Speaking Ill of the Dead

Linda Stasi, writing for the New York Enquirer Daily ‘News’, is a sad, sick, hateful b***h.

(Edit: The live link below is via donotlink.com, to avoid supporting the birdcage liner with traffic. H/T to Claire in comments.)

San Bernardino killers were radical, ISIS-loving monsters — but one of their victims was just as bigoted
They were two hate-filled, bigoted municipal employees interacting in one department. Now 13 innocent people are dead in unspeakable carnage.

One man spent his free time writing frightening, NRA-loving, hate-filled screeds on Facebook about the other’s religion.

The other man quietly stewed and brewed his bigotry, collecting the kind of arsenal that the Facebook poster would have envied.

What they didn’t realize is that except for their different religions they were in many ways similar men who even had the same job.

Nicholas Thalasinos was a Messianic Jew who apparently committed the great evil of exercising his First Amendment-protected right to object to abortion, the AGW scam, and scumbag politicians. His F***b**k page is still active,so you can see his rants. Oddly, they mostly look like calm, rational statements and news links. He believed Islam is a violent religion. He was murdered — purely coincidentally, no doubt — by a violent Islamic couple, who killed another thirteen people and wound seventeen more.

The terrorists — who do not deserve to be remembered by name — bought guns, two apparently illegally, since there’s no record of the transfer, illegally modified one and attempted to turn the other into a machine gun. They built pipe bombs to kill more. They dressed up in tactical gear, gathered their lethal tools, swore loyalty to ISIS, and drove to a party to murder innocent, unarmed people.

But the terrorists were nice folks who kept their thoughts to themselves. Unless you count the bullets they dispensed, while Thalasinos… talked. And followed news. How dare he, wonders that Stasi jerk (who believes the 1A is only for her).

It’s not like the NYEDN was ever anything but a leftist, yellow rag. It’s clickbait. I’m sure they’re loving the traffic that Stasi’s smear piece is generating.

If you subscribe to the NYDN, cancel. Don’t visit the web site. But do tell them what you think of that column and Stasi: voicers@nydailynews.com.

Address: 4 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004
Main phone number: (212) 210-2100
Home delivery phone number: (800) 692-6397

If you advertise with NYDN, drop them: RZaccagno@nydailynews.com.

Sure, it’s their right to speak horribly of the dead. But we need neither listen nor support them.

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would lik>e to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!


10 thoughts on “Speaking Ill of the Dead”

  1. Bear — I saw the appalling words of that appalling woman (and what an appropriate surname she has). I could hardly believe she’d equate someone’s peaceable opinions with mass murder.

    BTW, here’s a handy tool for anybody who’d like to see the article without giving the gift of clicks to the foul creature’s writings:


    Just go there and put in the URL of her screed.

  2. “The terrorists — who do not deserve to be remembered by name — bought guns, two apparently illegally, since there’s no record of the transfer, illegally modified one and attempted to turn the other into a machine gun”

    It’s impossible to illegally buy or modify a gun. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t recognize the right to keep and bear arms “except for [insert something here].” Shall not be infringed. Period. Every law regulating the purchase and modification of weapons is unconstitutional and therefore void.

    1. Tom, I understand, and even agree with, your position. Sadly, in the world as it currently exists, individuals ceded by default the power to determine what constitutes compliance with the Constitution to the SCOTUS. More sadly, SCOTUS has ruled that some restrictions can be imposed; that makes it law in the US system.

      In a perfect world, the only ‘rule’ we would need would be the NAP/ZAP. But we have to live in the world as it is, while we fix things.

      So yes: In present reality, it appears that they illegally purchased weapons and illegally modified one, whether or not such should even be illegal.

      I hope we can agree that mass murder is wrong.

      1. I have to agree with Thomas on this one. To say someone illegally modified a weapon is to give tacit approval to gun control. It should not even be mentioned, as it is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that they killed people.

        NAP is not just for perfect worlds…

        1. [This is late because I spent a few days deciding (with a little help from my friends) that it would be acceptable to give Bonneau the attention he actually deserves.]

          To say someone killed people is to give tacit approval to murder?

          To say someone stole your free-range cattle is to give tacit approval to rustling?

          To say Obama lies is to give tacit approval to politicians?

          Or is to say something was illegal simply admits the current existence of a system of laws of which we disapprove?

          [non-apology apology]I’m sorry you’re uncomfortable with reality because you feel I am insufficiently pure.[/non-apology apology]

          Then she and Gilbert sanctified the area, offering tobacco smoke to all five points of the compass.

          “Five?” asked Marian.

          “The Indian people shake their heads at your ‘four points of the compass’,” young Gilbert smiled. “They say say it means the white man can never be happy where he is, he always has to be going somewhere else. Just as nature gave us the five colors of the corn — red, yellow, blue, white, and mixed — so we are given the five points of the compass: north, south, east, west, and here.” (The Miskatonic Manuscript,Vin Suprynowicz)

          If you don’t know you are now, you don’t where to go to achieve your goals.

          Speak to me of your pure life.

          Do you live on Earth, where every square inch of the surface has been laid claim to by one imaginary government or another? You tacitly approve of government. Which seems to be the case anyway, since you acknowledge the existence of voting.

          Do you have a driver license? You tacitly approve of .gov licensing existence.

          Do you buy food or other goods and pay sales taxes? You tacitly approve theft by taxation. Or maybe you simply stand up to the store clerks and refuse to pay (in which case I wonder if you gave tacit approval to cops by acknowledging their ability to arrest you, by running away). Oh, well; if they couldn’t keep you from taking their property, it wasn’t really their property after all, right? Proudhon would be proud of you.

          Good thing you aren’t renting out properties (oh, dear; you tacitly approved of government regulation by acknowledging the existence of rental laws), or you’d blow your investment every time you rented out a place and the renter claimed ownership. Maybe you’d just grab that rifle and set the crosshairs… nonchalantly avoiding tacit approval of cops by pretending they won’t arrest you for murder.

          I’m sure the courts will accept your defense that the thieving renter had no right to, life. A lovely precedent… that could work the other way, too. Maybe your renter will preempt your claim to your life. After all, so long as it isn’t genocide it’s all cool.

          Wait… Why would you even want to get into the rental business? For money? To tacitly approve of fed control of money? I suppose you could barter for goods, but then you’d have to keep shooting the freelance redistributionists breaking into your warehouse.

          Then there’s the whole real estate ‘ownership’ and property taxes thing. Maybe you’re a Georgist… tacitly approving of a government that controls who can use what.

          Oh, my. You’re on the Internet. How did you do that; by paying for taxed telecom access, or by using someone else’s taxed access? More tacit approval. Or maybe you stole appropriated that, too. It’s not like the folks who built the infrastructure and pay technicians to maintain it have any claim on anything you can grab.

          I’m a little lost here. Is your hero Proudhon or Huntington?

          Frankly, your vision of libertarian purism looks a lot like a thief justifying his lifestyle. Or you’re a troll who enjoys insulting people on other folks blogs and forums, where you think you’re relatively safe from polite people who won’t splatter garbage over venues where the both of you are guests.

          I suspect both. And neither is worth any further time or effort (aside from shooting you if you try steal my stuff or kill me, which you approve of anyway).

  3. I have to say that I am out of my element in that I sit in sunny Florida instead of cold Michigan, trying to wrap my head around all this crap. How can anyone possibly stretch anything to put the blame on anyone for the carnage wrought by these animals onto one of the victims? Oh, I forgot, MSM.
    As far as the SCOTUS and their rulings is concerned, although I am completely against what they have ruled, I am also a realist. I know that in the real world, the state can use force to take action against individuals, and in reality there is little we can do but as a whole, we can fight, and we must.
    That being said, the 2nd amendment will and must prevail, and I have no doubt that over the next few years it will be the most important issue in public discourse seen.
    We must remember that the 2nd amendment merely codifies a right that already exist. A right that everyone on the planet, not just in our country, by the way, possesses. That is what we are fighting for. Not words on a document, written by men, but principles endowed by a creator, if you will.

    1. There is no right at all. We are armed for one reason only: we won’t tolerate an attempt to disarm us, and will kill anyone who tries it. Rights have nothing to do with what is going on here.

      1. I have to disagree. It most certainly is about my right to have firearms, not only to defend against one who might try and take them, but also to band together with like minded patriots to overthrow an unjust government. Also, for many other uses as I might see fit. Perhaps hunting, the shooting sports, home defense, self defense while away from home, as a collector. Maybe even as an investment.

        The point is, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are named the Bill of Rights. They don’t give us our rights, they simply enumerate some of them, or list them. And those rights not listed in the Constitution specifically are supposed to be held entirely for the states.
        The federal government, by making so many what I also believe are illegal laws against firearm ownership, is indeed overstepping it’s bounds. But now we are quickly seeing the same thing happening with our 1st amendment rights. So hold on, because even though I am sure I am not the first to predict this, it’s going to be a very bumpy ride.

        I wonder in which order they will try and take them out?

  4. Being raised in Virginia I do believe in rights but to each their own too;

    Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

    “That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot by any compact deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

    “Government is, or ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration and […] when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.”

    “That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man bath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.”

    “That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

    “That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”

    When tyranny becomes law
    Rebellion becomes duty!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *