abundance: Tea Partier argument that the “free ” market always knows right and should be left unregulated because it is the goose that lays the golden eggs.  This argument is especially used in complaining against any antitrust rulings, most currently in the context of net neutrality debates and the collapse of the Comcast-Time Warner merger. In the latter case, “abundance” is deemed the opposite of “scarcity,” as if it’s always an either-or choice, similar to the argument that you can only have one dominant economic policy principle: either growth or redistribution. False dichotomies are rhetorical cornerstones.

the American Value Set: entirely congruent with the Tea Partiers’ values and positions.

Bill of Rights: part of the “Constitution worship” of the Tea Party, at least when it suits their policies. The fact that the Bill of Rights emphasizes processes and procedures rather than morals or principles is crucial to their ideology because it serves as a way to filter out considerations of justice, sympathy, common sense, empathy, charity, or public service.

conscience: the ultimate Tea Party  trump card, at least when it comes to such “friendly” issues as abortion, school prayer or denial of gay rights. Conscience is one of those “trump card” absolutes, like “honor,” “service,” or patriotism.

cowardice: any left-wing policy or position, since the Left (aka, “the social justice jihadis”, or the “rainbow-colored mob”) is fatally plagued and cowed  by political correctness. Lefties are afraid to face the truth.

the game: any Dem attempt to overturn Citizens United, as if Citizens United was itself not part of an elaborate “game” to end-run campaign finance regulation. (see “issue speech,” below)

hard left: any Dem policy advocating environmental regulation, increased minimum wage, paid medical leave/Obamacare, taxes on capital gains, social safety net protection, closing corporate tax loopholes, or regulation of the financial sector. It’s the “hard left” that is fighting the “class war” against “real Americans.” Supporting any “hard left” doctrine is considered an act of “cowardice”, or an act of “goodthink”.

hard truths: whatever the Tea Partiers believe . Dem policies and beliefs, on the other hand, are “soft” and “calculated”, and bear no relation to “truth,” which the Tea Partiers think they have cornered the market on.

hysterical public assaults: any Dem criticism of Tea Partier policies or positions, especially in controversies over religious liberty, reproductive and women’srights, and race bias.

issue speech: political advocacy; somehow to be kept separate from campaign finance regulation. This doctrine relies on the deceptively naive view that “speaking” about “issues” is an innocent activity, in no way “coordinated” a political campaign.

leftist sexual orthodoxy: reproductive rights, birth control, marriage equality, sex outside of marriage: you know, anything south of abstinence.

liberal dogooderie: any act of charity, welfare, social justice or human rights.

politicized: any Dem policy or regulatory action. When Tea Partiers are in power, they call it “common sense” or unobtrusive government. Another rhetorical term of art assuming a false innocence of “as if”: as if the Tea Party never decides on public policy (or, indeed, judicial decisions) based on political calculations and beliefs; as if the “free” market isn’t propped up by tax breaks, subsidies and, favorable laws protecting investments and squeezing out lawsuits, competition, and liability; as if so-called “religious liberty” doesn’t infringe on the liberties of other people, or as if all government policy is unbiased, objective, and non=political.

the rule of law: what the Tea Partiers say Obama and Holder are in “utter contempt” of. As in the case of the Bill of Rights or Constitution, the Tea Partiers assume they have full custody rights over what constitutes “the rule of law,” as if they owned gravity. The only “rule of law”in politics is the rule that you use the law anyway you can to prevail.

social justice jihadi: a mocking term for anyone harboring concepts of justice, equality, peace, or sustainability. The Dems are the real terrorists, out to “take America down,” as Dick Cheney recently explained.

viewpoint-neutral legislation: euphemism for “religious liberty” laws under a different guise. This innocuous-sounding, unobjectionable label serves to mask any moral or ethical dimension lurking beneath the creation of state or local laws; in ostensibly seeming to protect free speech, it will actually serve to deny it to minorities by removing all moral opprobrium from discrimination  due to its supposed “neutrality”.