-By Warner Todd Huston
The New York Times finally deigned to consider the motive of the domestic terrorist that shot up the Family Research Council earlier this week and in its wisdom it has decided that maybe, just maybe, there is a long shot, outside chance that the shooter could “possibly” have been motivated by “politics” with his murderous rage. Yes, they actually said “possibly.”
The Times’ headline reads, “Family Research Council Shooting Possibly Driven by Politics,” and the first paragraph immediately makes the lie to that less than ironic take on the facts.
A Virginia man charged with shooting a security guard at the headquarters of a prominent conservative organization told the guard “words to the effect of ‘I don’t like your politics,'” according to an affidavit filed in the case on Thursday.
How is it that a headline can cast a doubtful “possibly” while the first paragraph states directly that the shooter didn’t like the FRC’s politics is a conundrum for the ages, indeed.
Continue reading “
NY Times: Family Research. Council Shooting POSSIBLY Driven by Politics?”
Symbolism is far, far more important to the childish, silly left in America than truth. Why do I say that? The newest Newsweek cover explains why as its May 21 cover proclaims that
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that a rally held by a coalition of Chicago-area black pastors that gathered to warn Illinois against same-sex marriage and civil unions was ignored by the Old Media in Chicago. Still, as unsurprising as it it, it’s a bit galling that this event went unreported on.
In yet one more example among thousands, we see why loud-mouth, extreme left-wing talker Rosie O’Donnell is wholly unworthy of a national forum. In a recent segment of her satellite radio show Rosie Radio, O’Donnell idiotically claimed that gays were being “rounded up” in America so that a “pink triangle” could be slapped on them just like they were during the Holocaust. But just as obscenely, O’Donnell admitted that her marriage to Kelly Carpenter was only a political statement, one of “civil disobedience,” instead of a marriage of love proving that the whole issue of “gay marriage” has nothing at all to do with rights or “love” but is solely one of politics.