that out loud just last night:

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): The women and children on the border that are trying to seek refuge and seek opportunity in the United States of America with nothing but the shirt on their backs are acting more American than any person who seeks to keep them out ever will be.

People who break our laws are more American than you are. That’s how Democrats feel. Keep that in mind as you watch the debate.

Tucker Carlson: "Obedient" Media Flunkies Repeat Democratic Talking Points Like "Shih Tzus Begging For A Snack"
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date January 10, 2019

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...r_a_snack.html