San Bernardino Shooting

Ultimate Victim Blaming? NY Daily News Col Compares San Berdoo Killer w Victim

Words are words and bullets are bullets. You'd expect journalists to understand that.



The New York Daily News caused outrage with its front page after the San Bernardino shooting. "God Isn't Fixing This," blared the paper, mocking a series of tweets offering prayers to the dead from leading Republicans.

Now Daily News columnist Linda Stasi has written a column titled "San Bernardino bloodbath born of bigots," in which she compares the Facebook invective of one of the dead to the rhetoric and actions of the husband and wife who killed him. Nicholas Thalasinos, 52, was a "Messianic Jew," who are cultural or ethnic Jews who convert to Christianity. His Facebook page is here.

Here's Stasi summation of Thalasinos' world view:

The killers deserve every disgusting adjective thrown at them. And more.

But the victim is also inaccurately being eulogized as a kind and loving religious man.

Thalasinos was an anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be "Freaking Awesome" if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security. He asked, "IS 1. EVERY POLITICIAN IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR? 2. EVERY POLITICIAN IS A MORON? 3. EVERY POLITICIAN IS RACIST AGAINST JEWS?" He also posted screeds like, "You can stick your Muslim Million Man march up your asses," and how "Hashem" should blow up Iran.

His Facebook page warns that "Without HEALTHY PREGNANT WOMAN (Democrats) would have NO SOURCE of BABIES to SACRIFICE and SELL!"

We have freedom of speech but even so, a city worker should refrain from such public bigotry. Municipal workers have been fired for spewing and posting racial and sexual slurs.

Full column here.

Stasi is getting an earful from all over the place and on a very obvious level, she deserves it. WTF, really?

This sort of observation is not simply poorly timed but grossly wrong in its basic conception: Speech is speech and bulets are bullets. That's not a difficult distinction to maintain and given the willingness of high-level politicians (such as Hillary Clinton, who publicly blamed the Benghazi attack that ended with the death of a U.S. ambassador on a ridiculous YouTube video) and college administrators and activists everywhere to police every jot and tittle of micro-aggressive punctutation, it's never been more important to maintain.

More on the shooters, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, here.

Related: "How Responsible is the (Pro-Life or Black Lives Matter) Movement for (the Planned Parenthood Shooting or Cop Killings)?"

As an antidote to Stasi's hot take—really more of a steaming pile, to be honest—take a few minutes to check out this Reason interview with Jonathan Rauch, who over two decades ago wrote Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought, which provided a road map to what we now call political correctness. Of particular note, I think, given recent developments, is Rauch's valorizing of Frank Kameny, a federal employee in the '50s and '60s whose job was threatened because of his sexual orientation. Despite being on the receiving end of all manner of unbelievably vile rhetoric, Kameny never called for the censorship of hate speech, defending instead unfettered free expression. More here.

NEXT: 60 Minutes Covers Andrew Sadek's Suspicious Death on Show Airing Tonight

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Linda Stasi is possibly the least self aware person on the planet. And that’s not even taking her last name into account.

    1. She is a CUNT

      1. I second that I’m afraid.

        Classless too.

      2. I prefer the term “twattard.”

  2. You know what else was named Stasi?

    1. Stasi’s mom?

      1. She’s got it goin’ on.

        1. *raucous applause*

      2. Which one?

    2. Stasi Spumante sparkling wine?

    3. That saint from Assiz, for short? St. Asi?

    4. The East Germans that Obama patterns his internal security policies on?

  3. But he questioned the integrity of politicians. You can’t get worse than that. Also, Stasi is a jew hater? Who’d have guessed that

  4. You left out the best part, where she tallied the body count of the innocent and left out the vile (ex?) Jew.

    1. Wow, I didn’t catch that. From the first two lines of the artice:

      “They were two hate-filled, bigoted municipal employees interacting in one department. Now 13 innocent people are dead in unspeakable carnage.”

      Holy shit that’s some mood affiliation.

    2. People who publicly disagree with either progressives or their (often, ironically, extremely retrograde) designated victim groups are no longer innocent but deserving of death. Wow.

      One begins to wonder, are people like Stasi actually any better than ISIS? Not asking hyperbolically. Both think people who disagree with them on things like the wonderfulness of government and abortion (one would think issues on which it should be perfectly acceptable to disagree about) deserve to die. Only difference I guess is ISIS isn’t too cowardly to act on that belief.

    3. Thanks, Ryhwun. That caught my eye too, but I was too lazy to check.

  5. She would LOVE us.

  6. “We have freedom of speech but..”

    It’s always “but” with these fascist scum. Woodchipper. Feet first.*

    *Internet hyperbole not to be misconstrued as actual threat.

    1. “Everything before ‘but’ is a lie”.
      …Glenn Reynolds

    2. Feet first.

      How about butt first?

  7. Thalasinos was an anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be “Freaking Awesome” if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security.

    How ‘anti-government’ could he have really been in that case?

    1. Enough to scare the shit out of Stasi so much that she was compelled to write about him in a completely inappropriate way, apparently. I doubt it takes very much with her type.

    2. Her version of “anti-government” is just anybody who disagrees with who the jackboots should be stomping.

      1. anybody who disagrees with her on who the jackboots should be stomping

  8. The First Amendment is objectively racist it it protects racist speech, and it’s homophobic if it protects the religious right of Evangelicals to refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings.

    Linda Stasi’s column may seem especially outrageous because it’s blaming the dead victim of a murder, but it’s actually in the mainstream of progressive thought.

    Make no mistake, these people are against the First Amendment.

    Bonus points to anybody who can find a link to Linda Stasi claiming “Je suis Charlie”. Did she support free speech and denigrate the “right” of Muslims not to be offended back in January?

    1. All I found was some articles about her losing her $40k engagement ring.

      1. I found something below. I’d give her credit for being consistent, but there’s no honor in consistently blaming murder victims for exercising their free speech rights.

        There’s an old sick joke I’ve heard Jews kick around that’s supposed to be instructive. It goes that there were two Jews in Germany being marched up against a wall by the brown shirts to be shot. One of the Jews turns to the crowd and starts enjoining them to intervene. “What these Nazis are doing is wrong”, he says; “And when they’re finished with us, they may start coming after you, next!”. The second Jew looks at the first one and says, “Shhhhhh, don’t make any trouble–you’ll only make things worse!”

        Linda Stasi is like the second guy. Don’t upset them. You’ll only make things worse? And what makes things even worse is that in that Charlie Hebdo piece I linked below, she’s acting just like the second guy–in a piece where she’s also going after the terrorists specifically for being antisemites.

      2. I’d pay 40 grand to disengage her.

    2. This sort of observation is not simply poorly timed but grossly wrong in its basic conception: Speech is speech and bulets are bullets.

      With bullets you can only harm a few, with speech you can harm millions. Why shouldn’t we regulate speech the same as we regulate guns? I can’t imagine how banning bad speech would be a bad thing. I mean, assuming the right people are in charge, of course.

      1. You can count on this. Note the increasing references by the media to the “war of ideas”.

      2. “I mean, assuming the right people are in charge, of course.”
        But that just means we have to make sure none of the wrong people get in power; we can easily do that by putting those wrong people in camps, right?

      3. That sounds great. Put Stasi in charge.

  9. Let’s face it, that Jew was wearing a metaphorical mini skirt, he was just asking for it.

    1. Him wearing a mini skirt – I can’t unsee that, Lee….

      1. It would be even worse on the female shooter. Bitch looks like Horatio Sanz in a burqua.

  10. The left must deflect attention from you-know-what at all costs. “The victim had it coming” and “batshit insane is just like terrorism” are two perfectly-acceptable means to that end for them.

  11. Product description of her book. Wonder which thing Yusef turns out to be?

    “Some say Demiel ben Yusef is the world’s most dangerous terrorist, personally responsible for bombings and riots that have claimed the lives of thousands. Others insist he is a man of peace, a miracle worker, and possibly even the Son of God. His trial in New York City for crimes against humanity attracts scores of protestors, as well as media and religious leaders from around the world.”

  12. I’ll claim those bonus points for myself. Here’s a piece by Linda Stasi in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre:

    “Stasi: Our voices won’t be silenced by murderous, self-appointed warriors for God”

    The ignorant, self-appointed warriors for God, who were spurred on first by ugly cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad and Muslims in general in the magazine, and then at the store by sheer, hateful anti-Semitism, were rightfully hunted down like the rabid dogs that they were. The innocent shoppers at the kosher deli weren’t even part of the terrorist thugs’ agenda against the magazine. It was just pure hatred of Jews.

    The murderous attack on the journalists wasn’t just a blow against the victims in particular, it was a blow against freedom of expression in general. And so, Je Suis Charlie ? I am Charlie ? became the rallying cry the world over in support of the murdered journalists.…..-1.2073413

    1. At the end of the piece, she seems to be pointing out the hypocrisy of the politically correct who were saying “Je Suis Charlie”…:

      “The media in this country can be overly sensitive and very politically correct, but it’s in order to avoid offending people of every race, religion, color and creed. We fundamentally believe in affording respect to everyone, even people we fundamentally disagree with. If we err, we err on the side of God, or gods, and also on the side of goodness.

      Still, it was us in the media screaming, “Je Suis Charlie” the loudest.”

      …but I don’t think she’s saying that the media should really embrace free speech. She seems to be saying that Charlie Hebdo is the result of their own lack of PC credentials; i.e., she seems to have blamed the victim back then, too.

      1. There’s a difference between blaming the victim and not praising the victim.

      2. I think Stasi’s position is actually fairly clear from the difference between her response to these two incidents:
        In the case of Hebdo, she was defending the right of anti-Islamic secularists to attack Muslims,even if she foud it distasteful; in this case here though, it’s an anti-Islamic Messianic Jew who she would have to defend, and she’s unwilling to do that, because she regards the Messianic Jew as being more or less just as bad as the violent Islamic terrorist.

        It still boils down to her idea that it is beliefs (including ones which aren’t violent, just disagreeable to some) that are the problem and need to be stomped out, not violence by certain individuals.

  13. Isn’t “bigotry”, as some have pointed out, demonstrating intolerance of OTHER people’s views?

    – and *acting* on that intolerance by refusing to listen/actively silencing/refusing to accept them as equals/trying to get opponents restricted from access to institutions, etc.?

    Bigotry isn’t just “having ugly views”; in fact, the definition requires nothing about one’s own views at all =

    “In English the word “bigot” refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them][2]”

    One can hold horribly racist, vile views of say… uh Eskimos. But you’re not actually a “Bigot” unless one is saying that Eskimos mustn’t be allowed to use public toilets, or allowed to sit in First Class on flights, or allowed on the same line at Chipotle…

    The act of exclusion is the ‘bigotry’ – not the mere low-opinion-holding part.

    Other people have noted this before me and they’re absolutely right

    Bigotry is the

    1. Bigotry is narrowmindedness. It’s the opposite of tolerance.

      Tolerance is the ability to accept other people’s right to say what they please no matter whether you personally find it offensive.

      When you’re tolerance, people will accuse you of being amenable to bigotry.

      But this lady is actually defending bigotry in the name of tolerance.

      1. I’m not so sure there’s any 2 sided coin with bigotry / tolerance on each side.

        Bigotry *requires* intolerance… but one could be intolerant without being a bigot.

        *And* – as we’ve frequently noted – Tolerance does not require affirmation.

        e.g. I might despise Guidos

        Am i “bigoted” towards them? Not really. I do not call for guidos to have their drivers licenses revoked. I do not agitate to have their tanning salons regulated out of existence. I do not demand a “keep your shirts on”-rule on the Boardwalk.

        That said – if they walk in the bar, I leave. If i hear a kicker approaching on the Turnpike, I let them pass ASAP. If they stop me and ask for directions to Webster Hall, i redirect them to the Lincoln Tunnel.

        I have no particular “tolerance” for them. I am not comfortable with their views, or Drakkar Noir, being aired.

        But i do not demand that their subculture be repressed, their ghettoes walled off, and their children barred from public schools.

        It seems to me you can be ‘intolerant’ and still not a bigot.

        The key part of Bigotry, it seems to me, is taking ACTION to prevent others from shared public resources. “back of the bus”, etc. Passive Intolerance doesn’t quite rise to bigotry.

      2. Where is she defending bigotry?

        1. She describes someone with “ugly opinions” as being morally equivalent to a mass-murderer?

          “What they didn’t realize is that except for their different religions they were in many ways similar men “”

          …and then insists that the victim was “inaccurately being eulogized as a kind and loving religious man

          …As though it is impossible for people who say certain things on facebook to be capable of being otherwise decent human beings who love their families.

          These are statements that only idiots would defend

          1. Those aren’t anything close to “defending bigotry”. Let Mr. Schultz speak for himself. With great opinionatedness comes great responsibility.

            1. With great Tulpaness, comes Epic Retard

    2. English isn’t a prescriptive language. Outside of technical or scientific areas, a word means whatever enough people think it means.

      1. I’m not Saussure

      2. I guess if enough people start calling bananas potatoes, they’re no longer technically wrong; they’re just speaking a slightly different language from everyone else.

        1. Yeah. Fried potatoes and fried bananas are both good.

    3. I think the term “bigotry” days more about someone’s disapproval of another’s convictions than about the validity of those convictions. I can be obstinately opposed to communism and not want communists around me. That makes me a bigot. It’s not something I apologize for.

      As for the right to use public toilets, that’s something entirely different: government needs to be neutral in matters where people can have strong preferences.

  14. Grief, I have to take an aspirin and try to sleep off the massive migraine induced by this complete and utter nonsense. Nothing like a tragedy to bring out all the barely suppressed hate in some people.

  15. Side note =

    It seems to me the Daily News editors got together in a room and said, “What the hell is it with Trump… He’s a boor! He’s a buffoon! He’s a Creep! He’s a troglodyte!… AND HE’S SUPER-POPULAR? We need to get in on that action!

    Its like the lowest-common-denominator pulled a Bodhi

    1. A boor is one who says out loud what a lot of people are thinking.

      1. I’m not sure what insight that’s supposed to provide.

        A young big-breasted blonde walks into a room, i am quite sure that almost every heterosexual male from the age of 5-75 thinks something along the lines of, “Whoa mama, a-looka-those-bodacious-tatas!”

        Yet if one person actually said this out loud with the intent of the entire room hearing, they’d rightfully be considered a foul, despicable, ill-bred, low-class creep… not a Brave Man for opening up the sewers of the general-public mind.

        1. Conservatives now consider anyone who doesn’t have impulse control over what they say to be ‘bold’. Thoughtfulness or any consideration of whether or not what is being said is remotely true does not apply.

          1. There’s some silly stereotyping for you.

          2. Look who’s talking

        2. A few years ago we were at a wedding sitting at the table with my wife’s childhood friends. One of them removed her shawl and exposed what can be described as gigantic tits. We never noticed because she hid it well. When she got up from the table with her date I said, ‘Who knew?’ The table erupted in laughter.

          It was my Trump moment.

          1. Um, pics?

            1. I wish.

        3. I did not wish to imply that “boor” meant “brave”. If you think I did, you pulled that thought out your ass because it never has been in my head.

          1. Sure.

            my point was to say, It Does Not Matter what anyone might claim ‘other people are/are not thinking’ – Boorishness isn’t somehow excused as merely being an airing of the Public’s Id.

            People with Tourettes are forgiven for suffering from a defect in their brains. Boors have no such excuse.

            1. Who is excusing boorishness?

              1. as per my very first line = “”I’m not sure what insight that’s supposed to provide.”

                if there’s an implication being overlooked… what is it?

                1. The insight, such as it is: many more people harbor socially-unacceptable thoughts than speak them out loud and “boor” is a tag for those who do so speak.

              2. Also =

                i have a vague memory of a different version of that line from The Devil’s Dictionary

                And the implication *was* a jokingly-cynical, “Everyone has shitty thoughts; some just say them”

        4. Let’s not have any Boor Wars, ok?

      2. You must be an amazing mind reader, to know what everyone else is thinking even though they won’t say it. Do you use these powers for good?

        1. That remark is an old, semi comic, definition of “boor”. Lighten up.

          1. *Lighten up
            Wow, what a horribly offensive thing to say in front of someone who is overweight. #microagressed

      3. A boor is one who says out loud what a lot of people are thinking.

        No. A boor is an unrefined person with poor manners. You can be a boor without even talking.

    2. It’s acceptable to use Trump Tricks, provided they’re not used to advance ideas the prog politburo deems “problematic.”

  16. Other NYT article of note.

    Unable to curb the availability of guns at home or extremist propaganda from overseas, the authorities may have to rely more on encouraging Americans to watch one another and report suspicions. Federal and local governments already have programs urging friends, families and neighbors to identify people targeted for recruitment.

    This sounds familiar somehow…

    “It was my little daughter,” said Parsons with a sort of doleful pride. “She listened at the keyhole. Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh? I don’t bear her any grudge for it. In fact I’m proud of her. It shows I brought her up in the right spirit, anyway.”…

    “That’s a first-rate training they give them in the Spies nowadays ? better than in my day, even. What d’you think’s the latest thing they’ve served them out with? Ear trumpets for listening through keyholes! My little girl brought one home the other night ? tried it out on our sitting-room door, and reckoned she could hear twice as much as with her ear to the hole.”

    1. But that was written decades ago by some old white dude who probably owned slaves.

    2. Yes, lets teach our children to rat out their neighbors to the STASI instead of teaching them how to defend themselves or how to identify & react to crisis situations.

    3. So they’ll encourage people to report their suspicious Muslim neighbors, then they’ll publucally crucify them as racist for doung so.

      1. Attorneys for amateur Muslim clock makers get last laugh

  17. That’s what he gets for throwing a baby shower.

  18. No, bulets aren’t bullets.

    “college administrators and activists everywhere to police every jot and tittle of micro-aggressive punctutation, it’s never been more important to maintain.”

    I find a lot to agree with in this article, but find this thought discordant. It’s a weird seque between talking about how bigoted speech doesn’t excuse acts of extremist violence and how bigoted speech will get you in trouble at your job, university, amongst co-workers. The former isn’t at all like the latter.

    1. No it’s not ‘like it’. Point status: missed.

    2. “The former isn’t at all like the latter.”

      Which was the entire point of the paragraph. “Speech is speech and bulets are bullets.”

  19. I am currently using Vivaldi browser after Komodo Dragon stopped working (which I started to use once Google Chrome stopped working). Couple questions: can I open a tab without automatically viewing it? And does Vivaldi have a translate feature?

    1. Did you post this to the wrong forum?

    2. Not sure ‘The Four Seasons’ can be translated since it’s a violin concerto.

      /Picks nose flicks shnott.

      1. It transitions to metal OK, though this act used a violin.

        1. That was pretty cool. I think most classical musical could translate well into most genres.

            1. Maybe not disco.

              1. the latter was “jazz-funk”, but i’m not sure the difference matters. Deodato is still a badmammajamma

  20. Previously I have mentioned crytpo-currency based distributed file-storage services like Storj and Maidsafe. Here’s another named Sia. This one is unique in that it is online and functioning.

        1. That’s what I expect.

    1. They both looka lika man.

  21. WTF, really?

    I might ask the same question of Nick. Long as he’s lived inside the bubble, this strikes him as surprising? Maybe surprising that it was actually published but the left has thought exactly what this woman wrote for a long time.

  22. Hilarious.

    Nick Gillespie has called living people xenophobic racist bigots for merely disagreeing with open borders, but a guy who posted explicitly bigoted shit is suddenly immune from criticism because he happened to get shot afterwards?

    Yes, words are words and bullets are bullets. Stasi is responding to words with words, not bullets. Maybe you should take your own advice and make sure YOU understand the distinction between words and bullets.

    1. All kinds of new trolls this weekend! I wonder where this one came from.

      1. Do you deny that if this guy were still alive Gillespie would call him a xenonphobic racist bigot?

        1. And that the guy’s words would be justification for his own murder. That’s totally Gillespie’s wheelhouse. You know Reason‘s prescribed punishment for punching down.

        2. Please cite where Gillespie was calling anyone a “xenophobic racist bigot”. We’ll wait. Otherwise, screw off, troll.

          1. Well, Tupla *did* say he wasn’t going away.

            1. And then went on to prove it.

    2. What exactly is the point of bringing up the Facebook postings of a dead man? What exactly was this person hoping to achieve by rooting through his account anyway? Nobody but this man’s immediate acquaintances would have been exposed to his speech, but now everyone has been exposed to “hate speech”, thanks to Stasi. I’d say, though, that the guy posthumously has some pretty good reason to hate Muslims.

      Nobody is calling for the shooting of Linda Stasi. They’re rightly pointing out her complete lack of class and civility. This man’s family is grieving after he was gunned down. It’s not the time to bring up this drivel, nor is there any public interest in it at all.

      1. You’re the kind of guy who thinks no one should talk smack about Hitler and focus only on the guy who killed him.

        1. Pretty sure Hitler is believed to have shot himself.

          Hitler was a public figure who put his anti-Semitism into practice by oppressing and killing his enemies. Yeah, that’s totally the same as someone who posted some mildly objectionable stuff on social media.

          1. *hands Contrarian P some new batteries for his sarcasmeter*

            1. I’ve been having trouble with the damn thing. Klystron tube’s busted.

              1. No, you’re just staying in character. To be contrarian on the internet would be to take Hitler comments seriously.

      2. :”What exactly is the point of bringing up the Facebook postings of a dead man? What exactly was this person hoping to achieve by rooting through his account anyway?

        I presume its the same point the NYT has tried to make by creating a fake-bucket of miscellaneous, “Non-Islamic Extremism” …

        ….into which they can throw every assorted ‘hate crime’ in America, and then hold it up next to Islamic Terror in an attempt to pretend “Its not just crazy muslims

        ….and that there’s no real difference between Jihadists and Planned Parenthood shooters, or Jihadists and Teabaggers, or Jihadists and Memories Pizza….

        ….and that people who call this sort of mass-murder stuff “Terrorism” are wrong because its actually “Extremism”… which, of course, can be conveniently used to describe any critics of Government at all…

      3. We bring up living people’s Facebook postings all the time. Why should dead people be immune, other than superstition?

        The shooters’ families are grieving too, should we keep quiet criticizing them too? What good does it do to criticize them, they’re dead anyway.

        1. For you to think there’s an equivalence between someone who posts mildly objectionable rhetoric on social media and two people who open fire on a room full of unarmed civilians boggles the mind. One has to wonder if you’re really this stupid or if you’re just trying your best to troll.

          Again, since you can’t seem to get it through your head, bringing it up now is tasteless and sad. Rummaging through the Facebook account of a victim of an atrocity such as this is like going through the closet of a rape victim looking for short skirts. This “reporting” served no public purpose and is nothing more than a smear against a crime victim. It shows a complete lack of class on the part of both Stasi and her editors and should be condemned.

          1. Forget it, it’s Tulpa-town.

    3. Dude, she referred to the ‘innocent victims’ as being only 13. Not 14. So I guess he had it coming. Not exactly the same thing as Gillespie’s criticism of border fence fans.

    4. She isn’t just criticizing him, she said people like him shouldn’t be allowed to work for the government and implied that he deserved to get shot. Both beliefs are disturbing and offensive.

  23. Nice article. Some on the left are so tolerant (i.e., crazy), that they equate words against a “victim” group with bullets against others.

    1. This is what happened when a slave ran away from the plantation. Bounty hunters would track them down, and the slave would be punished, sometimes with death. This Jew had run from the liberal plantation, so Stasi is simply thanking the bounty hunter for tracking the fugitive slave down and shooting him like the dog he is.

  24. Thalasinos is unavailable for comment and not able to reply at this time.
    Stasi claimed that there were 13 innocent victims, meaning that a non-innocent victim was Thalasinos. In other words, according to Stasi, Thalasinos deserved the death penalty writing provocative things on the Internet. All I can say is, go to hell NY Daily News and go to hell Stasi, for publishing such tripe.

    1. You don’t have to be worthy of the death penalty to be “not innocent”.

      1. Some of Adam Lanza’s victims weren’t innocent either, since they were agents of state indoctrination.

        (I’m not saying I agree with that; just pointing out the standard only goes one way.)

      2. Do you know what innocent means? One can be innocent or guilty of a crime, presumably deserving of some punishment. Of any crime deserving the death penalty (or any act of violent retribution), this guy was innocent.

        If innocent no longer describes one’s status relative to some real or imagined crime, then what does it describe? How nice of a guy you are? How do you know none of those other 13 people ever used the word ‘fag’ or forgot to flush the toilet? Would that also render them ‘non-innocent?’

        1. I think she meant innocent in roughly the same vague sense people use it to refer to children. Of course in children, it refers to their inability to be morally accountable because they lack knowledge of right and wrong.

      3. But when you end up getting the death penalty anyway, having someone describe you as a less than innocent murder victim is heinous.

    2. A more likely story is that Stasi and her editor were too busy throwing bombs to bother fact checking.

      Unless the NYDN is just pulling out all the stops in a lurid effort to keep the paper on life support a little while longer.

    3. Right, ’13’, that’s the first thing I noticed. An absolutely repugnant thing to write. Basically, she’s saying he had it coming. How do they not fire her after that?

      1. How do they not fire her after that?

        More like give her a raise. Because she’s furthering the paper’s position on the issue and at the same time attracting attention.

  25. I don’t know if this is true but if it is then we are in trouble.

    Apparently, the administration’s official position is they are more worried about anti-Muslim backlash than more terrorism, and this is from Obama himself.

    I really hope this isn’t true.

    1. I disbelieve it simply based on the font they’re using. Yikes.

    2. “they are more worried about anti-Muslim backlash than more terrorism”

      There was some yapping on… friday? that Loretta Lynch was trying to strongarm James Comey to get him to say something about ‘watching out for Anti-Muslim sentiment’ during his press-conference announcement that there was a terrorist connection to the shooting.

      It was commented that it was a little unusual that the AG would take precedence talking about the issue (she went before him) before allowing the FBI to speak to the press. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but that was a thing.

      as i’ve said repeatedly…it really seems like there’s ‘Tractor-Beam On Full-Blast’-effort in the media to pull the narrative away from “islamic terrorism” and toward, “Domestic Extremism (aka “Right Wingers”)” and Gun Control.

      I get that the Admin would want to try to make some lemonade out of a terrorist attack, but the degree to which they’re going to try and “blame islamophobes” or put this on the NRA or whatever is just jaw-droppingly blatant.

      1. I think this summarizes the issue that was the thing on Friday =

        FBI Director Comey just finished a briefing to the American public. It was a briefing said to have required the full and prior approval by Valerie Jarrett of Director Comey’s public comments. Lynch’s role is alleged to be the Obama White House’s watchdog over FBI Director Comey’s statements and subsequent response following the most recent Islamic terrorist attack. The impetus for this scenario is said to be two-fold:

        **Mr. Obama and Ms. Jarrett are increasingly concerned over anti-Muslim rhetoric not only among the general population and politicians, but among federal, state, and local law enforcement officials who are increasingly concerned further threats to public safety might very well be imminent. They want this tone “corrected” immediately.

        **Barack Obama is said to have asked during an earlier meeting regarding the San Bernardino terrorist attack how best they, “control the message on this.” Jarrett operatives have apparently already reached out to and continue to then remind supportive media figures to describe San Bernardino as a “shooting” and not connect it to Islamic terror.

        I don’t know how much of that is bullshit promulgated by right-media (as the source clearly is)… but the general sentiment re: the White House attempt at spinning this away from “Terror” seems to me pretty obvious.

        1. What is the source?

        2. You SF’d the link, Gilmore.

        3. whoops, sorry – “DC Whispers

          but this “rumor of tension between Comey vs Obama/Jarret/Lynch” was reported by Fox in the hours *before* that press conference… i don’t know who the whisper source was, but at least a few outlets were saying, “Obama was pissed about the FBI making the “Its Terror” call” on Fri without further slow-pedaling and caveats.

          1. fyi that was the same link the guy posted above,

            i was just highlighting the parts that overlapped with the idea that Lynch was arm-twisting comey, which was reported on Friday before the press-conf.

          2. Events are siding with the FBI. They were cautious initially in calling it terror and didn’t identify it as such until the evidence made it obvious. The FBI’s timing seemed about right to me. I find it unlikely Obama’s people could be upset about Comey’s call in light of how things developed.

            This whole thing reminds me of Benghazi, though. This need on their part to not make the obvious connections and state simple what it is/was. Either they’re so blinkered by ideology or they’re just can’t deal with reality. Or, worse, it the most base kind of political opportunism. I guess none of those things are mutually exclusive.

            1. “. I find it unlikely Obama’s people could be upset about Comey’s call in light of how things developed.’

              I agree. I think after the facebook-pledge thing was made public, they had to at least acknowledge it.

              I think what there’s some tension about is the lack of “team-playing” by Comey. Both Obama & Lynch have been pissed at the dude for a while about separate issues.

              The specific thing mentioned by Fox were rumours that obama/lynch were pressuring Comey to add warnings about “Anti-Muslim sentiment”… and that Lynch was present at the press-conf. to control answers to any press-Q&A that followed (which the DC rumors link claims was cut out of the public broadcast)

              I think it might have been influenced by the fact that on Thursday night, Loretta Lynch spoke publically about this ‘anti-muslim’ stuff and seemed to be setting the tone that they wanted furthered. The Daily Mail has a story about that here

              1. ‘It doesn’t take a Harvard law degree to identify the inspiration and source of the San Bernardino slaughter: radical Islamic terrorism,’ Huckabee said. ‘Concealing the truth and ignoring the obvious for the simple sake of a pro-Islam public relations campaign is an insult to the American people.’

                Read more:…..z3taJxuSmT

                I hate to agree with Huckabee, but on this particular point he’s correct. How insulting, how condescending is to assume that mobs of Americans are about to start a Muslim pogrom based on this latest incident?

            2. If it’s a terror attack, it really screws with their “we must ban guns” talking points in an election season. People will want the means to defend themselves against terrorists, which means they must have guns. The Democrats have saddled themselves to the U shaped nag of gun control already (both Clinton and Sanders) and they’re stuck with it.

              1. “If it’s a terror attack, it really screws with their “we must ban guns” talking points'”

                You’d think so, but then the pols have been running with an “THE NRA ARMS TERRISTS” line ever since.

                I don’t think its politically smart, but its sure what they’re going with.

                My opinion is that dems think their chances in 2016 are more dependent on “getting out the vote” than it is “winning any independents”. So they’ll flog the anti-gun thing at least early on.

                1. Right, and that’s why Adam Lanza and that PP dude are “terrorists” now.

                2. It’s a horrible strategy if that’s what they think will resonate with the American voter. Right or wrong, people think they’re in terrible danger from Daesh. Claiming that the NRA is somehow responsible for Islamic terrorism isn’t going to gain any traction. Easy one sentence retort: “Did the NRA arm the attackers in France too?” Although the Republicans are doing their level best to nominate a clown shoe for the Presidency, they’ll really have to phone it in to lose against that.

                  1. i think if they maintain this willfully-naive argument about “Background Checks” they can keep harping about it without losing too may people who otherwise were already in the bag for Dems.

                    The background checks thing is just playing to the misunderstanding of the public about what can be “checked’ with any reliability and what can not.

                    People don’t realize that mental health records are basically untouchable by HIPAA; and that changing the rules would require a massive public database that employers would likely get backdoor access to. Suddenly anyone who’s ever taken prozac or gone to a marriage counselor is on a “List”. People don’t realize the implications of the bullshit “UNIVERSAL” background check. Its a complete unicorn-concept. If we had a simple/easy/safe way to do ‘better’ checks without massive costs/consequences, it would already exist. yet they want to keep pushing the idea that there’s some magical “better way” just around the corner but the meany-GOP and NRA are preventing it.

                    1. I’m thinking Obama’s speech tonight will, when you look at what he will proposed to do, will concentrate more on getting weapons out of the hands of “violent” persons and preventing anti-Muslim bigotry than really stopping Islamic Radical terrorism. He will probably link the Planned Parenthood shooting and the San Bernardino shooting and claim they are identical in intent.

  26. A bit off-topic, I spotted that article from ZeroHedge who mentionned an university president who tell students to carry weapons.…

  27. Daily News columnist Linda Stasi

    No, no, not a loudmouthed NRA-friendly GOPpie Jew-xian! Has history ever before beheld such a monster?

    Sometimes I have the feeling that I’m the victim of a brain-in-a-jar/Truman Show experiment in which researchers see just how far they can go with their absurd manipulations before I catch on. Naming your authoritarian, victim-slurring columnist Stasi is too obvious by far. Fire your producers and get some with an ear for subtlety, brain-in-a-jar techs.

    1. So Abbie Normal is the Editor in Chief of the NYDN?

      1. Her legal name has been Abbie Cis for many years, thank you very much.

  28. Now, there is ‘concern’ that there are photos of the murderess, dead, without her burka!

    “Photo of San Bernardino shooter without burka causes controversy”…..679589.php

    Take that miserable rag off your head, lady!

    1. Just… wow.

    2. Considering how the cops always release mug shots to the local media (well, except when it’s a pig being arrested), is it would be a shock if there were no official photo such as the visa application photo to release.

    3. I did like that somebody responded with a picture of her without her face.

    4. It seems odd that even the Al Jazeera guy refers to it as a “Burqa” when the photos we have of her show her in a “Hijab”…which is far more common worldwide, the “Burqa” being a full-body-onesie which almost no one except the most extremist-orthodox people wear, and even then mostly in shithole countries like Afghanistan or Somalia. Even Saudis are more cool with the Niquab.

      1. Right. My understanding of the article is that he’s complaining that she’s wearing a hijab and not a burqa.

        I see plenty of burqas in my Brooklyn neighborhood, FWIW.

        1. Brooklynstan!

          1. Burqas creep me out, I’m not gonna lie. Like if I’m in the elevator with one – how are you supposed to interact with such a person? I tend to sort of pretend they aren’t there because that is what the clothing projects.

    5. You can’t fool me. That’s a dude in makeup.

    6. “Photo of San Bernardino shooter without burka causes controversy”

      When 98% of the target population is okay with something and then a small group complains, it does not constitute a controversy. Most Americans wouldn’t even find it particularly controversial if ABC published photos of her in a Wicked Weasel.

      There are just more interesting things for non-crybullies to complain about.

    7. “Al-Jazeera producer Hashem Said is being criticized after tweeting that ABC News should have respected San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik by not sharing photos of her without a burqa”

      ABC should have respected those of us unable to unsee things by only showing pictures of Tashfeen Malik outside of a burqa.

      1. “inside of a burqa”

  29. “San Berdoo”?

    Is that a bit of slang I’m not aware of?

    1. Huh I guess it is.

    2. Yep. Grew up in Calif and we always called it that

  30. “All politicians are morons”

    “Something should blow something up”

    “Shove this up your ass”

    OMG when did the internet become such a hate filled bigot?

  31. Mr. Gillespie says Messianic jews are “cultural or ethnic News who convert to Christianity.”

    I agree, but I agree as a matter of Christian doctrine, which Mr. Gillespie probably doesn’t do.

    Or maybe he’s endorsing mainstream Jewish doctrine, which is also either/or.

    But the Messianic Jews say they’re both Jewish *and* Christian at the same time.

    Doesn’t Gillespie want to respect people’s self identification? What if the guy claimed to be a woman – you’d defer to the self-identification *then,* wouldn’t you?

    1. My tablet turns the J-word into “News.”

    2. Who cares? No matter how bizarre your religious beliefs are, as long as you are outrageous, government should not discriminate against you and people shouldn’t shoot you. And the shooters apparently weren’t motivated by his religion, making the entire issue irrelevant.

  32. The difference is that I have no problem blaming the News.

    Now it turned “News” into “Jews.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.