For “Secular Left” read…

I am sure O’Reilly critics and avid newsreaders will recognize certain buzz terms for what they really are: euphemisms for the real meaning. In the slow-rolling downhill slide to a resolution over the matter of whether to change congressional parliamentary procedure in order to more easily facilitate approval of Bush’s judicial nominees—in other words, whether to ditch the filibuster and vote simple majority yea or nay on the person in question—there are terms being used and repeated that become part of media vernacular, but not everyone may know their meanings.

For instance, republican senators argue that democrats are trying to block “faith-based” nominees for judicial posts. It might seem like they mean “religious” when they say “faith-based.” Nope—they mean “anti-abortion” which, through the chain of connections of meaning, is a person of faith, or Christian, who adheres to the biggest “faith-baser” of all, George W’s policies, of which abortion is a definite no-no.

Another term, “nuclear option,” is when the media tell us that the republicans may exercise a strange game of parliamentary technicalities which ends up calling for a vote on whether the filibuster--or holding up a call to vote on a question by keeping the debate going, and which must be ended by a 60-40 vote instead of a simple majority—is constitutional. After 200 years of tradition and filibusters, this is the time when Dick Cheney would ask this question. It’s called “nuclear,” because the democrats have threatened to figuratively “blow up” the legislative process in the senate, and discontinue its usefulness by not participating in any further debates or votes, unless it were an emergency, they say.

There’s “faith-based,” “nuclear,” and then the cool one is “secular left.” The press reports on the filibuster “nuclear” issue using that terminology to quote the Evangelical Christians, or right-wing “faith based” Christians, but again, “secular left” is a euphemism:

Evangelical leaders, angered by rulings on abortion and gay marriage as well as the Schiavo case, have set their sights on transforming courts they view as stacked against religion. They also are seeking to weaken what they call the "secular left," which they say targets people with religious beliefs from reaching the bench. [Los Angeles Times, 4/25/05]

One definition of secular:

Secular: an item that is free of religion.

“Left” or “liberal” has often been equated with Jews ever since the Bolsheviks revolted and the leaders were Jewish, and they followed Karl Marx, a Jew, even though the ethnic/religious element was not the chief issue.
“Faith-based” = religious = Christian; “Secular” = not Christian, or of course, Jewish. Jews do not believe in Jesus Christ as the deity, therefore narrow-minded people with a Christian background have sometimes looked upon
Jews as lacking in “faith.” Thus, "secular left" = Jewish.

Now that we have our terms explained, I will burst everyone’s bubble-of-expectation by prognosticating that Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid will find a “meeting of the minds” (another euphemism for “cover my ass”) with Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in order to avoid this incredible constitutional tangle, from which neither side can benefit. Check out my recent entry on John McCain. The filibuster works for both parties—republicans as well as democrats!

Watch for the next installment—the world Jewish conspiracy. The internet is already carrying a message about a foretelling of the end of the world from a Medieval Irish SAINT MALACHY who some say has been accurate up to and including the present. Usually, it’s the Jews who are behind the catastrophe, or in the middle of it without even trying.

Meanwhile, let’s not forget how polarized we are as a people and as a nation, which is reflected in the absence of cooperation in our legislative representatives.