Iran’s Ahmadinejad Imitating American Liberals

MSNBC: Iran questions U.S. version of Sept. 11 attacks — Ahmadinejad says WTC tragedy is ’suspicious event’ used as excuse for war

Creator of Harry Potter Begins Again

CBC: J.K. Rowling writing crime novel, says report

More Double Standards from Liberals: Tough Questions Are Only for Republicans!

The story below is the predictable reaction from critics and liberals when the moderators of the recent Dem debate, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, dared to ask some tough questions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Apparently tough questions are only for Republicans.

So what kinds of “tough” questions were asked?

[T]he first three issues raised concerned comments made by Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright; comments that Obama made about the draw of guns and religion to some rural Americans; and Clinton’s false claim that she had been under sniper fire in Bosnia while first lady.

Obama was asked about why he hasn’t worn an American flag pin on his lapel, and his relationship with a former member of the Weather Underground.

All of these issues were raised before Iraq and the economy came up.

All relevant, recent and newsworthy issues, no? Of course they are.

As for Jeremiah Wright and the Weathermen, is it not relevant to inquire about Obama’s associations? Is it not relevant to ask why a man who is running for President of the United States has difficulty publicly wearing the American flag on his suit jacket?

Is it not relevant for Mrs. Clinton to explain how she honestly believed she was being attacked by bullets when no such attack occurred? Isn’t her honesty, assuming that she has been able to retain such a trait, a relevant issue?

Oh not to Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News! Based on Bunch’s reaction, he sounded like he had to be taken to the nearest emergency room.

Will Bunch, a Philadelphia Daily News writer, posted an open letter to Gibson and Stephanopoulos on his blog. He wrote that he was so angry that “it’s hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking.” He said the ABC newsmen spent too much time on trivial matters that didn’t concern most voters.

“By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself,” Bunch wrote.

Shales also criticized the early line of questioning, and said ABC’s coverage appeared slanted against Obama. He mocked Gibson’s closing thank you to the candidates for a fascinating debate.

“He’s entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer,” Shales wrote.

Normally liberals reserve such bile for Rush Limbaugh.

Someone tell me how Will Bunch’s juvenile whining is any different than a screaming three year old at a grocery store whose mother refused to buy him his 500th toy?

The Bunchster was not alone:

Greg Mitchell of the trade publication Editor and Publisher said it was “perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate this year.”

Yes, embarrassing it was. For Obama and Clinton.

The comments on ABC News’ Web site were angry, sometimes profane and occasionally funny. “Why not have Paris Hilton moderate next time?” one poster wrote. One man repeated the word “bad” 48 times. A sampling found opinion was running against the network about 8-to-1.

They must get their way at all times, these liberals. Truth, fact, logic and relevancy are, well, irrelevant. And if you dare deviate one iota from the Democrat Blueprint, then you must be shallow or stupid; you must be Paris Hilton. So convinced they are of themselves and their opinions, so lacking in maturity are they, the act of asking relevant and recent and newsworthy questions of two people who want to be President of the United State of America is nearly a crime against humanity.

Jimmy Carter Meets With Terrorists

Liberals believe that if you’re human, you’re reasonable and can be reasoned with. Doesn’t matter if you’re involved with, say, a major terrorist organization.

NRO: Carter’s Confusion — Why would a former president visit with a terrorist master? By Clifford D. May

Those who attempt to appease tyrants are generally suspected of cowardice. More often, I suspect, lack of imagination is the cause. When Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler in Munich, he no doubt believed he could reason with him because he also no doubt believed that the Führer — whatever his grievances or ambitions — was a reasonable man like himself. Offer Hitler a good deal — land, power, prestige — and surely he’d take it rather than plunge his nation into a terrible war.

What this leaves out is ideology. Hitler’s ideas — odious as they may now seem to you, me, and Carter (though certainly not to Meshaal) — inspired millions to fight and die for the glory of the Third Reich. And Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist ideology inspired millions to fight and die for the illusion of a Communist utopia.

Barack Obama’s Connection to Terrorist

Obama’s 20 year connection to the “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright is already known. But does Obama’s radical connection run deeper than a racist pastor?

Politico: Obama once visited ’60s radicals By BEN SMITH

While [William] Ayers and [Bernadine] Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.

Now, as Obama runs for president, what two guests recall as an unremarkable gathering on the road to a minor elected office stands as a symbol of how swiftly he has risen from a man in the Hyde Park left to one closing in fast on the Democratic nomination for president.

“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”

Obama and Palmer “were both there,” he said.

Obama’s connections to Ayers and Dorhn have been noted in some fleeting news coverage in the past. But the visit by Obama to their home — part of a campaign courtship — reflects more extensive interaction than has been previously reported.

Neither Ayers nor the Obama campaign would describe the relationship between the two men. Dr. Young described Obama and Ayers as “friends,” but there’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation.

To give you an idea of how little Ayers has changed, he was interviewed by the New York Times years ago when he stated, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” (Translation: I wish we killed more people, but I don’t have the courage to say so.)

That interview was published on Sept. 11, 2001.

Former radical activist Bernardine Dohrn and her companion William Ayers leave court in Chicago on Jan. 14, 1981. Dohrn received a $1,500 fine and three years probation for her role in the ‘Days of Rage’ disturbance in Chicago in 1969. Photo: AP

Washington Post: Obama’s ‘Weatherman’ Connection

While Obama will claim that he was merely 8 years old when Ayers set off bombs, Obama has remained connected to Ayers.

Interesting to note: Despite their involvement with a terrorist organization and bombings, the University of Illinois at Chicago found lunatic and unrepentant William Ayers to be worthy of joining their faculty. As for his lunatic and unrepentant wife, Bernie Dohrn, Northwestern University School of Law hired her.

Ayers and Dohrn should be in a prison cell for the rest of their natural lives. Instead, they are accepted by prestigious academic programs not only as students but as professors.

If this doesn’t tell you all you need to know about the moral decay of the spineless souls who run academia in America…

Liberal Media Bias Galore

Some of the usual suspects in blatant liberal media bias were at it again recently: Karie Couric, Chris Matthews, Cokie Roberts, and Keith Olber_”mann”.

Why Manufacturing Jobs Are Lost

Townhall: Foreign Trade Angst By Walter E. Williams

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 1996 and 2006, about 15 million jobs were lost and 17 million created each year. That’s an annual net creation of 2 million jobs. Roughly 3 percent of the jobs lost were a result of foreign competition. Most were lost because of technology, domestic competition and changes in consumer tastes.

Some of the gain in jobs is a result of “insourcing”. Foreign companies, such as Nissan, Honda, Nokia, and Novartis, set up plants, hire American workers and pay them wages higher than the national average. According to Dartmouth College professor Matthew Slaughter, “insourced” jobs paid a salary 32 percent higher than the average U.S. salary. So here’s my question to anti-traders: If “outsourcing” is harmful to the U.S., it must also be harmful to European countries and Japan; would you advise them to take their jobs back home?

Wal-Mart has become the whipping boy for political demagogues, unions and anti-traders. I suggest that they have the wrong target. The correct target is revealed by answering the question: “Why does Wal-Mart exist and prosper?” Wal-Mart exists and prospers because tens of millions of Americans find Wal-Mart to be a suitable source of goods and services. Clinton, Obama, unions and anti-traders should direct their outrage and condemnation at the tens of millions of Americans who shop at Wal-Mart and keep it in business.

There’s great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it’s mainly a result of technological innovation, and it’s a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in “The Outsourcing Bogeyman” (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world’s manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).

But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?

[Emphasis added]

SNOBama

It was a matter of time before Obama’s recent comments inspired a t-shirt.