Hobby Lobby legalese newspeak jibbery joo

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding…” —Thomas Jefferson (edit)

What Thomas Jefferson is telling us in this one line is that all laws must be written so the layman can understand them.

As with the Supreme Court decision on Hobby Lobby a whole diatribe about birth control mandate not being enforceable over businesses with religious views and blah, blah, blah.

At the end of the day, so-called judges used their foreign language of legalese to rule: covering employees benefits that may violate the employers religious views are okay, but the illegal law that authorized this all in the first place is still okay.

Because it calls itself a tax, it institutes an entire governmental arm and authority.

And thus the corrupt succeed in undermining the common man. It’s not just law. How about in the political response from the White House:

“President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them.”

Politicians understand what was just said, but that’s not the same thing the common man heard.

Politicians heard, “We’re working towards getting women the coverage they need!”; to those of the democratic ideology, and political insider that makes sense.

Those more libertarian minded and the common man heard, “She should make these decisions herself, so much so a government board will be involved in review of these decisions between her doctor and herself. So she can make her own decisions as long as they’re authorized first.”

Economics, sciences, engineering, computer technologies, and so on all use field of industry languages that they understand, and have policies not use them with customers, accept politics and law.

Field or industry terminology only applies inside the mechanics of that field. When it applies to consumers or citizens uses and interactions common language is the only acceptable form of communication. Acceptance of any other form of language being used as the authority in society is susceptible to falling quickly to elitism and become the claimed open, or even shadow, system over everything.

In other words, using field, industry, or even internal group speak for running society leads to small groups being able to shift terms in governing or public authority to what they want them to be and what only they understand, and even get rid of terms and words all together.

“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.”


“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thought-crime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?”

– George Orwell

It’s imperative we speak in one terminology, not in a narrow lexicon, but without consistency in the usage of terms manipulation of law is just child’s play.


Chad Ginsburg is a champion of self-governance, the rights of the Individual, and a return to minimal government. A Jeffersonian Republican, Ginsburg integrates his knowledge of liberty and understanding of the foundation, reasoning, and documents of the American Republic as a voice of rebellion against centralized authority. He has been published on American Thinker and other news sources, and was a political talk show host on AM740 KVOR. Building on his background in broadcast radio and experience as a Quality Control Analyst, he aims to guide the lost and disenfranchised to the truths of our nation’s founding and to help all revolt against the trappings of collectivism and tyranny. Ginsburg hosts his weekly political radio blog, Ginsburg, at Blog Talk Radio and grinds axes in the Twittersphere on a daily basis.

  1. I’ve been digging through my books and hitting the internet hard, but I can’t seem to find a source for the Jefferson quote. When did he say it or write it? I’m just trying to make sure the interpretation of the quote is correct, because it could also be read to mean “Laws are made to protect common men, without any reference at all to whether or not common men can read those laws.”

    1. Thus the law cannot undermine the common man’s intellect, nor integrity. Which leaves this a liberty notion limiting authority to few powers over the common man. Which is the point of the total quote and Jefferson’s professional view on law and it’s use.

      “Laws are made to protect common men” maybe the quote I was thinking of and that first line is still key and the statement the same. Laws wrote or made for common men, and so they cannot interfere with the common man and his interactions. He is superior to them. So if he can have no understanding of the law then it can have no authority over him. I’ll make that edit though. Thanks much!

      1. Unfortunately, my first question was never answered: Where is the quote from? Even the reply you posted mentions “the total quote,” which leads me to believe the one brief line (“Laws are made to protect common men”) comes from some larger statement–and I just want to make sure the quote is being used and understood correctly. Before I use the line to prove a point I want to make sure I cite my sources.

        And I just want to make sure something attributed to Jefferson actually did come from Jefferson. But I have not been able to find the line in any of Jefferson’s papers, and even the Internet has not been able to help me find the source quote. If you do know where “the total quote” can be found, please tell me. I’d like to know. Any insight or information you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

        1. I apologize, I was rushing at the time and did not give your response
          proper consideration. I thought I remembered the quote correctly off
          hand however the proper quote is “Laws are made for men of ordinary
          understanding…” – Jefferson To Justice William Johnson 1823