Friday

May 26th, 2017

Insight

The New York Times Links GOP to Orlando Massacre

Bernard Goldberg

By Bernard Goldberg

Published June 17, 2016

I try very hard not to read the editorials in the New York Times, mainly because I don't like it when my head explodes. Now our moral betters who impart their wisdom at the Times have weighed in on the terrible tragedy in Orlando. And conservative pundit Jonah Goldberg has it right: It just may be the stupidest editorial the paper has ever published.

The point of the piece, which reads like an indictment, is that hate crimes, “don't happen in a vacuum” … that what happened at Pulse was part of something bigger, something very dark about America. And who is named in the indictment handed down by the New York Times? Republicans, who else!

“While the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don't happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.”

So because some Republican oppose gay marriage and have concerns about which gender uses which bathroom, Republicans – what? – they're co-conspirators in the murder of so many innocent people? Really?

There's more.

“As the funerals are held for those who perished on Sunday, lawmakers who have actively championed discriminatory laws and policies, and those who have quietly enabled them with votes, should force themselves to read the obituaries and look at the photos. The 49 people killed in Orlando were victims of a terrorist attack. But they also need to be remembered as casualties of a society where hate has deep roots.”

Only a bunch of so-called progressives who see their country through a very dark glass could come up with something like that. And I’m sure it never crossed their liberal minds that if Republicans are complicit in the murders, does that mean that several rather high-profile Democrats escaped indictment by the Times simply because they “evolved” on the same sex marriage.

“Does this mean that Barack Obama would have been complicit in the massacre if it had happened four years ago, before he publicly changed his stance on same-sex marriage?” is what David French asks in National Review. “What about Hillary Clinton? She opposed gay marriage until 2013. Her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act. The Orlando shooter lived for years under Democratic administrations that opposed same-sex marriage. I guess Bill Clinton shares some blame as well.”

 
But a few things are missing from the indictment. ISIS is never mentioned. Not even once, even though the killer pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State in a 911 call from the gay dance club – and even though Muslims who fight under the flag of ISIS have forced homosexuals to walk off of roof tops to their deaths.

The word Islam is never mentioned either. The Times might have given us a few words about how the teachings of Islam might have influenced the killer. But then it wouldn't have been the Times, would it?

So here's a question for the gods who write editorials for what used to be the most important newspaper in the universe: Is it more likely that the killer was influenced by Republicans who oppose gay marriage … or by fellow radical Muslims whose reading of their holy book tells them that all gay people deserve to die?

The Times editorial board likes to think it speaks truth to power. This is understandable given that we all have delusions we cling to. But if they really did speak truth to power their editorial would have examined the connection between Muslim killers – in Orlando, in San Bernardino, in Paris, Brussels and in numerous places in the Middle East – and their Koran.

If the killer were Christian the Times would have connected the dots and concluded he was driven by his religion. But in too many liberal enclaves, Islam isn't allowed such scrutiny. After all, they keep telling us, Islam is a religion of peace. But Dennis Prager, a very smart conservative columnist, tells us something different.

“Islam has never been a religion of peace. It began as a warlike religion, and throughout its history, whenever possible, Muslims made war on non-Muslims, from the polytheists of North Africa to the Hindus of India. A reported 60 to 80 million Indians were killed by Muslim invaders during the hundreds of years of Muslim rule there.”

But why get into any of that when you can simply link Republicans to the massacre in Orlando … and preach about the evils of America, “a society where hate has deep roots” — at least in the eyes of the progressives who write editorials at the New York Times.

Comment by clicking here.

Columnists

Toons

Lifestyles