They are hopeless

Today, the New York Times editorial page extols President Obama for his speech on the Tuscon shootings.
No problem with that. The speech was overlong but said many of the right things. And one expects the Times to laud Obama at every opportunity.
Here's the problem.
The Times failed to acknowledge its own complicity. Its in-house hatemonger Paul Krugman started the whole fracas by jumping in within two hours of the shooting and essentially blaming Republicans, without a shred of evidence.
That was bad enough. But on top of that -- in the midst of an editorial on the liberal theme of "can't we all get along" -- the Times had to launch a personal attack on Sarah Palin!
Having spent some 50 years in the newspaper business, I'd have to say the media response to this tragedy has included some of the worst examples of journalism I've ever seen. The Times editorial shows why it has become a laughingstock and why subscribers are fleeing in droves.

Why liberals are insane

When leading Democrats, including John Kerry, were making jokes, books and movies about assassinating the president of the United States, no one on the left was concerned about inciting violence.
When Sarah Palin published a map using survey symbols to designate Democrats she thought should be defeated, and later a deranged man shot a member of Congress, unhinged Democrats like Paul Krugman were blaming her for the tragedy before the crime scene had been cleared.
They didn't acknowledge that the Democrat National Committee had published an almost identical map.
Nor did they show any concern when Democrats circulated a photo of someone pointing a rifle at Palin's head.
The goofy liberal sheriff in Tuscon -- who chooses which laws he enforces -- rather than conducting a calm impartial investigation, was seeking air time to promulgate his own supposition that conservative were to blame -- while admitting that he had no factual basis for his opinion whatsoever.
Rush Limbaugh was accurate, again. It was disgusting. And some of them are still at it.

Being No. 2

If these economists are right, it means American socialists are getting what they want.
Bringing down this nation is their goal. They know that by eroding individual freedom and eliminating incentives, they can lower growth and productivity.
It worked for the socialists in Britain after World War II, and that is the model.
Britain is being swallowed up in the European union and the ultimate goal of the socialists, communists, fascists and progressives is for British -- and American -- sovereignty to be subsumed by the tyrants and despots at the United Nations.
It is ironic that communist China could replace America as No. 1. That is a result of two things: a larger population and, more importantly, the fact that China has allowed capitalism to take root.
Ronald Reagan called America the last, best hope of mankind. If socialists succeed here, the only hope remaining will be that capitalism will transform China.
A slim hope indeed.

Being used

Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians" are for the most part wretched, Jew-hating deadbeats but they do deserve some pity.
Their fellow Arabs are among the richest nations in the world and have some 15 million square miles of land, most of it vacant, but can't seem to find a way to offer them a home.
This is because they use them as pawns, murdering Israeli men, women and children while other Arabs pursue "peace," by which they mean the elimination of the state of Israel.
About 800,000 Arabs left Israel when it became a state. The same day it became a state other Arab nations attacked it, and lost.
Other Arabs stayed and they and their descendants are citizens of Israel today because the Jews are tolerant and peaceful people.
But Arabs want millions of Arabs who never lived in Israel to "return" to Israel and dominate it demographically.
Only a fool like Jimmy Carter could see this struggle as a dispute between equals.

Good is bad in 2010, not just 1984

Supposed someone proposed a plan that would:
Save taxpayers money.
Help improve the public schools.
Give poor students trapped in the worst schools a chance to get a good education.
You might be in favor, right?
Well, the St. Petersburg Times, voice of the left in Florida, hates it.
Rick Scott, Florida's next governor (against the wishes of the Times) proposes vouchers that would accomplish all of the above.
The Times, in a rant that read like the Facebook page of the demented gunman who tried to kill School Board members in Panama City, says the plan is awful.
You see, liberals want the government schools to be run for the benefit of adults, not kids.
Liberal politicians throw money at the schools, and most of it goes into the paychecks of adult administrators and teachers. Not a single kid gets a dime.
Teacher union bosses get a cut of those paychecks and this helps them build huge warchests to fund the campaigns of liberal politicians.
It is a cozy arrangement all around.
If children were allowed to get an education so that they would understand schemes like this, they would vote against liberals when they grow up, and this would disrupt the system.
Can't have that.

Halfway there

Adlai Stevenson said, "In America, anyone can become president. That's one of the risks we take."
Thankfully, the voters twice declined to take a risk on Stevenson. But, he had a point.
In two short years, Barack Obama has taken the good will a majority of the voters entrusted into him and turned it into distrust and dislike.
This happened in part because he seemed to think he had been elected God, instead of merely the president. The position is important, but it is still a political position and, as Stevenson noted, the least qualified person in the nation can become president.
Obama was elected by criticizing his predecessor, but he has continued most of the domestic and foreign policies of his predecessor. Thus, he has angered his supporters while not placating those who did not support him.
Like Franklin D. Roosevelt, he has waged war on capitalism and business, while relying on them to produce the money for his vast spending programs. This is not a road to success.
His central weakness, other than his obvious dislike for this nation, is that to him it is all about him. He fell in love with his reflection in the pool of public opinion.
Businesses, like voters, take risks. When one doesn't pan out, you cut your losses.
Voters took a risk and it didn't pay off. In 2012, they will have a chance to reconsider.

On the left coast

Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin is, like many of the Hollywood set, including Whoopi Goldberg, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, etc., a disciple of the Chosen One and therefore as far left as you can be.
In a hate-filled, expletive-filled diatribe in the Puffington Host, he calls Sarah Palin an "idiot."
His ire was raised because Palin shot a caribou, which Sorkin called "murder."
So, it is murder to kill an animal. What about humans?
“I get happy every time one of you faux-macho s***heads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face,” the deranged leftist said.
The accidental killing of a human being is cause for joy but killing an animal so he can have a fancy meal in a Hollywood restaurant is OK. (I don't care if he professes to be a vegan like so many of the other phonies in la-la land. They sell a lot of steaks in Hollywood.)
But one thing is clear. Sorkin is a certified idiot.