When I was last in the Big Bagel, as I call Noo Yawk, an heroic policeman with countless commendations for bravery and 22 years of front-line service was murdered in cold blood by a black drug dealer, La­mont Pride, the latter having previously been let loose by a black female judge who ignored a warrant for his arrest from North Carolina on a shooting charge.  Officer Peter Figoski was 47 and had brought up his four daughters on his own.  His last act of duty was to respond to a robbery in Brooklyn, where the fleeing thug shot him in the face.

The very next day, the New York Times chose to run an editorial praising the state of Pennsylvania for taking another black police killer (Mumia Abu-Jamal), who had even more cold-bloodedly killed a police officer lying injured on the ground, off death row.  The timing was such that the Pennsylvania state trooper’s widow (since 1982) remarked upon it.  I am sure it must have amused Jill Abramson, the new Times editor, to be called unfeeling by the widow of a slain cop.  Abramson and her type do not much care what working stiffs think of them.  To the contrary, they relish the fact that cops, firemen, blue-collar workers, and their ilk do not read or believe the Times.

Abramson I do not know, but rarely have I seen a homelier woman, with a mouth that resembles that of a fish, and a face that I’m certain embarrassed her parents a great deal.  In a New Yorker hagiographic profile, she was described as coming from a household that ordered and read two copies of the Times, a bit of a waste I would think, but then who am I to judge what middle-class Jewish rug salesmen do with their money?  All I know is that on her way to the Times building about six or so years ago Abramson was hit by a truck whose front was totally defaced, while she had a few broken bones as a result.  (The truck’s owner did not sue, nor did Abramson.)  Now she cheers for a cop killer escaping lethal injection, while ignoring the fact that a black judge let a black thug wanted in another state walk the streets and kill.  The Times is a very nasty piece of work.  Its pet hates look to me like normal, white, Christian Americans, while it fills its pages with announcements of same-sex couples getting married, profiles of rap “artists,” and front-page coverage of Catholic priests’ sex abuses.  Yet when the Brooklyn district attorney, Charles Hynes, arrested an astounding 89 Orthodox Jewish men on charges of child sex abuse, the Times failed to report it.  (Mind you, Hynes broke the news in a whisper.  He is much too fearful of retaliation from a politically powerful religious bloc to hold its sex abusers to the same standard applied elsewhere.)

The latest outrage of antipolice propaganda by the paper that prints all the news that fits its policies is the discovery on Facebook of hostile comments by NYPD officers about the West Indian American Day Parade.  Cops used words such as “savages” and “animals” to describe the random shootings of parade watchers, and the spraying with gunfire from a parading float by West Indian crazies, words that had the Times furious with indignation.  What I’d like to know is what words the fuzz should have used.  A 55-year-old-mother is standing watching the parade and is shot dead by a parader, and the Times is furious because some cop texted to another that the shooter was an animal?  Another cop sends a message asking, “Why is everyone calling this a parade?  It’s a scheduled riot,” and he’s being a racist, always according to the Times.

Obviously, this is the Times agenda, to undermine the police, show the force up as racist, and then collect a couple of prizes for exposing police corruption.  Not a single word concerning color was used by the cops—most of whom happened to be black—yet the newspaper played it up on its front page for a couple of days, triggering the usual reaction from opportunistic local politicians calling the incident “disgusting” and “racist.”  (Not the shootings—they were never mentioned by the pols.)

Blacks are 23 percent of New York City’s population, yet in 2009, the last year for which we have such figures, they committed 80 percent of all shootings.  Whites, who are 35 percent of the population, committed 1.4 percent of the shootings.  So the Times recently ran an extremely long story over two pages about a young black who whined about how the police tend to profile him when he walks around his neighborhood at night.  That the cops fail to profile the odd white is deemed an outrage and proof of police racism.

Oh yes, I almost forgot.  A jury recently acquitted a black man for carrying an illegal gun because the arresting officer was a member of the NYPD Facebook group that had called the West Indian troublemakers animals.  When the Times was quoted in court, the jury was not told, and the Times had not mentioned, that the arresting officer was black.  Such are the joys of the world’s most dishonest newspaper.