Liberal War on Women

Why do liberals see everyone as victims? Could it be that this approach increases the number of people who need "protecting", thus those who are dependent on Big Brother for that "protection"? It has also turned out to be an effective way of deflecting any criticism of the actions and positions of those on the left.

This past week Republicans began to back off their critique of Susan Rice's refusal to speak truthfully in the weeks following the despicable terrorist strike on our consulate in Benghazi, having been accused of being racist and/or sexist for questioning Ms. Rice's testimony to Congress about the attack. As a woman, I am deeply offended that liberals think Rice (and, by extension, all women) is too fragile to withstand criticism as she executes her role as US ambassador to the UN and Obama administration and foreign affairs spokesperson. Susan Rice is an accomplished woman who has held a variety of national security and foreign policy roles in the US government; she is not some tittering sorority girl requiring protection from big bad bullies questioning her judgement.

I do not believe Rice sees herself as a victim; however, this tactic has been used increasingly by those on the Left as a way to deflect attention away from actual policy matters. Liberals will scream from the rooftops when the stated positions or job performance of anyone of color and/or women are questioned. If you voted for Romney over Obama you're a racist. If Congress questions why Susan Rice presented an inaccurate briefing, clearly intending to deflect acknowledgement of acts of terrorism before the election, then they are both racist and sexist. Far from acknowledging that she was set out as a sacrificial lamb and put in that position then hung out to dry by the administration, they decry the questions as sexist. Maybe Nancy Pelosi isn't woman enough to take criticism, but the rest of women in America certainly are.

Unfortunately, this tactic is working. Over the weekend on the Sunday morning news shows, John McCain was definitely reacting to the Democratic name-calling when he clearly tempered his comments on Rice's potential nomination for Secretary of State. If Republicans are going to give into this nonsense and back off, then off course it validates the Left's position and strengthens this line of attack. Republicans need to man up and refudiate these claims for the outrageous and spurious accusations they are, and condemn Demorats for the scurrilous vagabonds they are.

View the original article here

Liberal Myths: Holiday Edition

How many liberal myths can a mainstream news announcer cram into one innocent, 90-second, top-of-the-hour news briefing? On a major news radio station's New York affiliate one recent December evening, I counted eight.

First the news reader (as they more appropriately call them in Japan) cheerfully announced that seasonal hiring-inventory control agents, sales clerks, deliverymen-was way up this year compared to last year; that increased holiday spending was a sign the economy was improving; and that goods being purchased in the U.S. are unfortunately being made more often overseas.

There's three myths right there: (1) elevated part-time hiring reflects economic health; (2) consumer spending drives growth; and (3) trade imbalances are harmful.

(1) That retailers are hiring more temporary help isn't a sign the economy is thriving; it's a sign there are more underemployed workers taking part-time work below their skill level. If permanent, full-time employment were stable, we wouldn't see such a leap in short-term hiring during peak economic season. Increased part-time hiring also reflects employers' reluctance to take on "full-time," 30-hour-a-week employees whom they must soon provide health insurance per Obamacare.

(2) Consumer spending does not drive economic growth; investment and production do. There's nothing to consume if manufacturers don't have the capital and the optimism that investing in productive enterprise will be worth it. And manufacturers don't think production will be worth it if they're saddled with confiscatory tax rates, burdensome regulations, and long-term uncertainty. Consumer spending is the last step in the economic chain of production, not the first.

(3) Trade imbalances reflect the fact that some countries have more stable economies and reliable currencies than others, the latter of whom must depend more on tangible production efforts to demonstrate they have something of value to trade. Trade imbalances also signal advanced nations' capacity to provide high-tech, intangible services and sophisticated knowledge transfer that aren't as concrete or visible as shiploads of dry goods.

After this trio of misstatements, the announcer chirped that gas prices were lower than they'd been in months-a boon for the economy-but higher than this time last year, which could reflect rising wages.

There's two more myths: (4) seasonal fluctuations in gas prices reflect economic growth; and (5) high gas prices reflect improving wages.

(4) Gas prices are always higher in the summer; this is a reliable, cyclical variation, and gas prices declining from June to December say nothing about comparative economic performance at the end of the year.

(5) Our current high gas prices are less likely a reflection of increasing income-which we know is at historically low levels-and more likely the result of instability in the Middle East (due to our President's weak foreign policy), forecast scarcity of oil (due to drilling restrictions), and looming inflation (due to the Federal Reserve's currency devaluation).

After a commercial break, the reporter referenced the recent renewal of the Kyoto Protocol and uncritically repeated the news that (6) scientists are alarmed because 2012 is on track to be one of the hottest years on record.

(6) The Met Office in Great Britain recently released a report showing global temperature the same in 2012 as it was in 1996. The period over which no global warming has been taking place (1996-2012) is thus the same length as the period over which it was supposedly taking place (1980-1996). But never mind: news outlets such as The New York Times inveigle us to " Bundle Up: It's Global Warming."

The announcer then mentioned Obama's recent trip to Michigan to grandstand on the end-of-the-year fiscal showdown, and parroted his claim that (7) spending cuts must be balanced with tax increases to balance our budget. The announcer concluded that (8) the Dow Jones Industrial Average was up slightly due to optimism over progress in the fiscal cliff talks.

(7) Revenue increases are not the same as tax increases. One means more money going to the government; the other means a higher percentage of people's income being taken from them. Paradoxically, lowering marginal tax rates on high-income earners increases revenue, because then they don't scale back their investment and hiring to avoid being gouged. Cutting taxes increased revenue under JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. Yet liberals forever believe Republicans want the government to run with no revenue.

(8) No one can say on any given day why the Dow is up or down, and analysts frequently project their prejudices onto such causal pronouncements. It's equally possible that the DJI is up because investors believe little progress is being made as the end of the year approaches, automatic budget cuts are going to kick in, and we're finally going to start reining in spending.

At this rate, the mainstream media will soon be reporting flying reindeer sightings.

(For more howlers, see Liberal Myths: Tax Day Edition!)

Previously published in modified form at Red Alert Politics

View the original article here

Mitt Romney Can't Catch a Break From the Liberal Socialist Op-Ed Writers of the NYTs

It is interesting how attacking the liberal socialist media gets during election season, it's as if they think this is their time to shine, their time to prove self-worth, and validate themselves to their left-leaning readership audience. It's just too darn bad with all that word-smithing style and grace, and tricky little sentences that they actually reveal to those in the know exactly how little they understand. Okay so, let's talk shall we?

The New York Times had an interesting Op-Ed on September 20, 2012 titled; "It Takes One to Know One," by Nicholas D. Kristof which was in response to Mitt Romney's comment about how 47% of those on the government dole who voted for Obama were not going to switch political sides and vote for him in the 2012 elections as long as they think President Obama will keep that money flowing to them. Mitt was right. Mr. Kristof stated however in his Op-Ed piece;

"As I watched a video of Mitt Romney scolding moochers suffering from a culture of dependency, I thought of American soldiers I've met in Afghanistan and Iraq. They don't pay federal income tax while they're in combat zones, and they rely on government benefits when they come back."

Well, that's all well and good that it "reminded" him of soldiers, but that has nothing to do with what Mitt Romney was talking about, so whereas, Kristof may have an abundance of imagination and massive amounts of white matter connecting his brain to various experiences and thoughts, he has completely voided his argument by that first sentence, and led the reader astray.

More so, because President Obama was supposed to bring all those soldiers back as soon as he took office, that's what he promised, one could actually make a similar charge with the Commander in Chief and actually me more correct. I hope the American People and the Obama Voters in 2008 remember that - or has the economic stress of American citizens blocked their short term memory - that happens and we know that to be a neurological fact.

Still, why is it that the Op-Ed writers in the New York Times take a topic and twist and contort it into something it isn't? Well, it's because they feel it there job to trash any Republican candidate at the earliest possible convenience, hoping that they can change what happened into some sort of "gotcha" politics of perceived and created reality.

Indeed, there has been one after another hit pieces, op-eds, in the New York Times over this issue, and not one is able to discuss the issue without taking what Mitt Romney said out of context and merging their version of what they wish he had said so they could attack him into their own little mismatched court of public opinion misdirection hit pieces. That's why.

Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.

View the original article here