One has contempt for Christians.
And both think the Jihadist attack in San Bernadino by an Islamic couple is the fault of the NRA. And oh yes, one also thinks the problem in San Bernadino is Mr. and Mrs. Joe Doaks America and their shopping tastes in guns. Really.
What gutless cowards.
The Daily News, which is apparently in its death throes as noted by Mediaite’s Joe Concha, ran a front page that screamed:
GOD ISN'T FIXING THIS: As latest batch of innocent Americans are left lying in pools of blood, cowards who could truly end gun scourge continue to hide behind meaningless platitudes
Splashed across the front page as well were the words of Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham along with those of Speaker Paul Ryan. Their common horrific? Each had issued statements saying the victims in San Bernandino were in their “prayers.” Each was mocked for their Christianity, as the Daily News headline shrieked. It was, as Peggy Noonan of The Wall Street Journal quickly noted, an a particularly revolting exercise in “prayer shaming.” Or, let's be blunt, outright anti-Christian bigotry.
The next day the Daily News came back again, this time with a headline saying that San Bernadino shooter Syed Farook was a terrorist - just like all those mentally impaired white guys in the news over the last few years and, oh yes, like Wayne LaPierre of the NRA.
Not to be outdone was 
which quickly jumped in with a cover by artist Eric Drooker titled “Shopping Days”. Which depicts a lovely suburban-style white couple as exists in the liberal imagination, happily filling their shopping cart with a carton of milk - and as many guns and grenades as they can carry. The New Yorker story begins as follows:
“What would it look like if I took America’s obsession with firearms to its logical extreme?” says the artist Eric Drooker about his New Yorker cover for the issue dated December 14, 2015. The proliferation of guns and the too-easy access to military-grade weapons is not the only story in San Bernardino, but it’s an appalling part of it. As John Cassidy points out in a recent essay, there are an estimated three hundred million guns in private hands in the U.S., and gun sales soared on Black Friday. And somehow, despite the growing demand for restrictions and background checks, the sales go on and, with them, the daily shootings. If only Eric Drooker’s image were a fiction.”
Catch that last line? This one: “If only Eric Drooker’s image were a fiction.” Hello? It is fiction. The real husband and wife that were clearly the inspiration for this cover were something very, very different.
Fox News headlines this:
SoCal jihadist wife pledged allegiance to ISIS before massacre, Fox News confirms
Fox reported in part:
“The mysterious Pakistani woman who with her husband gunned down 14 Wednesday at a Southern California holiday party pledged her allegiance to ISIS before the massacre, according to a government source, in what appears to be concrete evidence that the rampage was at least inspired, if not directed, by the terrorist group.
Tashfeen Malik posted the pledge to ISIS leader and self-proclaimed “caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi before the attack, in which she and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, stormed a San Bernardino party for his co-workers before escaping, Fox News confirmed through a law enforcement source who said the post was recovered despite the pair's attempts to erase their digital trail.”
Sounds just like Sally and Joe Doaks America from suburbia, doesn’t it?
One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry at this kind of upfront sheer cowardice and deliberate, willful ignorance and bigotry. If one listens to this idiocy we now know the answer to dealing with ISIS. Go to the Middle East and have every government there pass strict gun control laws. That’ll show ‘em!
Let’s cut to the chase. There is no connection - zero - between some lone nut in America with a gun and radical Islam. To compare the two is like comparing some lone nut with a gun to the Ku Ku Klux back in the days when the Klan was riding high like the radical Muslims of today.
Back a mere year ago when a lone gunman, 22-year old Elliot Rodger, went on a shooting spree in Santa Barbara, California, I noted in The American Spectator that this piece of information had already appeared in the Los Angeles Times six months before Rodger’s rampage and as a direct result of the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School. The headline on the Times piece was:
California has toughest gun control laws in country, study finds
And the Times story began this way:
SACRAMENTO — California has the toughest gun control laws in the nation, receiving an A- grade in a state-by-state analysis by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
In the year after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, eight states, including California, passed “major gun reforms,” said Amanda Wilcox, the legislation and policy chair for the California Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
California chapters of the Brady Campaign supported 18 bills sent to Gov. Jerry Brown.
“A record 11 bills were signed into law, including measures to keep guns out of dangerous hands and closing loopholes in California’s law prohibiting large capacity magazines,” Wilcox said. “The research shows that strong gun laws can keep people safe from gun violence. We know that California’s strong gun laws are saving lives.”
Got that? There is the “legislation and policy chair for the California Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” assuring that “The research shows that strong gun laws can keep people safe from gun violence. We know that California’s strong gun laws are saving lives.”
Uh- huh. By the way, the title of that column I wrote in the Spectator was:
GUN CONTROL WON’T STOP THE NEXT ELLIOT RODGER
And certainly I wasn’t the only one out there that knew that the so-called “strong gun laws” would not stop another shooting in California, relaunching this debate all over again with the realization that the liberal argument on guns is doomed to failure.
What is really going on today is a flat unwillingness to take on the number one challenge of our era- the rise of radical Islam. What is displayed on the front pages of the Daily News and The New Yorker is rank cowardice, a quite deliberate unwillingness to confront a murderous philosophy every bit as dangerous to the world as was Nazi Germany.
What are these people thinking - beyond insulting Christians and the power of prayer? What is wrong with them that they would try and conflate any of those clearly mentally ill shooters on their front page with radical Islamic terrorists - and Wayne LaPierre of all people?
In the case of the Daily News, as Joe Concha noted, it may be this:
“Know this: Going viral is really the goal here, you see. Selling more papers the overwhelming objective. In case you haven’t heard, the paper is already in very big trouble, losing $20 million per year and sinking fast. Owner Mort Zuckerman put it up for sale earlier this year, but there were no takers. Staffers are being let go left and right. Like other papers before it, it cannot and will not survive too much longer at this rate.”
Doubtless there’s some truth to this. But above and beyond the issue of survival as a newspaper is the attempt at diversion, the unwillingness to confront the hard reality of radical Islam.
Let’s face it. It isn’t just the New York Daily News and The New Yorker. This problem of not even having the courage to say radical Islam is the problem starts right at the top -- with the President of the United States. Not to mention with Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
But the question here revolves around two of the leading outlets of the liberal media. And it is crystal clear that this kind of outright cowardice in calling this problem what it is -- is not merely shameful and bigoted. It is dangerous.
