Bottom Line: NPR cares a whole lot more about this particular atrocity because the victims were gay. And: if only there had been someone else with a gun on the premises of that nightclub that night.
- It was not a “tragedy,” as all the news media — who really ought to know better — called it, but really an atrocity. A hurricane or a tornado, or some other motive-less thing results in tragedy. An atrocity is the result of the willful acts of a perpetrator. This was an atrocity.
- So … of course … it must be the fault of those right-wing Christians and their anti-gay intolerance!
- I’ve listened to National Public Radio (NPR) all week. I heard exactly one intelligent comment on the murders: A bystander woman said, “These were people who were killed. This was a crime against humanity.” Every other comment on NPR had the ubiquitous, NPR-patented stink of someone doing his or her level best to convince those listening of just how good he is, and just how much he cares.
- All other comments and reports on NPR reeked of: “Look at just how much we love and care for the ‘gay community.'” By extension, that means that they do, indeed, care less for sexually normal people. That is simply true.
- NPR sent Ari Shapiro, their openly gay “news” anchor to cover the incident. Wasn’t that rather obvious proof that the term “journalistic objectivity” is a nonsense phrase? In any other circumstance — in a courtroom for example — the gay person would have to recuse himself because of the obvious bias he would bring to the proceedings. NPR is notorious for this. I first noticed it decades ago when they regularly assigned John Madison, a black man, to “report” from South Africa in the waning days of apartheid.
- Did you notice that the outrage about all this was much, much, much more intense than that which resulted from the Fort Hood, or San Bernardino, or the Colorado theater shootings? It was, of course, because the victims were gay.
- What was the race of the San Bernardino victims? I never knew until I looked it up. It’s because the media never mentioned it, and it’s because they were various races and ethnicities. No sexual preference or race angle? NPR doesn’t care. The “angle” in San Bernardino was: Islamist Nutballs. So NPR ran from the story as fast as they could, straight to “gun control.”
- As if to underscore this, I saw a trailer for the Samantha Bee program. Samantha Bee is supposed to be the glib, liberal replacement for Jon Stewart on late-night tv. She said something like, “Most comedians come on after something like this and say that the families of the victims are in their thoughts and prayers, but not this time. I’m to [* bleeeeep *] mad!” Oh? Why? Seriously. Why? Killing non-gay people is just okay with you? Why would the killing of any gay person make you more upset than the killing of a straight person? What twisted kind of thinking do you have to undergo to arrive at that conclusion?
- What is the hold that sexual weirdism has on the left? Answer: They represent about one percent of the population, so it’s not so much their voting habits, but they are disproportionately wealthy in America. Way wealthier than normal people. So, they give lots of money to the left.
- Everyone said: “This was a ‘hate crime’.” What does that mean? Simple: there are really, really bad motives to commit a murder. But then, there are better motives to commit the same murder. This is the sick logic of the left. If it is allowed to continue, then the left will “discover” actually good motives to commit murder. This is what happened in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba and elsewhere. It’s still happening now, and its roots lie in the nonsensical, and ultimately obscene, idea that there are good, bad and worse motivations to kill people.
- Speaking of “gun control,” a simple truth: If in each of these places — Orlando, Colorado, Virginia Tech, San Bernardino, Fort freakin’ Hood for crying out loud! — someone had had a gun, other than the murderer that is, then two things are entirely possible: (1) the murderer would have been cut down before he had a chance to kill as many people as he did, and (2) the murder might not have taken place at all.
- Would-be shooters all pick “Gun-Free Safe Zones” in which to do their dirty work. Wouldn’t you?
- There was apparently a time during the whole three-hour ordeal, when the murderer was holed up in a bathroom with a bunch of hostages. One fantasizes about one of those hostages stealthily reaching into his pocket, pulling out a pistol, and shooting the muslim dirtbag. Oh, that’s right … it was a “gun-free zone.” You know, a “safe space.” But wait! If it was a “gun-free zone,” and a “safe space,” what was the shooter doing there with a gun?!? Didn’t he read the sign?!? What kind of a country is this, when islamist nutball terrorist scumbucket dirtbags don’t read “Gun-Free Zone” signs?!?
- All these shootings had something very much in common: they were in places that conspicuously prohibited the presence of guns at their locale. The proprietors all said things like, “We wanted to establish a ‘safe space’ for [fill in the blank].” These were all so-called “Safe Zones.” Yeah. Real safe. Law enforcement should put a sign on each place that openly bans guns from its premises, that reads: “WARNING: The proprietors of this establishment have decided that while you are here, you should not be able to protect yourself from those who might wish to harm you. Please be advised that by going into this establishment, you admit that you are willing to accept greater risk to your safety.“
- The “angle” in Orland is: “Islamist Nutball,” so NPR, and the left, ran immediately to … (1) “Right-wing Christian homophobia,” and (2) “gun control.” Of course. Two things that had precisely nothing to do with the Orlando murders are the focus of all the “reporting” of NPR and the left-wing media. Never let it be said that the left-wing media are not fully aware that those who take them seriously are complete idiots.
- “Gun-free Safe Zones” should be renamed: “Kill Zones.” It’s shorter, more concise, and … obviously more accurate.
- Snap question: If the shooter were to vote, for which political party do you think he’d have voted. Let’s answer that one a teentsy bit obliquely: He belonged to not one single, solitary Republican or right-wing core constituency. So, of course, all this was the Republicans’ and the right-wing’s fault.
- We don’t need gun control, we need Democrat control. Or, Democrat-voter control. Read, for example, here for convincing evidence of that.