Bolshevism to SCOTUS, purposefully redesigning language

Perhaps evolution is a poor choice of ‘words’ as the core of this discussion is specifically about words and how their definitions purposefully change. Related to this is one standout fact that Professor Beebe brought forth in our studies, that of Russia’s mother tongue’s engineered metamorphosis that occurred as part of the Bolshevik revolution. Before the fall of the czar, Old Russian more resembled Old English than what we now call modern Russian. What is likely never taught any longer is that the language was intentionally overhauled by Lenin to reflect the new communist order. This Bolshevik revamping of language to support and, in effect, sponsor a government that ruled over the people rather than served them was a model for the progressivism that was already encroaching on American life in 1917. Because of the changes in American English since the turn of the 20th century, it’s necessary to keep an 1828 Noah Webster dictionary at hand to understand our founding documents in the context they were written. The constant attempt to reinterpret the Second Amendment to mean that the right to bear personal firearms was not what our Founders intended, exemplifies the point of deliberately changing meanings. Progressives have even gone to the extreme of dropping cursive handwriting from public school curricula. Why? To enforce the illiteracy of younger generations when it comes to an ability to read our founding documents in their original form, creating a reliance on “interpreters” of the original language.1 This is already occurring as text books have “explanations” of the Bill of Rights instead of verbatim transcriptions. In this, the purpose of the Bolshevik redesigning of Russian to disenfranchise the educated Russian public becomes obvious, the same as is the American institution of the practice.

King v. Burwell: Refurbishing language to suit a political objective

The King v. Burwell decision on the government health insurance subsidies and exchanges that just came down from the Supreme Court of the United States is a perfect example of refurbishing language to suit a political objective. Chief Justice John Roberts has, again, taken it upon himself to redefine the so-called intended language of the wrongly named Affordable Care Act. Whereas he previously interpreted a tax as a fine as a tax (the Administration couldn’t even decide what they meant in arguing the case), he redefined “State” according to a political scheme that absolutely corrupted the original intent of the law. In every overreaching law, regulation or executive order and memo, language is massaged to mean whatever the liberal agenda wants it to mean depending on the challenge that arises. Although decided during the Bush administration, the practice was proven when SCOTUS ruled on what constitutes a hazardous gas in 2006 (Massachusetts v. EPA) without supporting scientific data and disregarding the fact that the whole question was outside their power or expertise to determine. Also beyond SCOTUS’ scope of power is defining marriage, its purpose and to whom it applies, which opinion is also ready to be handed down, possibly even before this column is published. The greatest injustice being perpetrated here is the fact that SCOTUS is not and never has been the final arbiter of legislation passed by Congress. It is only given the power to weigh the Constitutionality of law, not write, rewrite or interpret the intent of the legislative branch. Although Congress has proven itself to be spinelessly unwilling to overturn legislation that their majority constituency clearly disapproves and even despises, it and it alone has the power to remove bad law. No matter what the Supreme Court decides, Congress can change or repeal any law upon which the justices rule, annulling whatever decision SCOTUS makes. 1. A. Dru Kristenev, 2014. The real cost of not teaching cursive, Page 25, Pay Attention!!. ChangingWind.