The left still seems kind of confused about why the Orlando terrorists killed 49 people at a gay club.

Just yesterday, the New York Times editorialized that the, quote, precise motivation for the rampage

remains unclear.

The paper then blamed Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit not extinguish.

The Times isn't alone, according to many on the left, Omar Mateen was an enigma wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in a mystery. He might have been a frustrated gay guy. He might have just been a run-of-the-mill religious fanatic. Who knows? It could have been anything. Or maybe he was a jihadist, who spoke regularly about being a jihadist, and who made no secret about how he was a jihadist. Here's Omar Matina on the West. He posted this on Facebook in real time as he was killing people. Quote, the real Muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the West. Here's Omar Mateen on ISIS. Quote, America and Russia stop bombing the Islamic State. You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes now taste the Islamic

state vengeance he then added delightfully in the next few days you will see attacks from the

Islamic state in the USA finally from inside the club he wrote I pledge my allegiance to

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may Allah accept me here's what Matin wrote on Islamic

terrorism well first he went in the club and he started shouting al-Hul-Aqbar, which as we all know means, I love Jesus. The FBI investigated Matine

in 2013 after he boasted at work about ties to Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. The local sheriff actually

moved him off duty at the St. Lucie County Courthouse to a golfing community. So here's the

thing. If the media refused to acknowledge the obvious, they can pretend everybody's equally

likely to purchase a gun for purposes of shooting up a gay nightclub.

That means removing everybody's access to gun ownership, yours, mine, Lindsay's, if they acknowledge

that Matine was obviously a jihadist, obviously, they'd also have to acknowledge,

perhaps the best calibrated government approach would be to target, say, jihadist, obviously, they'd also have to acknowledge perhaps the best calibrated

government's approach would be to target, say, jihadists, like the thousand of them in the United

States. There are 100 million gun owners in the country. There are far fewer people who brag to

colleagues about how they want to join the chazbalan and Hamas. Perhaps the problem is standards of

evidence for prosecution, not standards for exercise of gun rights.

But no, it's all a big conundrum gang.

Who knows why he did all of this?

...