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.
Even as the Times continues to cast doubt on the shooter’s motivation, it reports that the would-be killer, one Floyd L. Corkins, II, was a volunteer at the Washington community for gay men and lesbians and, “has strong opinions with respect to those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner.”
Hmmm. A gay rights supporter that hates anti-gay rights supporters and yelled out that he hates the politics of the people he was trying to kill… Yep, I’d say that the shooter could “possibly” be motivated by politics, wouldn’t you?
Then the Times notes that the shooter had a backpack filled with Chick-Fil-A sandwiches. You might have a vague memory that Chick-Fil-A became mired in controversy over the issue of its lack of support for gay marriage and the company became a political football for several weeks afterward.
Maybe that this shooter had a sack full of the chicken sandwiches, gosh, could that mean he might “possibly” have had a political motive for his act of terrorism?
FRC President Tony Perkins also pinned this act of terrorism on the Southern Poverty Law Center, the so-called hate group tracking organization that absurdly characterized the Christian-based FRC as a “hate group.”
“Floyd Corkins was responsible for firing the shot yesterday that wounded one of our colleagues and our friend Leo Johnson,” Mr. Perkins said, “but Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center.”
It seems to me that this claim is fair game if we are going to accept The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, the big three networks, and the entire left-wing media establishment’s ideas that past violence was caused by the “atmosphere of violent rhetoric” sponsored by the Tea Party, right?
If the Tea Party is guilty for “demonization” that causes violence, then the SPLC is surely guilty of the same thing by declaring that the standard, unexceptional Christian ideas of the FRC makes of it a “hate group.”
SPLC engenders hate and violence sure as the Tea Party does if you are going to accept that premise.
Not that the Times will understand that argument. After all, if they can’t even understand that Floyd L. Corkins, II, was acting on his political hatreds, if the Times feels it necessary to qualify his own admissions of the political nature of his crime with words like “possibly,” then they most certainly won’t be able to see the logic that the SPLC is guilty of inciting violence.