Liberal media personnel who “bend” the truth have not been faring well this month. Have you noticed?

First, we learned that Air America has finally been taken off life support. The leftwing talk radio network started programming on March 31, 2004 but failed to operate profitably. Mounting debts resulted in filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on October 13, 2006, with original capital lost. Brothers Stephen and Mark Green bought the outfit for $4.25 million on March 6, 2007 but in less than three years their investment is also kaput. Live programming ended on January 21 last month and all remaining operations ceased on January 25. We need not feel too sorry for the first and second rounds of owners — liberals do not believe in profit and capitalism anyway, or so their politics would lead us to believe.

Keith Olbermann is not doing well either, and many predict that he will soon be departing the scene. It won’t be his first failure. A sportscaster for the first twenty years of his journalistic career, he left ESPN amid controversy in 1997. He then became a sports anchor for Fox Sports, but was canned by Rupert Murdoch himself in 2001. Next he lost his job covering the 2008 election for MSNBC after maligning a tribute to the victims of the 9/11 terror attack. This week the buzz is all about the possible end of his cable TV hour-long show Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

Daily Finance — Is America Getting Over Keith Olbermann?

In the important demographic of adults 25 to 54 — the group advertisers are looking to reach — Countdown was down 44% year-over-year in January. It averaged 268,000 viewers in that demo, only 3,000 more than Nancy Grace’s show on HLN, and 12,000 more than CNN’s Campbell Brown. Fox News’s O’Reilly Factor dominated the hour with 964,000 viewers age 25 to 54, and was the only cable news show in the time period to increase its audience, by 55%.

Los Angeles Times — Countdown begins for end of Keith Olbermann’s ‘Countdown’??

Remember Keith Olbermann? He was the one-time must-see anti-Bush ranter who helped rescue MSNBC (yes, it’s still on at night) from even worse oblivion years ago. Well, quietly last month while no one was looking, hardly anyone was watching Keith Olbermann anymore….

NPR Blog — ‘Countdown With Keith Olbermann’: Could The End Be Near??

…one of the memes of the day seems to be that Countdown with Keith Olbermann isn’t doing so well ratings-wise and might soon be history.

KO has made his way by being an unprincipled, irrational and untruthful attack dog. Those who live by the sword die by the sword.

And then there is Katie Couric, who tried to parlay a cutsie face and short skirts into a serious prime-time news anchor career. She is a newsreader, not a news reporter, and so has been way overpriced at $15 million per year. This past Monday morning, CBS execs made cuts to Katie’s staff and salary, as well as cuts in many other areas, due to declining ad revenues:

Much of Ms. Couric’s staff would not [return]. Dozens of employees—including staff members in D.C., San Francisco, Miami, London, Los Angeles and Moscow—were being let go. The changes were effective immediately. There would be no buyouts. According to one longtime staff member, the network had long ago negotiated away most of the severance clauses in staff members’ contracts….

And Drudge reports:

COURIC FACES PAY CUT; DEEP LAYOFFS HIT CBSNEWS
Wed Feb 03 2010 09:11:21 ET

CBSNEWS anchorwoman and 60 MINUTES contributor Katie Couric faces a dramatic pay cut at the network, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

CBS boss Les Moonves is determined to save money and trim expenses — from top to bottom — at the former crown jewel of broadcasting.

Couric, the highest paid TV news personality in history, commands over $14 million a year, plus bumps for non-EVENING NEWS appearances.

But her salary is now in the direct line of fire, network insiders explain, and a populist backlash against Couric’s cash is said to be forming inside the newsroom.

“She makes enough to pay 200 news reporters $75,000 a year!” demands a veteran producer. “It’s complete insanity.”

The angry source continues: “We report with great enthusiasm how much bankers are making, how it is out of step with reality during a recession. Well, look at Katie!”

She may not last at CBS, according to the New York Post:

With a little more than a year to go on her contract, Katie Couric is dressing up her resumé. The CBS anchor, now 53, is facing a huge pay cut in her unprecedented $15 million-a-year salary. More importantly, her bosses at CBS have not yet said whether they want to keep her — at any price….

No matter, the idea of paying Couric eight figures to anchor a news show that is in last place does not sit well in the upper echelons of CBS News, where her hiring as TV’s first female anchor is seen as a noble but failed experiment….

Here’s what Katie Couric looks like, posing for Harper’s Bazaar:

Here’s what a real news anchor looks like:

The candidacy of Dede Scozzafava has divided the GOP between its Reagan conservatives and the party establishment. 

Leftist progressive Republicans might not raise the eyebrow of your average Snowe-blind Maineiac, but the thought of adding another DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only) statist-minded representative to Washington has GOP conservatives and libertarians apoplectic.

Scozzafava is in a three-way race with Democrat candidate Bill Owens and Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman to fill the seat of departing Republican John McHugh in New York’s 23rd Congressional District.

Scozzafava, who has been lauded by Newt Gingrich, supports abortion, homosexual marriage, Brother O’s stimulus spending, cap-and-trade, and Card Check; and is endorsed by Markos Moulitsas, founder of The Daily Kos; NYSUT (New York State United Teachers), the largest labor union in New York and affiliate of the National Education Association, and ACORN’s (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now’s) Working Families Party.

Hoffman, the Reagan conservative in the race, is supported by former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, former vice chairman of the 2008 Republican National Committee Platform Committee, Ken Blackwell, former Majority leader Dick Armey, Minnesota congresswomen Michele Bachmann, former Republican Senator and Republican presidential candidate, Fred Thompson, founder of the Campaign for Working Families, Gary Bauer; the Wall Street Journal and the conservative Club for Growth in Washington, D.C.

Right now Democrat Bill Owens is leading Hoffman Scozzafava, but Hoffman’s poll numbers have been steadily rising and have surpassed Scozzafava, which means that Scozzafava is now just a spoiler and could keep Republicans from holding  the seat that McHugh routinely won by 2-to-1 margins.

Hoffman is running as the Conservative Party’s candidate because New York’s local GOP establishment entered their “smoke-filled room” and chose Scozzafava behind closed doors, bypassing a primary and the party’s grass-roots voters.

Scozzafava’s leftist politics aren’t the only embarrassment for the Republican Party. She called the police on John McCormack, a Weekly Standard blogger, who questioned her about support for Card Check and then used the propagandist media to smear the journalist.

The call has gone out for Scozzafava to withdraw or be dumped from the race. More than a dozen conservative bloggers and organizations have called for her resignation and for the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC) to withdraw their support and put their resources behind the real Republican in the race.

If Hoffman wins the big one, his campaign will become the template for grassroots conservative campaigns nationwide next year. The special election for New York’s 23rd Congressional District just might be the spark that ignites an internal revolution to regain the soul of the GOP and bring common sense and sanity back to the party of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.

The leftist elite establishment has blinded the people in this nation through its educational institutions, mainstream media outlets, and the entertainment industry to garner power for a repressive society. While Brother O and his Bread and Circuses Administration zealously dismantle the sleeping middle class, Americans have become unwitting accomplices to a growing underclass.

During education’s ongoing paradigm shift to a postmodern pedagogy in the mid-1980s, a fellow graduate student recognized that tenure and promotion in the academic world depended on the ability to “quack like a duck,” i.e., absorb and regurgitate the academy’s leftist world view and withhold personal opinions. In other words, outspoken conservatives are both persona non grata and underemployed in academia.

The duck motif not only extends to “journalists” in the mainstream media, but as Rush Limbaugh recently discovered, it extends to the National Football League (NFL), a league he greatly admires.

“[T]he NFL … is the most politically correct environment I’ve ever seen in my life,” said Dennis Miller on The O’Reilly Factor. “I don’t even know why Limbaugh would want to be in [it] quite frankly.”

Like many outspoken professors and journalists, Limbaugh now suffers from the pangs of outrageous injustice, being denied his dream for criticizing and mocking the nanny notions of the statist-minded elite. Limbaugh will not be afforded the opportunity that he has earned through achievement to work in the profession he loves for no reason other than his outspoken conservative views are abhorred by the leftist elite establishment.

Since it was leaked that Limbaugh was part of a group intending to buy the St. Louis Rams football team, the propagandists in the mainstream media have worked feverishly to malign his reputation, undermine his creditability, and destroy his character. They overturned rocks for race-baiting poverty pimps and scoured the NFL for nitwit jocks or any feckless team owner they could find to denounce Limbaugh as a bigot and racist before the nation.

The attack and subsequent defamation of Limbaugh adds to the list of media assaults on outspoken conservatives in order to prevent the resurgence of Reagan conservatism from entering the mainstream of American politics and undoing the leftist elites’ socialist agenda. The leftist elite establishment fears the resurgence of a conservatism of individualism, not of country clubs and boardrooms. The establishment dreads the Reagan conservatism championed over talk radio and at town hall meetings and tea parties, which respects the law and reflects the values and traditions of the people.

Statists demagogues live in constant terror of individualists who are independent, loosely connected to groups, and don’t know their place. They commission media propagandists, ready at their beckon call, to seek out and destroy them. The statist diktat is not to refute an opponent’s argument, it is to “wipe him from the face of the earth,” Sarah Palin, Clarence Thomas, and Robert Bork are noted recipients of the left’s scorched-earth and personal destruction politics.

The mainstream media have been frantically trying to deflate Sarah Palin’s ascendancy to the leadership of a national conservative movement since her dazzling acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in September 2008. Had she been a Democrat and espoused the statist ideology of Brother O or Hillary Clinton, Palin’s astounding rise from housewife, to mayor, to governor, to vice presidential candidate would have been praised by propagandists, extolled by environmentalists, lionized by leftists, and fawned over by feminists throughout the nation.

People who use common sense and apply the principles of the Constitution obstruct progressive governance, which explains why the media upended Robert Bork’s nomination and tried to stop Clarence Thomas’ confirmation to the Supreme Court. The media permitted and perpetuated the malicious, baseless allegations of the Democrat smear merchants to damage the reputations and destroy the creditability of both men.

Such reprehensible media campaigns, waged to disgrace both men, “did not resemble an argument so much as a lynching.” Bork was depicted as a judicial tyrant, his wife was falsely accused of being a Holocaust denier, and even his movie viewing habits were called into question. Likewise, Thomas was caricatured as a freakish feel-copping porno pervert in order to humiliate him, strip him of his dignity, and dishonor him for life.

The NFL’s management, owners, and players union along with most of the mainstream media and entertainment industry detest and despise Limbaugh as much as they do Palin, Thomas, and Bork. Yet Limbaugh persists in his love for the National Football League regardless of whether the sentiment is mutual.

Like the pedestaled wife of a fawning cuckold, the NFL graciously accepts Limbaugh’s lavish praises, glowing endorsements, and personal expenditures, yet abhors the very thought of embracing him. When the NFL’s leftist elite establishment denied Limbaugh limited ownership in a football franchise, it denied all outspoken conservatives and sent a subtle message to its owners, coaches, and players to suppress conservative opinion and quack like a duck.

The environment is ripe to don the special sunglasses, face the unadorned reality, and see the hideous leftist potentates and mindless moguls for the despicable fascists they truly are. In the grand scheme of things, the significance of the NFL pales in comparison to that of the USA. The country needs a wake up call, and the time has come for Limbaugh to stop chewing bubble gum and phone it in.
 

The Supreme Court has taken up the case of an 8-foot white cross atop Sunrise Rock memorializing U.S. soldiers who fought in the First World War.

After the war, several veterans moved to the Californian desert as a respite for their emotional and physical wounds. In 1934, they erected the white cross memorial to honor their fallen comrades who paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

They chose the memorial site because the sun casts a shadow on Sunrise Rock at a certain time of day that resembles a WWI doughboy.  The memorial stood serene for more than 75 years until the Park Service was asked and refused to build a Buddhist sanctuary nearby. See video below:

That’s when Frank Buono, a retired National Park Service employee and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) board member, got his knickers in a knot and decided the government had violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause by favoring one religion over another.
 
Having firmly affixed his Catholic faith to his sleeve, the PEER zealot smartly marched over to the ACLU (American Communist Lawyer’s Union), and they joined together in a lawsuit to tear down the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial. 

After the U.S. Government acquired the land on which the memorial sits as part of the Mojave Desert Federal Preserve, Congress designated Sunrise Rock a national memorial and barred its dismantling. A year later, Congress voted to trade the acre of land containing the memorial to the veterans, who had maintained it for decades, for five acres.

Even though public military memorials and cemeteries have been adorned for decades with crosses and religious symbols and the one-for-five acre deal satisfied both the government and the veterans, the ire of the Park Service pantywaist and surrogate remained. They declared the deal intolerable, and persisted in filing motions to tear down the memorial and overturn the land transfer.

In 2000, the Southern California ACLU announced the cross would be down within the next few months, but Congress voted not to allocate federal funds to remove it, an action that drew a lawsuit from the ACLU.

In 2002, a federal district court ruled that the memorial violated the “wall of separation” that the Constitution maintains between church and state; consequently, Congress attempted to transfer the land underneath the cross to a local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars by using a clause in the Department of Defense budget, but the district court ruled against it.

In 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s ruling to remove the cross in spite of numerous appeals from the U.S. Justice Department.

As if to commemorate an ACLU victory, a federal judge ordered the cross covered and hidden from view while the case is on appeal. A curious-looking plywood box, resembling a condemned building, now sits atop a desolate rock symbolizing the triumph of one man’s intolerance over the sacrifices of those who inspired the memorial. 

Currently, the Supreme Court’s nine justices are divided on the issue along progressive and conservative lines. Progressive justices view the Constitution as a living, breathing document emanating meanings from ethereal penumbras of the actual text, which often contradict the plain understanding of the words themselves; and conservative justices focus on a strict interpretation of the text of the Constitution based on the originally intended meaning of the text.

When it comes to the Establishment Clause, progressive justices have interpreted the emanations from the clause to mean government hostility toward religion in general and Christianity in particular; whereas conservative justices have interpreted the clause to mean government neutrality toward religion and accommodation for Christianity in particular.

However, the final battle won’t be won until the Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and that could take weeks. It’s also quite possible the high court will ignore the broader question of whether the presence of the cross on a federal preserve establishes a religion, and will address the narrower question of whether Congress was right to transfer the land on which the cross sits to private ownership.

Clearly, the PEER gent and the ACLU know the military’s long history of using a cross as marker for the war dead of all faiths and as a symbol to represent honor, courage, and sacrifice. They have not employed such a Herculean effort for nearly ten years just to tear down an unadorned cross in some remote area of the Mojave Desert; theirs is a sinister purpose, to put an end to the principles of religious liberty as grounded in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.”

Voltaire’s words combined with those of the Preamble to the California Constitution, “We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom,” serve as a sad reminder for the cosmic irony in this a petty, mean-spirited lawsuit.

Now that it’s been discovered that Medicare’s denial rate is roughly 1.7 times that of the top private carriers combined, will the AMA and Brother O’s “cherry picked” medical practitioners continue to sacrifice what’s left of their professional integrity and creditability to promote a government-run health care system that is more likely to deny patient care than administer it?

Supporters of ObamaCare’s public option parrot bromides damning private insurance companies for denying claims and canceling coverage.

“We are held hostage at any given moment by health insurance companies that deny coverage or drop coverage or charge fees that people can’t afford,” Brother O said in August.

Brother O neglected to mention that the worst offender is the oft touted government model, Medicare. The American Medical Association (AMA) and Brother O’s cherry-picked medical professionals endorse the public option because, like Medicare, it would be a better provider for patients when it comes to decision-making autonomy and the ability to get patients the care they need.

Beverly Gossage, Research Fellow for Show-Me Institute and founder of HSA Benefits Consulting, discovered in the AMA’s 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card that Medicare is most likely to reject a claim, denying 6.85 percent or 475,566 claims, which is more than the seven top commercial health insurers and is double their average.

Gossage’s findings mean the AMA, the cherry-picked medical professionals, and the ObamaCare supporters have endorsed a plan “whose closest existing example is the most frequent denier of claims.”

In television ads and news releases, supporters of ObamaCare have shamelessly portrayed insurance companies as insensitive greedy louts with itchy fingers on hair triggers willingly to deny claims for wealth. 

Will the shameless supporters of ObamaCare now portray the government-run insurer Medicare as a cold-blooded bunch of bookkeepers and bureaucrats? The cows will be home long before such a portrayal happens.

Gamaliel is actually a more dangerous group than its corrupt cousin ACORN for it actually embodies the dreaded union of church and state, and, if left unchecked, will emasculate individual liberty in the name of God and sacred community and will sacrifice religious freedom on the advocacy altar of social justice and the greater good.

Brietbart TV has recently unearthed a 2:00 minute video of a Gamaliel International Leadership Assembly “prayer meeting” held December 4, 2008, in Washington, DC, which has created a bit of a stir. 

In the video, people hurriedly enter a room while chanting, “Everybody in! Nobody out!” an apparent reference to universal health care. The group then gathers to offer a scripted prayer for “all of us who face health care without good health care insurance.”

In liturgical fashion, a woman leads a responsive reading, and the group purportedly responds at appropriate intervals “Hear our cry Obama” and “Deliver us Obama.” Whether the respondents clearly say “Obama” or “O God” is open to debate, but what is not debatable are the current and historical ties that Brother O has to the Gamaliel Foundation.

During the 1980s, Chicago served as the intellectual epicenter of Black Nationalism, Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, and Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaigns, and from 1985 to 1989, at the apex of black radical political thought, Brother O worked as a consultant, trainer, and leadership developer for the Chicago-based Gamaliel Foundation, a group of community organizers trained in the political strategies and leftist principles of radical intellectual Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky’s organization was based in Chicago, and it trained a cadre of community organizers for such groups as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and the Gamaliel Foundation in the political strategies outlined in Rules for Radicals. To build left-wing political coalitions within inner city neighborhoods and black churches, Alinsky-style organizing specialized in ideological stealth, deception, and camouflage.

Like ACORN, the Gamaliel Foundation is a politically active organization with Marxist goals and differs only in its narrowly-focused outreach for infiltrating local church communities rather than entire neighborhoods. Once infiltrated, the Gamaliel Foundation hijacks the church leadership to combine a Marxist agenda with a smattering of Christian doctrine and push leftist political issues through methods of intimidation and agitation. Gamaliel organizers quietly share the same anti-American liberation theology brought to the limelight through the guttural discharges of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Gamaliel stands at the center of a well-coordinated, well-funded, and complex campaign to take back the debate and move Obamacare forward. Almost thirty denominations including mainstream Episcopal, Presbyterian USA, and United Methodist churches have joined Gamaliel and the Whitehouse to sell Obamacare through a nationwide TV ad with local clergy and lay leaders supporting reform, prayer rallies and in-district meetings, petition drives, and a call-in Webcast that featured Brother O and diverse faith leaders.

Alinsky created partnerships among faith-based community organizations as a means to seize power to realize his utopian dream of equality, justice, and peace. In Chicago, Brother O learned how to use power at the feet of some of the most radical socialists in America and to advance the Alinsky agenda into the highest levels in government. 

Now that America is in the throes of an Alinsky dream, Americans may wish to examine what the Reverend John C. Welch and Gamaliel acolytes say about the man into whose hands the governance of this nation has been placed: 

“He is Gamaliel.  He is African American.  He is one of us.  He is the 44th President of the United States of America!”

A disarmament crusade is not merely “naïve,” it’s a waste of valuable diplomatic energy, chided French President Nicolas Sarkozy following Brother O’s praise for the United Nations Security Council’s resolution calling for a world without nuclear weapons.

“We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions,” Sarkozy said.

American newspapers saw fit to blackout Sarkozy’s mockery of their president’s “naïveté regarding the realities of nuclear technology.” 

Brother O lauded the agreement as a major step in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and beginning multilateral disarmament:

“We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”

Sarkozy saw fit to address Brother O’s obvious myopia and point out the glaring difference between the forest and the trees:  

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons . . . but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite. Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

[W]hat good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state [Israel] off the map.”

Sarkozy concluded his derisive remarks with a call for sanctions:

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons.”

Although America’s newspapers chose not to inform the American people of the clash between Presidents Obama and Sarkozy, at least they have been spared from listening to another racism/right-wing conspiracy screed from former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Two MSNBC commentators accuse conservative talk hosts of inciting Americans to assassinate political leaders. The media meme suggests that the Tea Party and Town Hall protesters’ placards and rhetoric likening Brother O to Hitler is an implicit or a coded call to incite violence against him.

The anti-government, anti-Brother O sentiment expressed by some of the white protesters has caused two political propagandists to demonstrate their overt hypocrisy. Jolly old Chris “Tingle” Matthews notified TV and talk radio hosts that they would be held accountable for any violence that happens to Brother O.

In Rachel “Mad Mad Mad” Maddow’s world the right-wing media and the corporate-funded anti-reform movement are invoking political assassination by deliberately and systematically using Hitler as a rhetorical weapon against Brother O and the progressive Democrats in Congress. Mad Maddow says she’s afraid that the right-wingers don’t understand the implications of their actions and is even more afraid that they do. 

If MSNBC’s Chris Tingle and the stark raving mad Maddow are really concerned for Brother O’s well being, why didn’t they alert Americans to the dangers of the Nazi slogans, Hitler placards, and vituperative language when members of leftist groups used them to demonize George W. Bush and his administration?

Better yet, how would the two peas account for their anti-Bush rhetoric had a leftist “looneytune” “fruitloop” committed a violent act against Bush? Would political commentators have held them responsible for complicity and for unleashing anti-democratic, anti-American forces in this country?

Paul Williams has pieced together a video montage exposing the blatant hypocrisy of leftists Chris Tingle and mad Maddow. Williams uses the audio portion of a mad Maddow interview, in which she asks Frank Schaeffer whether or not calling Brother O Hitler is an implicit call for politically motivated violence.

Williams overlays the audio portion with video snippets of demonstrations that occurred when George W. Bush was president; the end result is quite revealing.

The hypocrisy of Chris Tingle, mad Maddow, and Frank Schaeffer is rivaled only by Seth Pecksniff, a character Charles Dickens likened to a sign post, “which is always telling the way to a place, and never goes there.”

GOP success in 2010 would end the progressive agenda in America. According to Vice President Joe Biden, if Democrats lose 35 House seats in 2010, it’s doomsday for Brother O’s agenda.

“If they take them back, this is the end of the road for what Barack and I are trying to do,” Biden said at a fundraiser for Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in Greenville, Delaware.

Republicans need 40 additional seats to regain control of the House. Currently Democrats hold 49 seats in districts that Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) won in last year’s presidential election.

Biden gives the Republicans only “one shot” to stop Brother O’s agenda, and if they fail “the dam is going to break” … letting loose “[a]ll the hidden Republicans that don’t have the courage to vote the way they want to vote because of pressure from the party” to merge with the collective stream of Democrats and form a new era of bipartisanship.

Biden reserves the term bipartisanship for those Republicans who are willing to set aside free market principles and ideas of limited government to capitulate to Democrat desires to control people through a centralized government and a planned economy.  Republicans who hold to their principles and oppose statism are condemned as hatemongering, racist obstructionists.

Nonetheless, Biden’s assessment of the 2010 landscape is interesting. He readily admits Brother O’s attempt to increase the power and size of government to control the private sector could mark the end of the progressive agenda. And it could happen, but only if enough people will do what must be done before it’s too late.

Our house is a very, very fine house

Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has issued her latest unspeak rules of decorum for House members. The nanny Chair of the House Rules Committee permits the terms “disgrace” and “nitwit,” used to malign the actions of recent Republican presidents, but makes verboten the use of the terms “liar” or “sexual misconduct” that accurately define the actions of recent Democrat presidents.

Slaughter updates section 370 of the House Rules and Manual to control what Representatives can and cannot say on the floor and in committee regarding improper references to Brother O. The Slaughter House rules decree that Members can:

• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”

Conversely, Members must never:

• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”

The Slaughter House rules graciously permit political criticism on matters of policy, but prohibit offensive criticism of the Democrat President.  Members may say Brother O is unworthy of re-election, but they must never mention personal misconduct, for in doing so is to incite animosity and antagonism among House members and members of other branches of Government.

Aside from being openly subjective and imprecise, the Slaughter House rules are an overreaching attempt to impose political correctness and to strip the people’s representatives of their right to point out the progressive leader’s “terminological inexactitude.” 

Titles can be bestowed, but genuine respect must be earned. To gain Americans’ respect for the man as well as the office, Slaughter and the Democrat ilk must refrain from treating their President like a victim.

Life used to be so hard
Now everything is easy
‘Cause of you