The Left’s coup d’état against words

Leftist NewspeakModern leftist activists have usurped and perverted the meaning of words so blatantly that I wonder how they can possibly get away with it! Their coup d’état against language puts Orwell’s Newspeak dictionaries to shame. Through this persistent perversion, true liberalism has been fooled into adopting self-defeating terms for naming its key virtues:

Capitalism has ubiquitously replaced Free Enterprise in our vocabulary, tainting the latter with Marx’s flawed notions of the labor theory of value, and making it unnatural to defend as a system centered around the arbitrary possession of tangible ‘Kapital’ and the benefits accruing to its owners, not around universal individual freedom thanks to which anyone can accumulate capital among other things.

The Left labels the middle class bourgeois with elitist contempt.

It keeps a straight face while calling itself Liberal, which is a slap in the face for Classical Liberalism. The newspeak term for a true Liberal is now Libertarian, which sounds dangerously close to Libertine, especially to the profane who might Google it.

It has proclaimed itself to be Progressive: What’s so progressive about leftism? If anything its entire ideology is dreadfully regressive, pointing back to the greatest failed experiment of the 20th century, which almost every participating country has gotten out of after incurring colossal losses of life, wealth, and liberty.

The Left prides itself for being Secular, a characterization which the moronic Right backs and exacerbates without understanding its implications. Now the Left can conveniently prey on the ever growing generation of youths and intellectuals disillusioned by corrupt Christianity but who are not yet ready to live without God. Clinging to the Left’s unchallenged label of Secularism fulfills their delusion of having succeeded in their impotent pseudo-struggle to break free.

If religion is the opiate of the masses, “secular” leftism is the crack cocaine of the half-assed apostates of organized religion. The Left recruits these useful idiots and exploits almost effortlessly what their religion has primed them for: radical altruism, mass-scale masochism, and irrational dedication to a supremacist dogma. Getting away with this might not be so easy if Leftism was exposed for the religion that it is instead of being labeled as Secular.

Let’s start claiming back the meaning of words, shall we? Start calling the Democrat base the Religious Left. Rename the Libertarian Party the “Liberal Party” to confuse Leftists and bring attention to the classic ideas of Liberalism, and stop conceding perverted definitions of notions which are key to the discussion of our political and ideological realities. How about that?

Author: Kejda

Born: Tirana, Albania Residing: New York, NY University of Waterloo, Economics '08

13 thoughts on “The Left’s coup d’état against words”

  1. You are right, but let’s not confuse the issue by changing our party name. Let’s remain “Libertarian,” but from this moment forward let’s refuse to tolerate the usurpation of words

  2. yowza, you’re sure mixing your ideologies. in the usa, left, and liberal, and progressive is not communism, which you seem to be equating.

    whatever you want to call it… left, liberal, etc. in the US does not think the middle class to be bourgeois. that’s absurd. in fact, it mourns the war on the middle class that has been waged by the government since Reagan.

    The left does not want more taxes, it wants fair taxes. And taxes, believe it or not, are essential for sustaining a healthy society. The poor and the middle class are taxed way beyond their means, while the rich get the cuts to make sure it stays that way.

    Read Thomas Paine either for the first time, or again. Take a look at Jefferson without the tint of glasses you’re wearing.

    The founders were liberal/progressive/whatever. They were not libertarian as we understand it. No one wants government to rule their lives, but freedom of anything and everything still has a price, because we live in a society and in order to maintain a healthy and prosperous society we need to think like one. That’s Democracy, a free press, fair taxation, and a democratic government set up to make sure that the constitution is upheld and its people are healthy and able to prosper.

  3. beach, it’s very interesting to hear you say that the modern Left is not to be equated with Communism. This is very true, and coincidentally I am working on a piece right now that goes into a lot of detail on what the modern Left is all about.

    Of course I believe taxes are necessary, nowhere did I assess or hint that it is otherwise. But you provide no definition of ‘fair’ taxation; for me that’s only what’s needed for: national defense, law and order, the judiciary, all working towards protecting citizens’ individual rights and reinforcing contracts. Anything else is horse shit.

    As far as the middle class comments go, yes in America ‘middle class’ usually bears no negative connotations but for the most elitist of ‘progressives’. I am not exclusively talking about the American left though, and ‘bourgeois’ is still a very-much-alive word.

    The Left dehumanizes people: It pits various groups against one another by cultivating envy and grievances that are mostly imaginary and second-hand. The focus is on victimization.

    The poor see everyone as the ‘capitalist’ oppressors: the ‘rich’ and middle class alike. The middle class only see the rich as the oppressor. All dynamics depicted as offshoots of class strife, my frigging aching ass. They all want the ones above them on the pyramid to throw some of that money down. If this blind and artificial envy is made concessions to, then you create permanent underclasses.

    So what about ‘fair’ taxation? My money is mine, I don’t owe you anything. I’ll pay for protection, that’s it. That’s the only legitimate function of the state.

    The founders were liberal/progressive/whatever? These perversions of words have only settled in after the 60s, so just what do you mean? Need to specify the ‘whatever’ part, as if the ‘liberal/progressive’ part wasn’t vague enough.

    They were very libertarian in every way, maybe the tainted glasses are yours. I’d be glad to examine any article or resource that you have to support your claim that the founding fathers were leftists.

    The Constitution is not about a Democracy, but about a Republic. Democracy is highly overrated, a sublimated version of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Minimal democracy on things which absolutely need to be decided on as a nation, and individual rights everywhere else. That’s what it’s about!

  4. I do agree with you about the definition of democracy and a republic. Yes, but the way our democracy is established is not mob rule or half plus one… it’s a democracy of laws.

    “whatever” is whatever you want to call it. Liberal doesn’t mean Libertarianism when it is referenced by the framers.

    “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.’

    – George Washington

    don’t distort liberalism or liberality with what is now considered libertarianism.

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness doesn’t mean every man for himself.

    I mention taxes because it is an important aspect of government. But also because I read about what you believe in another post. You are for the Iraq war but against income taxes. That’s just super. And exactly what’s wrong with the Grover Norquist/Ayn Rand way of thinking. You’re for Nuclear weapons, but don’t want to pay for them. You’re for the US citizens supporting and protecting Isreal, but then you seem to scorn how that is made possible.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    If we don’t have good government looking out for the best interests of its citizens, then we will have a corrupt corporatocracy filled with people who only look out for themselves. That is the recipe for revolution.

    Overall, I just don’t think you understand. Fair means fair. I make a lot of money and choose to live in this country. I consider it patriotic to pay taxes to educate the populace and hopefully take care of its health. Because if we are educated and healthy, we can do great things. As a nation. I believe in defending our nation, and paying for that is also part of our responsibility.

    I don’t think it’s fair that I get a huge tax break when those in lower classes have their taxes increased, or forced upon them with higher sales taxes. I don’t think it’s fair that our populace is being dumbed down and is becoming unhealthy because of the ideologies you espouse. Sure you and may be fine and dandy, but that doesn’t mean that will last.

    Look at what happens when we have a strong middle class. It allows people to live their lives with more time and less fear. Neo-cons want the populace to have less time and more fear, that way they will not question their authority. They want people to give up their liberties in return for protection by them and the corporation.

    It’s not black and white, but the direction we’re headed is getting darker and darker. I hope you can see that.

  5. “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government.”

    This implicit definition of ‘Liberal’ by George Washington is not ambiguous at all: those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community, by respecting everyone’s negative rights, will be understandably entitled to the positive protection of civil government that enforces such rights. Thus the government gains its legitimacy through the consent of the governed. That’s all he is saying, and that’s all Liberal means: respecting others’ individual rights and believing those who respect them as well are entitled to having their own rights protected.

    The founding fathers’ were neither Marxist (Marx wasn’t born at the time, neither was his leftist strife), nor hippies, and it’s absurd to even argue what the meaning of Liberal is in the classical sense, i.e before the 60s.

    Liberal basically means Libertarian and that’s common historical knowledge; nowadays to make the necessary distinction one has to say “Classical Liberal”. Read the Wikipedia entry to get some background if you still have any doubts

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness means the individualistic affirmation of every man’s life and happiness by himself: only I can give purpose and meaning to my life, and happiness is subjective. Yes, it is every man for himself. It doesn’t mean we cannot cooperate in mutual benefit, but it doesn’t force us to work together like ants either if we don’t want to either.

    I didn’t say that I am for US citizens protecting Israel. She is perfectly capable of protecting herself if we keep the politically correct pro-Arab pressure off her back. Support for Israel does not have to be economic either.

    Anyhow, in that other post where you read all this, I do say that I am for a ‘Consumption Tax’, which you conveniently neglect to factor into your critique that my math allegedly doesn’t add up. If you had any background in economics, you would certainly know that most income is translated into expenditure.

    By taxing expenditure only (sales tax), the state would effectively tax most income, without citizens and businesses being burdened to file tax reports and without the inefficiencies and dangers of Big Brother keeping track of your personal information for income-tax purposes. This also has the added benefit of providing an incentive for people to save, since saved income would not be taxed.

    Implementing a flat sales tax of, say, around 10% (federal) and 5% (state) would eliminate any pretensions of ‘unfairness’ that you are alluding to, while the low flat rate, the ease of filing, the spared paperwork, and the incentive to save would stimulate the economy to a point that total tax revenues would probably increase.

    What corrupt corporatocracy full of people who only look out for themselves are you talking about? Life is not a zero-sum game. Looking out for myself doesn’t mean I am condemning my neighbors to become human sacrifices in the altar of ‘corporatocracy’, or whatever you think that means.

    There is such thing as mutual benefit, which is the principle motivating most contracts, the moving wheels of our economy. It seems that you are the one believing in necessary sacrifice, in the irreconcilability of men’s interests, that some should always be sacrificed for the sake of others, and that it should always be the strong, the able, the productive, to be bled to death in the altar of altruism.

    Your formulas of class strife are overtired and have been proved wrong long ago. And such ideologies YOU espouse are the real danger: inducing this second-hand class-envy, phantom grievances, this state of perpetual struggle and discontent, victimizing people into thinking they’ve been duped by the ‘corporatocracy’, and the entire bundle…

    Yes, the Neo-Cons, all that… they’re toothless. It is the Left that wants people to give up their liberties in return for favors and sweet dependence on the nanny/crony state.

    In any case, good for you if you’re making good money. You’re a product manager at Wink. Peter Thiel has invested in your company and probably cuts your paycheck. You owe your smug good money to the graces of a ‘capitalist every-man-for-himself pig’, a featured speaker in big-time libertarian/Ayn Rand events. You unwittingly bite the hand that feeds you — you did not create your job — but I presume you adequetly perform within your role, but that job is not your right, nor is it your right to demand any job/money/taxes from your neighbor just because they have done better for themselves than you have. is likely to propel Wink into irrelevance, and if that happens soon, you might wanna sound more humble in your next job search: reality checks might be unpleasant for the flaming champion of the middle-class plight.

  6. This could get ugly, because for some reason you decided to make this personal. that’s a mistake.

    What are you… 20 or 21? Yeah i remember being obnoxious when I was 20 or 21. that was fun. Full of spit and vinegar. Grrr!

    Where are you from? Albania? Is that correct? That’s awesome. Good for you.

    1. Consumption tax fucks the poor more than anyone else. We do need it, but we shouldn’t use it as punishment. Such as high cigarette taxes.

    2. A flat tax income tax would be fine except the rich will still try to avoid it and the poor still can’t afford it.

    3. Corporations need to be taxed as well, even though they supply jobs. They use public infrastructure to do their business.

    4. I believe in individual rights, but this country is a community run for and by the people, and it’s important to do things necessary to maintain a healthy community. What’s wrong with compassion?

    5. I never used the phrase “capitalist every-man-for-himself pig” You did. Do you think Peter Thiel is a pig? That’s not cool. I’m as much of a capitalist as he is or anyone else. My job is (was) to make him money. That’s what I was paid to do at Wink. I work for Yahoo. And am proud to have helped make them hundreds of millions of dollars. I’ve benefited greatly from doing so. But that doesn’t mean I look for ways shirk my responsibilities as an American citizen.

    6. I have more respect for and in common with libertarians than any other ideology except for a more liberal one, the problem is that I’ve never known a libertarian system of government to succeed. Please enlighten me if you can.

    7. I’m not looking for government to solve all problems. No liberal is. Most liberals in this country actually want less government. I don’t know who you’ve been talking to… I think the difference of opinion is what that government does. Liberals believe that the government should help all citizens have the opportunities to succeed and catch them if they fall. Some citizens may not need as much help, great! But they still live here and enjoy the benefits of this great country and should participate in the process.

    I’m talking about things like public education, health care, defense, public/national parks, environmental protection and preservation, libraries, public safety, infrastructure, a free press, and ensuring responsible business practices as well as government oversight.

    8. This isn’t a 60’s thing. I don’t know why you keep bringing that up. This is not about words. You seem pissed that the term liberal has been co-opted by the left. Who cares? These are words. Ideas are bigger than words. Classical liberalism and Adam Smith’s ideas were totally distorted by Reagan to benefit a small group of people… I’d think you’d be more pissed about that.

    9. The founders and framers of this country and constitution were liberal as we understand it today. They were not leftist or extremists as I think you believe I was suggesting. The founders hated aristocracy, were distrustful of corporations, believed in taxing inheritance, believed in public services, etc. Basic “liberal” concepts. You are correct that they also didn’t like more government than was necessary. Unfortunately with the growth of the country things got out of hand.

    10. This has been fun. Just so you know, I totally respect your opinion and am impressed with your knowledge and your ability to express yourself. I’m more impressed with your passion. Please keep it up. I’m not sure why you decided to bring Wink or PeekYou into the conversation. Sort of a punk move. I wouldn’t trouble yourself worrying about Wink… They are just fine. PeekYou is just another copycat. Though I think both should be worried about what Google and Yahoo! are doing.

    Take care.

  7. Alright, there’s no reason for it to get ugly. I am pleased that my post has sparked enough interest in you to prompt you to comment at such lengths, no matter how greatly I differ from your position. I interpreted your tone to be covertly condescending, and decided I needed to rough it up a bit. Glad you can take the heat. Now if you are interested in a civil discussion of the relevant issues previously brought up, let’s go through them in the right order:

    My attitude has nothing to do with my age and I am not a loose cannon picking on everything and everyone: My positions are very consistent and deliberate.

    So yes, I am from Albania. That is correct. What is the relevance of that? Good for me? It’s actually not at all good for me, but so what? Are you implying that Albanians shouldn’t have an opinion on politics or the US, being inferior 2nd-and-a-half world countrymen? Only Californians are entitled to an opinion? Please ellaborate.

    1. Consumption tax does not fuck the poor any more than income tax does. Of course I mean “flat consumption tax” so everyone pays the same, regardless of income or good purchased. How can it be used as punishment? There is no way it can, because it’s a flat rate. That’s the point. There is very little room for fiscal evasion, and it provides with an incentive to save.

    2. The flat income tax would be fine except for the rich would avoid it and the poor wouldn’t afford it? That sounds like it’s been rather fatalistically constructed for the sake of the conclusion that a flat tax is impossible. If anything, a progressive income tax is even worse in every respect. The rich are taxed progressively, pushed around in various income brackets for tax purposes often arbitrarily, while the poor usually are given tax credits. How fair is that?

    A flat consumption tax would be almost equivalent to a flat income tax except for the savings incentives, and for the minimized opportunities for fiscal evasion. Obviously the poor are already paying it since they pay a sales tax wherever they buy anything. I am suggesting leaving it at that and not burdening them (or anyone else) with more taxes.

    Taxing corporations is stupid! Their shareholders are already taxed through their individual income taxes. Taxing the corporation as well would be double-taxation. Think about it… It has got nothing to do with whether they provide jobs or not. The owners are already being taxed individually. The whole is not greater than the sum in this case,.. as it rarely ever is. Double taxation would be disincentive for businesses (the argument you might find most relevant) and downright unfair and arbitrary (what I care about the most).

    There is nothing wrong with compassion. What’s wrong is compassion by government decree. The 19th century, when the US was very laissez-faire, was the golden era of philanthropic activity. Most hospitals and schools were run by private charities. Most people are giving when they are free to choose. But there is something greatly immoral in having the state mandate compassion. The implicit assumption is that the majority of citizens are selfish and would not help their neighbor unless forced to. Talk about contempt for your own citizens!

    The truth is that living standards are not a matter of redistributing wealth, but rather a matter of CREATING wealth. No one can do it on their own, but cooperation needs to be free and to mutual benefit. Contracts are for that, and a state that enforces them is what’s needed. Not a state that mandates morality. If those ‘compassion norms’ were mainstream anyway, there’d be no need for government decree. If our government is elected through majority vote, and the majority feels that that the minority below the poverty line (a minuscule percentage of the population) needs to be taken care of, then there’d be no need for their own democratic government to force the population to take care of the poor. Isn’t that a paradox. But it’s two different things when:

    1. 80% of the population decides to tax itself to help the 2% at the bottom (which can be done voluntarily if it’s the case. no need for taxation)

    2. A and B decides to tax C to allegedly help D, with something ending up in the pockets of A and B in the process.

    So there.

  8. What’s more, using compulsion to create compassion, will only generate a faux empathy that will compound the problems of the people you claim you intend to help. There is no morality without free will. That ‘compassion’ ensures a cycle of dependence and welfare mentality. It is just authoritarianism in disguise, because like I told you, if the democratic will of the citizenry was to help the bottom bracket, issuing such help would not need any government mandate. For example, socialized medicine is implemented for the sake of “compassion” but leads to behavior modifications by the State.

    Curiously, studies reveal that liberals tend to give much less than republicans, be it to charity, blood donations, community service, etc. This finding is very consistent with the Left’s implicit assumption that unless the nanny State steps in, no one will freely help anyone else. Maybe leftists themselves wouldn’t, so they extend that generalization to everyone else.

    5. You never used the phrase “capitalist every-man-for-himself pig.” I did, obviously satirically stepping up your ‘anti-corporatocracy’ liberal rhetoric. Perhaps it’s something you wouldn’t have said, but which would have been consistent with the ideology you were espousing. I think Peter Thiel is cool. But I find it impossible to believe that you are as much of a free-enterprise champion (I refuse to use the Marxist label, capitalist) as he is, judging by what you have been writing here.

    You keep mentioning that you make good money, so let me tell you what I found annoying about your tone. Perhaps I’m wrong, but the subtle message I sensed was this sense of self-righteousness, that you justified imposing on the ‘rich’ what to do, because you consider yourself to be one of them. Like you can speak for your kind, or something along these lines, and that was your way to show off your elitist righteousness. Like I said, I could be wrong, but it’s a very wide-spread attitude among people along your ideological lines.

    6. …”except for a more liberal one” means nothing, and when you talk like that, words lose meaning. You have no definition of the word, particuarly when you call George Washington and Thomas Jefferson “liberal” and you certainly aren’t a classical liberal, so it’s double fallacy of equivocation at play. In this post I am going to get definitions straight. For the sake of my purpose, you are here forth defined as a “statist”, meaning you believe it is proper and just for the State to redistribute property for the notion of a “common good”. Your use of the word “liberal” is meaningless.

    Libertarian government is something the US as founded by the framers came very close to. Lincoln was perhaps the first to seriously step on the constitution, but the US remained largely libertarian until the 30s, when after the Great Depression government was given unprecedented powers and the Constitution began to be systematically trashed.

    Hong Kong under British rule was largely libertarian. Britain herself right after Adam Smith was somewhat libertarian at least in its economy.

    Germany after WW2 during the German Miracle was operating under classical liberal principles. Basically every country that has prospered during recent history was more or less libertarian-like governed.

    Ideologically, Libertarianism is for limited government that protects citizens’ NEGATIVE rights: the right to not be killed, not be coerced, not have his liberties violated, or property extorted, etc. It is up to people themselves to do whatever they want to with their lives and their liberties as long as they don’t harm/coerce others in the process. Emphasis is on negative rights. This has worked wherever it has been instituted, and ends up being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The contrast is starking, and enlightening for illustration purposes: East Germany vs West Germany, North Korea vs South Korea, China vs Hong Kong. The more free market the economy, the higher the standard of living, and this is true across the board. The founders were seeking to remove the possibility of an oppressive state in order to ensure the protection of negative rights. If you want to help out the poor, the sick, or the children, you are free and welcome to do so.

    7. I think I already answered all this above. Your notions are all fine and dandy, but they’re loose and abstract. Ultimately, if you read my post on the “Authoritarian Theory of Mind” you would understand my reasons why it’s unacceptable for such principles to be practically implemented in government.

    8. This is mostly a 60s thing, and words are important because in a relatively free society, most people on the margin don’t care about politics and ideologies because their lives are mostly independent. But when they cast their vote or take sides, they can be influenced by distorted rhetoric. If words were not important, the Left would have not taken great care to usurp and pervert them. They can distort the ideas they stand for if used incorrectly. Regan was a great president of recent times and dug the entire country out of the deep stagflationary hole. The poor and the middle class benefited the most. Watch “Commending Heights” for a more balanced account than what you’re probably familiar with.

    9. I don’t want to get into it. I regard it as common knowledge that the founders were not at all liberal as ‘liberals’ understand it today. In an argumentation, the party that is trying to challenge the status-quo position faces the burden of proof, and you’ve presented none, so I will not indulge in the topic.

    10. I suppose bringing up PeekYou was a punk move. With all due respect to Wink, PeekYou was around prior to Wink’s people search, so hardly just another copycat.

    I’m glad you find my writings interesting. I have something coming up about modern Leftists which you might find either interesting or blasphemous, or both. In any case, among the posts currently up, I suggest you give a read to the “Authoritarian Personality” one.


  9. Beach, I find this article very interesting.

    Is that your situation? It would explain your strong yet controversial identification with the middle class. Living in a bubble of elitist wealth can make reality checks very hard. You are trying to associate with the middle class, but you can only do so very second-handedly given your own situation. Prescribing general solutions to everyone and everything in abstract terms becomes oh so tempting, but it can only be done in a reality vacuum. There’s no need to feel guilty for your lifestyle, and justify it by proactively championing the plight of ‘underprivileged’ classes.

    When you have some time at hand, I suggest you watch “Free to Choose” on Google Video. It might give you some fresh perspective.

  10. I can’t keep up… 🙂

    I’m glad I sparked such intensity as well. But I give in.

    I’ll give you the word “liberal” if you want it. I know that you want to associate it with classical liberalism. Okay. You know how difficult that will be. But you can have it. “Liberals” don’t like the word anyway because this new crop of conservatives have made it such a dirty word.

    I’m not a millionaire. In California, I’m middle class, maybe upper middle class. But I’m no millionaire. I relate to middle class values and issues because that’s how I raised.

    I was only bringing up the fact that I have made some money because I believe that even so, it’s still my duty to pay taxes. I don’t like paying taxes, but I believe in many of the things that they can and should provide for our society… I listed those above.

    If corporations can consider themselves “individuals” and are given the same rights as an individual, then they should be taxed as an individual.

    I think it’s great that you’re from Albania. I meant nothing other than that. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m glad for you. You seem to be a talented artist and deep thinker… being from Albania has nothing to do with that, I know, but it’s cool that you that you have that background.

    I concede that you have a sharp economic mind. I dropped out of college to start my own business. A record label. Then I started my own interactive agency… my economic education has been through self teaching and hard knocks. But I’ve learned some things and apply them when I can.

    What’s your connection with PeekYou? Just curious, but you seem to have an interest.

    I’m sorry but Reagan killed the middle class. And the poor were not even a consideration. There are very few people who would disagree with that. If middle class incomes rose during this time, it was because households had to start having two incomes to keep up instead of one.

    Is it a Libertarian view to sell off a country’s assets, run up insane national debt, and build up the military industrial complex?

    This article is a good read… it will probably make you puke, but this is near where my ideology rests for the most part:

    I think I can hear you gag from here 🙂

    I’ll check out that video by the way. I’m all for a fresh perspective.

    I think deep down we all want the same thing… happiness and peace. I’ll quote the Dalai Lama:

    “Every being wants happiness and does not want suffering. If we, as intelligent human beings don’t except this fact, there will be more and more suffering on this planet. If we adopt a self-centered approach to life and constantly try to use others for our own self-interest, we may gain temporary benefits, but in the long run we will not succeed in achieving personal happiness, and world peace will be completely out of the question.”

    Okay that’s all I can muster. Take care Kejda and keep it up. I’d rather have people like you around who care about something and are passionate about their beliefs than those who sit on the sidelines without opinion.

    Take care,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.