Words or Phrases Used by Leftists to Distract Us

Leftists love to use words or phrases that convey a meaning other than what they actually intend. These are words that divert attention from their true motives and sugarcoat their intentions. We should learn from them so we can form a list in our minds to alert us to what might really be going on.

We’ve all heard leftists introduce something rotten by saying we need a “national conversation” about it. Steven Hayward understands this as a signal that we are being played. What they really mean is, “Shut up and agree with liberalism. Leftists don’t really want a “conversation” about anything, still less an argument that they’ll lose.”

A common word or phrase leftists use to confuse us is to label something they want as serving the “greater good.” The “greater good” somehow always turns out to be something ridiculous and/or terrible. When we hear the words “greater good” coming from a leftist we should immediately pause and think, “Oh oh, what sort of nonsense is this going to be?”

Often the left will acknowledge the downside of some screwball proposal but claim that the negative effects will be offset by the “greater good” to be achieved. The usual examples are proposals for gun control.

I recall a discussion with a leftist about the Luby’s Cafeteria shooting on October 16, 1991 in Killeen, Texas when George Hennard murdered 23 people. Susan Gratia-Hupp was in the cafeteria at the time with her parents when Hennard began his grisly massacre.

Hennard drove his truck into Luby’s Cafeteria to begin his horrific crime:

At that time Texas had not yet adopted a shall-issue concealed carry law, which was enacted a few years later. As did many other Texans, Ms. Hupp usually carried her handgun in her purse. She and others who carried were breaking a law they considered to be draconian and unnecessary as applied to law-abiding citizens. They believed that every living creature wants to go on living and thus the right of self defense is a sacred natural right endowed upon all by their creator.

Those who dared violate the law knew they were vulnerable and took steps to minimize the possibility of being snared by it. Ms. Hupp had decided to leave her gun in the glove compartment of her truck that day, where it would be completely legal. She soon came to regret that decision, and will for the rest of her life.

When Hennard began shooting with his Glock 17 patrons ducked under tables. After shooting 17 rounds he needed to reload. Apparently, Hennard was not a skilled pistolero and was a bit slow in removing the empty magazine and inserting a fresh one. Hupp had a straight line of site to him. At that moment she thought of her gun. If she had it with her she would could have easily taken Hennard down while he fiddled with trying to reload his gun. But that wasn’t to be. Her gun was outside, in her truck.

Thinking fast, Susan urged her parents to run out the front door with her, as a few others had done. She ran with her mother right behind her. Then she noticed that while her mother had followed her out, her father was still inside, under a table. She remembered that he was elderly and needed a cane just to walk. Running was out of the question for him.

When Susie’s mother realized that the father had not come out with her, she ran back in.  She would rather die than leave him there alone. Die she did, Hennard was shooting again. They were both killed. She died with him in her arms, her beloved husband and father of her children. (I’m shaking as I write this).

After repeating this gruesome sad story to my liberal interlocutor, I asked him if he didn’t wish that Susan Gratia-Hupp had her gun with her so she could have stopped Hennard and saved not only her parents but several other people as well? Shouldn’t the law be changed so that good people can carry guns, the best tool available to protect themselves from criminal attack? To stop maniacs like George Hennard from carrying out their ghastly deeds?

His reply floored me. It ruined our friendship on the spot. He said “No.” No? Why? I asked. Because, for the greater good, he said. What the hell? “What greater good?”, I said. The greater good that fewer guns will be on the street, he replied.

He was so ill-informed he didn’t realize that gun control laws do not result in fewer guns. In fact, they result in more guns. Lawful people buy more guns — in lawful transactions —  after gun controls are enacted out of fear they might not be able to do so if they wait. Criminals don’t give up the guns they already have and also acquire more, by illegal means.

From that day on, sometime in 1993, I cannot hear the words, “greater good” with getting a jolt like a bolt of lightning. I’ve found other liberals using it in a feckless attempt to justify their sick way of thinking.

Here is a short video of Susan Gratia-Hupp testifying before Congress on a proposed gun control measure:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Blog via Email

%d bloggers like this: