Gunning for the front page
by Ben Crystal
Last Saturday, as the nation reeled from the Islamic terrorist attack that stole 14 lives and ruined countless others in San Bernardino, California, The New York Times took advantage of the Muslim killers’ crimes to make a little history.
The Dec. 5 edition of the “paper of record” featured an editorial. While most of what The Times passes off as “reporting” carries a decidedly opinionated flavor, this marks the first time in 95 years that The Times admitted running an editorial on its front page. The Times’ editorial board was so mortified by the horror that unfolded in San Bernardino that it couldn’t resist the urge to vent above the fold on Page 1 — a space ostensibly off-limits to venting since June, 13 1920. On that fateful day, The Times warned the American electorate of the dangers of a Warren Harding presidency.
In all the years between Harding’s candidacy threatening “The Gray Lady” and the islamofascist assault on the Inland Empire, The Times did not consider any of the following to be worth a visit to the front page by the boys from the back:
•The 1929 stock market crash
•The Great Depression
•The Dust Bowl
•The death of Adolf Hitler/the surrender of the Nazis
•Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the surrender of the Japanese
•The Cuban Missile Crisis
•The assassination of President John Kennedy
•The entirety of the Vietnam conflict
•The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.
•Woodstock/the “Summer of Love”/rise of American anti-Americanism
•The resignation of President Richard Nixon
•The Iran hostage crisis/the failure of the Carter Presidency
•The attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan
•The fall of the Berlin Wall
•The fall of the Soviet Union/the end of the Cold War
•The first impeachment of a President in 130 years
•The Iraq war
•The war on terror
•The election of the first black(ish) president
Not one of those earth-shaking, history-making moments earned a spot next to The Times’ fear of a Harding-occupied Oval Office. But the jihad venture of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik outraged The Times’ deep thinkers so much that they felt compelled to rank it above them all. Perhaps that outrage might explain how, despite 95 years of lead time, The Times managed to get both the cause of and the cure for San Bernardino so terribly, terribly wrong.
Two Muslims, one of whom skated through our immigration controls like water through a colander, ignored the same hyper-restrictive gun laws that have failed to protect anyone except criminals everywhere else they’ve been tried, and turned yet another soft target into a target-rich environment. They followed the same paths, albeit from different locations. They fell into the vortex of Islam and descended to the darkest pits of islamofascism, where life is as meaningless as it is in the most blood-soaked Planned Parenthood baby parts factory. From there, the trek from death cultist to death dealer is shorter than the time it takes an abortionist to package baby parts for delivery.
Nonetheless, The New York Times thinks disarming you and me is more important than anything involving the religion that considers a disarmed you and me an ideal situation — so much so, that it’s broken a nearly century-long streak of editorial policy to inform you of its conclusion. Maybe if we wait another 95 years, it will get the next one right.