Caleb: There’s no virtue in dying, Leela.
Leela: That rather depends on what you do to avoid it

Doctor Who, The Face of Evil 1977

There is one more point I would like to make concerning Linda Stasi’s Piece in the NY Daily News beyond what I said yesterday

There is a sentence in said piece where Stasi was condemning one of the terror victims from San Bernardino that our friends at Gateway Pundit highlighted.

The killer, however, became half of an Islamic Bonnie & Clyde, while the other died as the male equivalent of Pamela Geller.

This line speaks volumes and I submit and suggest that this was not a coincidence or just a bit of hyperbole, this was a dog whistle.

This was a message to potential Islamic killers that the New York Daily News and Linda Stasi believe that their sworn enemy Pamela Geller a US citizen who has spoken out about the dangers of Jihadist terrors are considered beyond the pale by them and that while it is required of them to offer pro-forma condemnation of any attempt to murder her, as far as they are concerned she has it coming.

It is a very public proclamation that while you might have a few disagreements on issues such as gay marriage (or more relevant concerning ISIS gays being tossed off of roofs) the NY Daily News and Linda Stasi are not completely unsympathetic to Muslim grievances and feeling that apparently drive them to murder.

Jake Tapper in a tweet yesterday noted the oddity of the tone that he is seeing concerning San Bernardino

Jake I don’t think it’s strange at all. The whole concept of joining the “kill me last” caucus is about establishing to the potential killers you should not be considered a legitimate target. Of trying to preserve one own’s life, unlike the secondary target of the Daily News Piece Pam Geller who bravely asks the question Stasi, the Daily News and many journalists will not.

American Muslims for the umpteenth time are wailing about a fear of reprisals – reprisals that never actually come in reality, but are always the focus of media obsession after every jihad attack. The blood of American Christians and Jews is still on the floor and the walls of a Christmas party, and they are playing the victim. How savage.

Why aren’t American Muslims mourning our dead? Why aren’t American Muslims using their money and influence to call for an “enlightenment” in Islam, a purge of the Quran and the Islamic texts and teachings that call for jihad and genocide?

The difference is quite striking isn’t it.

I’m fond of life and I’m sure Pam is too, but may I never be so fond of life that I would treat those who would murder either a friend such as Pam Geller or a person I hold in contempt such as Cecile Richards, with sympathy simply to increase the odds of saving my own skin.


The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000 and to date we’re only at $5200

Given that fact I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.

Choose a Subscription level

Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

One of the things biggest difference between an MSM reporter and a blogger is editorial discretion.

Individual bloggers are their own editors. On an individual blog with nobody looking over your shoulder you are more likely to get not only the occasional spelling and grammar error but, depending on the blogger, to get occasional f-bomb, vulgarity and outrageous opinions that would never make a newspaper.

In contrast when I do an occasional piece for I have an editor who occasionally send pieces back for rewrites or rejection if it doesn’t meet their needs or standards. When my Weinergate blogpost was rewritten as an opinion piece in the  NY Post (leading to my appearance on Fox Boston) the Post was very careful with it taking several drafts & making sure nothing I made no unsubstantiated claims.

It is this fact that makes the placement of Linda Stasi’s piece in the New York Daily News worse than the content.

To be sure the content itself is reprehensible

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.

and has drawn rebuke from folks from Erick Erickson:

The left keeps reaching new lows. This really is amazing. The New York Daily News’ Linda Stasi has penned a piece attacking one of the victims killed by the terrorists in California.

Turns out he is an evangelical, born-again Messianic Jew and NRA member. Therefore, he can be attacked and defamed after being killed by terrorists

To Rod Dreher

It is vile, utterly vile, that Linda Stasi and the Daily News would speak of a murdered man that way. So, what, does the Daily News now reserve the right to look into the opinions of all murder victims, and if they don’t like what they see, publish columns saying that they are no better than the man who slaughtered them?

Stasi here reminds me of the old black-humor joke: “Sure, Hitler hated the Jews. But to be fair, the Jews also hated Hitler.”

And if this was Linda Stasi writing on her blog for all the well deserved critique it might draw it would be of no more consequence than the ravings of the assorted twentysomething feminists that Stacy McCain mocks. It would be a blogger ranting and the onus would rightly be exclusively on her.

But that’s not what happened.

This piece didn’t run on a person blog, it ran in the New York Daily News (Alexa Rank 783) a major American Newspaper in the Largest City in the United States and decided to put it under the masthead.

Think about that.

Not only did the layers of editor and fact checkers at the New York Daily News decide that Ms. Stasi’s piece was worthy of publication in their paper, but they upon consideration concluded that it belonged under the masthead for every reader to see.

To put this in proper perspective imagine if the New York Daily News running such a piece attacking a 9/11 victim on September 14th 2001.  Or maybe on the next anniversary of 9/11 picture the city removing the names of any victims who were members of the NRA.

To be sure Linda Stasi has a first amendment right to say, think and write what she wants. She has a right to try and distribute those opinions to as wide an audience as she can muster by whatever platforms are willing to give her space to do so.

She however doesn’t have a first amendment right to the Masthead of the New York Daily News, that had to be given to her by the paper’s affirmative consent and the New York Daily News and it’s editorial board should be judged accordingly.


The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000 and to date we’re only at $5200

Given that fact I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.

Choose a Subscription level

Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

The Barbara Morgan story is fun on a whole lot of levels, particularly for the right. The cat-fight motif, the profanity all with the background of the Weiner case drives people toward it like a bear to honey. But hidden inside of it this something that is not only key, but explains an awful lot about the Weiner run:

many of the interns were hoping to get close to Huma Abedin, who could push Hillary Clinton to run for president

The importance of this line simply can’t be overstated.

Now it’s true that the base story from the NY Daily News it was the paper’s cover story:

And there are seemingly a bunch of links to that base story:

Weiner 2

But none of the links emphasized the actual big story. The idea that people even young women who know he is kinda creepy are willing to associate themselves with Weiner if it means pleasing Huma.

Don’t be so surprised, while it’s been suggested that people want to please Hillary or get close to Hillary by pleasing Huma tell me what was Hillary Clinton’s excuse?

Consider. Huma Abadin is 37 years old (born in 1976) From age 2 till age 18 she lived in Saudi Arabia that takes us to 1994 when she entered George Washington University, within two years while still in college she was hired as an intern by Hillary Clinton.

Run that through your head

In 1996 Bill Clinton was president and people were already talking about a political future for Hillary. Working with her must have been on of the most coveted positions for a young woman in the democrat party. Certainly there must have been plenty of sons and daughters of pols, campaign workers and democrat fundraisers who would have died for the chance to be in that position.

Yet Huma Abadin a young lady still in college who has spent a lifetime in Saudi Arabia not only gets the job, but has stayed with Hillary Clinton her entire life since.

Remind me, who is the one with the power, with the juice? Who is the one with the backers that people want to associate with?

I can see why for a Clinton 2016 campaign Huma Abadin in the Mayor’s office with her husband would be a plus to counter any possible Andrew Cuomo and why Clinton supports might back Weiner on those grounds but the more I look at the relationship between the 65-year-old Hillary Clinton and the 37-year-old Huma Abadin and the questions that simply don’t make sense, I must conclude there is clearly one of them that if you are 18 you might want to hitch your longterm wagon to.

I submit and suggest it’s the same person that Hillary Clinton decided to hitch her wagon to nearly twenty years ago.

The question remains why?

This morning as I scanned twitter I saw this re-tweet from Byron York.

The Palin “story” of course not being her latest facebook offering on crony capitalism

President Obama has his sights set on raising $1 billion for his reelection campaign. Raising that money won’t be easy. But if you can hand out other people’s money to friends, it must get a lot easier. This crony capitalism and government waste is at the heart of our economic problems. It will destroy us if we don’t root it out. It’s not just a Democrat problem or a Republican problem. It’s a problem of our permanent political class. This won’t stop until “we the people” say enough is enough, and we retire the permanent political class that votes for this.

That goes unreported because that’s evidence of substance, intelligence and relevance. That’s not allowed in a Palin story. No the story is Joe “Hypothetical cat torturer” McGinniss’ claim that she hooked up with Glenn Rice two decades ago.

One of the advantages of writing about Sarah Palin it is almost always profitable, a favorable book on her attracts her supporters and any possible smear not only attracts her detractors but attracts MSM attention on a massive scale beyond anything resembling normal publicity. In a bad economy that’s money in the bank.

So if you are the New York Daily News part of a dying industry and the #3 paper in town the Sarah Palin “story” is the ultimate honey, Sarah Palin on the Cover sells papers, a scandalous sex rumor sells papers, and best of all a chance to hurt her supporters because, in their mind, her supporters being racists would object to the details.

Best of all since they are reporting the contents of an upcoming book, they can claim it has nothing to do with them, they’re just covering an existing story, plausible deniability.

Byron’s quaint re-tweet suggests surprise that the paper would go with this on the front page. Byron Byron Byron, you are assuming a professionalism unburdened by ideological taint in the newsroom that was always more apocryphal than real.

I’m sometimes a bit naive but when it comes to Sarah Palin and journalistic ethics, I’ve never been that naive.

Update: Now that’s news.

Please give $25 to SarahPAC, so that we can bail Todd Palin out on that assault charge — and then fly him to the next Joe McGinniss book signing to deliver yet another brutal ass-whupping.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Just give $25 to SarahPAC, you see, and we’ll cover Todd Palin’s legal expenses and fly him to wherever Joe McGinniss appears in public, turning McGinniss’s book tour into a nationwide beatdown tour.

I’d give that a front page photo