Thursday, December 12, 2013

Whenever liberals are in a tight spot, they adopt the scorched-earth policy of argumentation. With no answer, they start demanding that you define words: What do you mean "liberal"? What do you mean "democracy"? What do you mean "patriotism"?

They retreat from argument, burning the English language as they go.

Accustomed to playing the role of Soviet commissar censoring the news when it comes to black violence, the Non-Fox Media are in a panic now that the alternative media can post videos of young black males punching out random strangers.

As a result, liberals are denying the "Knockout Game" exists by refusing to understand the meaning of basic words, such as "game" and "trend."

Knockout Game-debunkers place great significance, for example, on the fact that the assailants have not signed affidavits calling it a "game."

Thus, The New York Times noted that in one recent case of a random stranger being knocked out by young black males, "the attacker insisted the assault was not part of any organized 'game.'"

A 78-year-old woman is punched by a young black male for no reason, and the Times' central point is: "Perp says it's not a 'game.'"

Similarly, in Philadelphia magazine, Stephen Silver said of two recent knockout attacks in Philadelphia that he wasn't counting either one as "confirmed cases of the Knockout Game" on the grounds that the puncher said he "was not participating in the Game."

Until the assailants admit they're playing a game, liberals say the Knockout Game is a "hoax."

Obviously, it doesn't matter what the participants call it. I don't know anyone who calls himself a "pundit," but that doesn't mean people don't go on TV and give their opinions. Every liberal denies he's a liberal, but that doesn't mean "liberals" don't exist. (Would that it were so!)

While we're on the subject, I can't think of a single instance in which someone has admitted to committing a "hate crime," but liberals are always calling things "hate crimes."

The Huffington Post concluded that the Knockout Game was "fabricated" based on one of the most famous victims, James Addlespurger, denying that it was a game. Instead, he calls his knockout an "assault," saying "game" is just a "label."

Hey, you know what else is just a label? The word "assault." "James Addlespurger" is a label. Another expression for "label" is "word" -- meaning, "something liberals try to blow up whenever they're about to be trapped into admitting the truth."

As Sgt. Tom Connellan of Syracuse, N.Y., patiently explained to the Times, it's called a "game" because there is no other motive for these attacks. They're not done for vengeance, robbery, gang initiations or payback. Strangers are being punched out strictly for amusement. Also, there are rules. You get only one punch to knock someone out.

(Incidentally, the reason the Times was quoting a policeman from Syracuse -- in an article questioning the reality of the "Knockout Game" -- is that two recent knockout attacks in that city were fatal.)

We don't need anyone to admit that it's a "game" for it to be so. Doing something for no reason other than having fun is a "game."

What do you mean "fun"? One man's fun is another man's torture!

This is how parents waste half a million dollars on their kids' educations. Instead of learning how to make a point, their kids are learning how to end communication by denying the meaning of words.

Liberals also seem unfamiliar with the word "trend," mocking the idea that the Knockout Game constitutes one.

I guess it depends on what the meaning of "trend" is. ("Trend," "game" and "is" -- three words liberals can't understand when they're lying.)

For this, we again turn to the Old Gray Lady, Trend Spotter. Over the years, the Times has identified "trends" in "eating oysters," "honesty" in home furnishings and pocket-watch tattoos.

In none of these cases was the identification of a trend subjected to the exacting analysis the Times employed to deny that the Knockout Game was a "trend." (Say, was the wanton violence by Democratic Party offshoot the Ku Klux Klan a "trend" or more of a "fad"?)

The Times even helped push the bogus idea in the 1990s that black church burnings were a "trend" -- which turned out to be a complete lie. This led to one of Bill Clinton's more colorful lies, about his "vivid and painful" memories of black church burnings in Arkansas in his youth.

(After a massive investigation involving the state historian, the Arkansas NAACP, the Regular Arkansas Baptist Convention and the Arkansas Black History Advisory Committee, it turned out no black churches had been burned in Arkansas.)

But the Times questions the idea that the knockout assaults are a "trend" -- in an article citing three recent knockout attacks in New York City, as well as "sporadic reports" of knockout attacks in one single neighborhood in Brooklyn.

Nonetheless, the Times triumphantly noted that there have been no knockout attacks in Jersey City -- and only one in Hoboken!

Back in 2012, three prominent people talked about Hula-Hooping, and the Times branded it a "trend." It did so without first checking to see if anyone was Hula-Hooping in Jersey City or Hoboken.

Here are a few words I'm sure liberals do understand: Your days of controlling the news are over.

Well it seem that the very people who passed the healthcare law are not happy with the way the website was implemented and do not trust it for their own staffers. Capitol Hill staffers who used the DC healthcare exchange, known as DC Health Link, have now been told to confirm their enrollments in person instead of relying on the data provided by the website.

An email was sent earlier today warning staffers, “it is essential that you confirm your coverage in DCHL through the Disbursing Office.” The email then continues, “Do not rely on your ‘My Account’ page or other correspondence from DCHL…Please do not assume you are covered unless you have seen the confirmation letter from the Disbursing Office.”

These staffers only have until Monday to sign up for the D.C. healthcare exchange. The portal that they have had to use has experienced several technical issues (SHOCKING) over the past few weeks.

The only reason they have through Monday is because there was an extension granted for those who had problems due to the glitches.

If those who voted for this incompetent legislation can’t even have their staffers sign up without issues, how is it that the rest of us are supposed to have an easy experience? It’s a good thing Sebelius asked for an investigation into her own website today! Ha

In a December 4 speech, President Obama declared income "inequality" to be "the defining challenge of our time."

It is time for me to come clean; to own up to a dark secret I have been hiding most of my life. It is embarrassing to admit it, but I suffer from income inequality.

Yes, there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people who make more money than I do and it has affected my life in ways too numerous to recount.

Starting with my first summer job as a bellhop and kitchen worker at a hotel in Maine when I was 14, I kept records of the amount of money I earned. The ledger records that on a really good day I made as much as $8 in tips. The hotel owner paid me a salary of $20 a week, but included a small room in the basement and all the food I could eat. He made more money than I did.

In the early '60s, as a copyboy at NBC News in Washington, my take-home pay was less than $100 a week. Everyone else, including, I suspect, the janitor, made more than I did.

When I finally got on the air as a broadcast journalist, my NBC check stubs were far less than the withholding on David Brinkley's paycheck. I still bear the scars from this income "inequality."

When I was 37 I made $25,000 a year and took public transportation to and from work. Many others, including most of the people I interviewed, made far more money than I did. Some of them had cars and drivers to squire them around Washington.

Was it "fair" that these people were richer than I was? Absolutely, as long as I had the opportunity through education, risk-taking, experience and hard work to eventually make more.

President Obama and some leaders in the Democratic Party appear to want us to accept a false premise: that if I earn more money than you, I "owe" you some of my money to make things "fair."

This might be true if the amount of money available were fixed, but it is not. The communist philosophy is similar to this way of thinking: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is the slogan popularized by Karl Marx. In other words, mutually-shared poverty with just enough to barely sustain everyone, not an avenue out of poverty with hope as the mode of transportation, hard work as the fuel and success as the destination.

Income "inequality" is a part of the greed-envy-entitlement philosophy promoted by liberals who want to addict more people to government and entice them to vote for the party that is effectively buying their loyalty. And now they want to extend the 99-week limit for unemployment benefits, which has the potential to enable those people who are unwilling to look for a job.

Today, we have a tendency to punish the successful and subsidize the unsuccessful. It used to be the reverse, which motivated more people to become, if not a success, then at least self-sustaining. There was a time when Americans would have been ashamed to take, much less ask for, anything from their fellow citizens. If you were able-bodied, asking for help from the government was regarded by a previous generation as moral weakness.

Today, the attitude promoted by the income "inequality" crowd is one of victimization. Poor people are told they are victims because successful people have stolen from them what is rightfully theirs.

Envy, greed and entitlement are not the things that built America, or sustained her through numerous wars and a Great Depression.

The concern should not be how much others make, but how much you can make if you apply yourself and adopt the values embraced by successful people.

Those who make what I once earned and think they can never earn more are being told a lie.

Realizing this is the first step to improving one's income and one's life.

The Jobs Report Is A Phony 

  / Personal Liberty Digest

Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root (WAR) for Personal Liberty. I am a small-businessman at ground zero. I don’t need Barack Obama, the Fed, economists or the media to tell me how the economy is doing. I live it. And I’m telling you, we’re all being lied to. The economy is not getting better; it’s getting worse.

Back in late 2007 and early 2008, I publicly predicted (numerous times) that we were entering the deepest recession since the 1929 Great Depression. At the exact moment I wrote about this, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was testifying in front of Congress that the economy was fine, we were not in recession, and there was little threat of a serious economic decline. It turned out he was dead wrong about everything. A small-businessman always knows.

In my national bestselling book, The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide, I predicted all of this: the decline of the economy, the death of jobs, the disaster of Obamacare and the murder of the middle class. It’s all happening in front of our very eyes.

Here’s what I know. We have a jobs disaster. The numbers are sobering. Yet the mainstream media is reporting the November jobs report as if “happy days are here again.” Every media headline reports a “fantastic jobs report.” And, establishment D.C. Republicans are so dumb, they accept government manipulated numbers as “fact.”

The truth is it’s all a lie. Obama propaganda. A massive cover-up. A Ponzi scheme aided and abetted by the Obama-adoring, Kool-Aid-drinking mainstream media.

First, are the numbers real? We recently found out in that in the run-up to the 2012 Presidential election, Census Bureau employees purposely reported hundreds of thousands of new jobs that did not exist. They created a false narrative that the economy was improving to fraudulently re-elect Obama. What makes you think that’s not still happening?

Why would you believe the jobs report from the same government that told you: “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it,” “Obamacare will make your insurance rates go down” and, more recently, “The Obamacare website is fixed.” All lies.

Why would you believe anything coming from an Obama Administration so corrupt that it sent the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate a Stage 4 cancer victim within days of his appearance on FOX News criticizing Obamacare.

But let’s assume the 7 percent November unemployment number the national media has made its headline is accurate. Why isn’t the media also reporting the government’s own U6 figure of 13.2 percent? U6 measures unemployment combined with underemployment, a statistic that every expert agrees is the more accurate picture of true unemployment. If a Republican were President, the 13.2 percent figure would be trumpeted in every headline.

But this is only the start of the Ponzi scheme. Assuming that more than 200,000 new jobs were created in November, why don’t the media report on what kinds of jobs are being created? Are these jobs that pay enough to live a middle-class lifestyle and feed your family, or crummy part-time jobs that don’t even allow employees to eat without receiving food stamps? The answer, of course, is the latter.

Once analyzed in detail, November’s jobs numbers will undoubtedly be exactly the same as the rest of 2013. Respected economist and author John Lott reported recently that 96 percent of the jobs created in this Obama economy since January are crummy part-time jobs.

Respected billionaire businessman and publisher Mort Zuckerman disagrees. He says 88 percent of the jobs created this year under Obama are crummy part-time jobs.

No matter which figure you believe, the Obama “recovery” is a mirage. This economy is doing well only if you want a job at McDonalds.

Even worse for taxpayers, of the jobs government claims to have created, almost half are government jobs.

White House: Iranian ballistic missile test not a deal killer

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


What would be a deal killer? A nuclear missile landing in downtown Tel Aviv? Or is that the point of the agreement in the first place, at least as far as the Iranians are concerned? "White House: Iranian Ballistic Missile Test Not a Deal Killer," by Adam Kredo for the Washington Free Beacon, December 11:
The White House says that an Iranian ballistic missile test would not invalidate a recently signed nuclear accord meant to temporarily halt some of Iran’s most controversial nuclear work. 
The White House clarified its stance just days before Iran is scheduled to launch another ballistic missile some 75 miles into the atmosphere.
The statement contradicts recent remarks indicating that such a test would in fact violate and nullify the weeks-old agreement, which provides Iran with some $7 billion in relief from economic sanctions in exchange for a partial six-month freeze of its uranium enrichment program.
A White House National Security Council (NSC) spokeswoman told PolitiFact on Friday that an Iranian missiles test in the next six months would in fact “be in violation of the agreement” and that “the agreement would cease to exist.”
Asked on Wednesday morning to clarify that statement in light of Iran’s intent to launch a rocket next week, a White House official said that PolitiFact got it wrong.
“That statement on ballistic missiles is incorrect,” the official told the Washington Free Beacon via email. “We have reached out to PolitiFact to correct.”...

A Democratic budget dressed in RINO red
By: Diane Sori

“In divided government, you don’t always get what you want,” said Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee and co-author of the new bi-partisan budget deal.

Reaching a deal a month before the January 15th deadline when existing funding to operate many federal programs runs out, the Paul Ryan/Patty Murray bi-partisan $85 billion budget accord in a word ‘stinks.'  And it ‘stinks’ big time for this deal removes spending constraints and cuts which when announced brought a smile to Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s face as he urged Congress to hurry up and pass it…and that in and of itself should tell you just how bad this deal really is.

And while I believe Paul Ryan, in his heart, did NOT want Republicans to be blamed for yet another messy government shutdown as we head into the 2014 mid-term elections, this deal was still a sell-out…sort of the budget equivalent of the deal we just gave Iran as Ryan…channeling his inner John Kerry…willfully put aside our conservative fiscal core beliefs getting ‘We the People’ nothing in return except avoiding the looming January 15th government shutdown that actually should NOT be avoided but welcomed...for this Obama government simply does NOT work
And as expected, this deal was heralded by House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor. But it still rightly faces a challenge from true Conservative Republicans and TEA Party supporters in the House, and if it’s to be passed it does need support from the Democratic House minority.

“It makes sure that we don’t lurch from crisis to crisis,”
according to Ryan, but once again the devil of the crisis is in the details for this deal actually allows federal agencies discretionary spending increases for fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 to a tune of $63 billion over that two year period with NO entitlement savings…as in NO cuts to the freebie and handouts for the ‘sponges’ who are the so catered to future Democratic voters…and affords provisions within this proposal for that very raising or initiating of fees…in other words ‘political speak’ for raising taxes.

Claiming any of those spending increases would be offset by spending reductions…reductions including a $6 billion cut to military pensions thus screwing our military yet again…and increasing ‘fees’ (translation: taxes) elsewhere in the budget amounting to a tune of about $85 billion over a decade…that equates to NOTHING but a joke that hopes to dull the pain of the automatic still in-effect ‘sequester’ spending cuts. So all this mumbo-jumbo simply means is that a miserly cut of roughly $20 billion in the nation’s $17 trillion debt would actually be made…chump change in the scope of things.

The only good thing I can see in this entire deal…and even that is NOT all it seems…is that federal government workers would be required to make larger contributions to their own pensions. But in doing that an increase in the form of a federal security 'fee' in tax...will now be put in place that adds $5 to the cost of all round trip flights…translating into if you dare stick it to the government they will stick it right back to ‘We the People'...and as expected they’ll stick it by hitting us in the pocketbook…yet again.

And here’s a little bit of added happiness that hovers over the passing of this proposal…since this proposal as written does NOT include an extension of benefits for workers unemployed longer than 26 weeks…and I mean the truly unemployed who are out there looking for work NOT the ‘sponges’ …this means that up to 1.3 million more people possibly will be added to the existing 91.5 million people who have already dropped out of the labor force with yet another 800,000 more projected to become unemployed over the next few months.

So knowing all this I sure hope every single word of the Paul Ryan/Patty Murray budget proposal is read BEFORE it’s passed or it will come back to bite for much of its proposed savings actually would come near the end of its 10-year projections as just $11 billion would accrue in the first three years, an amount that will be far overshadowed by the $63 billion in new spending allowed this year and next.

Thankfully, a few Republican Senators took Economics 101 in school, paid attention, and actually understood its principals. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is one of them for as soon as the deal was announced he denounced said deal by saying, “This budget continues Washington’s irresponsible budgeting decisions by spending more money than the government takes in and placing additional financial burdens on everyday Americans.”

And so a vote on this proposal could be called in the Republican controlled House by tomorrow, and if passed the Democratic controlled Senate could vote on it late tomorrow afternoon or early next week. But is its passing a given...NO one knows for sure as some Democrats have now voiced opposition to any and all deals that dare to touch in any way federal government workers’ pension funds (including the afore mentioned having workers pay more into said pensions) without asking for even more sacrifices from wealthier Americans.

And back we go to 'redistribution of wealth'...sigh...