Last month, when a Colorado Christian entered a Planned Parenthood clinic and fatally shot three people, the mainstream media rushed to make the connection to “right-wing domestic terrorism,” even though police hadn’t made any connection and the evidence was thin.

When two California Muslims shot up a government office several days later, massacring 14, national journalists refused to call it Islamic terrorism even though evidence of the shooters’ motive was overwhelming.

Two mass shootings, two completely different standards of coverage.

“Motive still elusive in deadly Calif. rampage,” was The Washington Post’s top headline Friday morning.

Never mind that it was already evident that Tashfeen Malik and husband Syed Rizwan Farook had been radicalized. That Farook had grown out his Islamic beard and memorized the Koran and had traveled to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Never mind that he was in contact with suspects on the terror watch list, or that investigators found a bomb factory in Mr. and Mrs. Jihad’s home. The Washington Post still found their explosion of violence “puzzling.”

The more evidence of motive, the more stumped the media elite became.

When the New York Post nailed it with the front-page hammer, “MUSLIM KILLERS,” MSNBC pooh-poohed it as “too sensational.” “We need to know more,” a correspondent sniffed.

Even now, after learning that Malik pledged allegiance to ISIS and the FBI officially declared it an “act of terrorism,” they still played dumb, still quoting President Obama and his attorney general suggesting it could be “workplace violence.”

San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan smacked down a reporter clinging to the “workplace rage” angle, thusly: “Nobody gets upset at a party, goes home and puts together that kind of an elaborate scheme or plan to come back and do that.” Nor do they rent a getaway car — four days prior to the bogus office “argument” the media still think triggered their slaughter.

The media elite have an anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-government agenda, so everything that looks like terrorism must be framed to fit that ideology. And if it can be tied to Republicans, all the better.

So, Planned Parenthood attacker Robert Lewis Dear was instantly portrayed as a puppet of “anti-choice extremists.” He wasn’t a madman with a gun, you see, but the cat’s paw of everything the Democrat-controlled media hate — conservatives, Republican presidential candidates and Fox News.

“Fox and the GOP ramped up their rhetoric about baby body parts being sold to Planned Parenthood,” Larry Wilmore said on Comedy Central’s “The Nightly Show.” “So do I feel comfortable saying that he was at least partially motivated by the right’s demonization of Planned Parenthood? Oh, yeah!”

The Washington Post made the same link, suggesting Republican anti-abortion rhetoric “created an atmosphere that put clinic workers and patients at risk.”

That’s a conclusion to which you’re allowed to jump. But two Muslims committing mass murder? Heaven forbid that radical Islam had anything to do with it.

In the media’s mind, Muslims are the victims — of right-wing bigots — and their creed is a Religion of Peace incapable of inspiring violence, unlike Christianity.

CNN initially tried to pin the San Bernardino shootings on “some type of militia group.” The New York Times claimed they amounted to “domestic terrorism.”

Other outlets said the real villain here is obviously the NRA.

The Beltway punditry is twisting itself into knots trying to avoid admitting the obvious motive — violent Islamic jihad. Now, in a desperate fit to re-spin it all, we’re hearing from CNN that poor Farook was actually acting out over a “turbulent childhood,” and that Malik was suffering from “postpartum syndrome.”

After getting it so wrong, a chagrined New York Times shrugged in a front-page editorial: “Motives do not matter.”

“A Muslim extremist? A disgruntled worker? A Christian fanatic? A racist? A misogynist? With each mass shooting, Americans struggle to fathom what motivated the killer,” the Times wrote in an accompanying online “discussion.” “But does it matter whether someone is killed by a Muslim extremist or someone with a less dramatic reason to pull the trigger?”

The answer of course is, duh! There are a lot more Muslim extremists in the world than Christian extremists, and they can do a lot more damage. Allies of the Islamic State attack innocents in Paris, in Sinai, in Mali, in a ­jihad aimed at our way of life. Is the Times really suggesting that this ideology is irrelevant?

Making the slaughter in California all about gun control is a convenient distraction for a president uninterested in confronting a global epidemic for which he has no strategy. And the only one “struggling to fathom” the Muslim motive is the liberal press, who are obsessed with flipping the narrative in any mass shooting to gun control and conservatives.

When it comes to Muslim terrorism, sorting out motives is oh-so-complicated for the mainstream media. So used to telling us what we should think, they’re suddenly left scratching their heads.

But when it comes to “right-wing domestic terrorism,” the motive is instantly clear to them. And they are miraculously lucid and articulate in ­explaining it to us.

Paul Sperry, a visiting Hoover Institution media fellow, is author of “Infiltration” and “Muslim Mafia.” Sperry@SperryFiles.com