comes for: black helicopter talk for any assertion of federal power, as in the Bundy Ranch brouhaha. They’re a-comin’ for ya!

envy vs. opportunity: one of those stark, apparently inevitable, yet ultimately false, dichotomies at the heart of Tea Party logic, along with “live free or die” and “liberty vs, collectivity”.

failure:  by definition a given, an inevitability when it comes to any Obama policy, especially the ACA. This circular logic is based on the assumption that the policy can’t work, under any circumstances.

grievances: pejorative for any Dem claims to justice, or, really, any Dem criticism of the status quo.

hysterics: any liberal defense of social justice, redistributionism, the social safety net, or opposition to war or invasion.

identity politics: pejorative used to describe any liberal political alliance, cause or faction. On the other hand, when the Tea Party, for example, comes together to oppose, say, taxes, it’s just plain “politics” (a term that in itself can be a pejorative, as in “playing politics” with an issue).

imperiously: the adverb of choice when referring to any Obama administration response or policy announcement.

ingrates: welfare queens, said to be the victims of the poverty Pentagon and race hustlers.

liberal bias: any statement of fact (e.g., overwhelming consensus on climate science) inconvenient to Tea Party dogma.

missing information:  a catch-all loophole word to explain away ant Obama policy success, or to prolong any “scandal”. A kind of perpetual motion machine, because some piece of “information” will always be “missing”.

phalanx: e.g., the liberal “media phalanx” that always supports he Obama administration. Implies an unstoppable, conspiratorial social movement.

the politics of personal destruction: the argument against ANY disclosure of political donations. A kind of shield law for big donors, removing any trace of transparency in the democratic system. Just revealing donors’ names, let alone criticizing them, is now being framed as “personal destruction”. Disclosure as a hate crime!

questions remain : insidious way of undermining any Dem success, by suggesting that “questions remain”. This “questions remain” ploy is in current heavy rotation in relation to Obamacare, which (see “failure,” above), which, despite mounting signs of its success, is always portrayed as an abysmal failure because “questions remain”.  In Benghazi Derangement Syndrome, of course, questions will “remain” unto eternity. (see also, “missing information”).

Snowden’s accomplices: anyone opposed to secret data-gathering on US citizens.

unnecessary: any policy or regulation the Tea Party opposes. Apparently any court decisions, such as Citizens United, they support is “necessary”–another act of purely circular logic. (see above, “failure”)