Me yesterday:
I shall hold off further comment until more facts are known.
No such circumspection stayed Utah Senate candidate Mitt Romney, who reacted instantly to the "suspicious packages" mailed to the Clintons, Obama, George Soros, CNN and others, and weighed in with boundless confidence:
Hate acts follow hate speech. It is past time for us to turn down and tune out the rabid rhetoric.
This is a nitwit statement even by Mitt's recent standards, and doubtless a preview of the role he intends to play in the Senate. It is also an object lesson in the perils of Tweet-speed insight. "Moderate" "reasonable" "centrists", like all other politicians, should take a deep breath and be mindful of the old adage: Don't just say something, stand there.
"Hate speech" is not a notion a supposedly "severe conservative" (as Mitt once styled himself) would sign on to. "Hate speech" is free speech - because the concept of free speech exists for the speech you hate. In the modern world, "hate speech" is the enforcement arm of identity politics: Once an approved victim group is designated - Muslims, transgenders - "hate speech" is a pseudo-legal concept for shutting people up: Unpersuaded by the benefits of mass Muslim immigration? Concerned that seven-year-olds should not be hustled into "transitioning"? Hate speech, hate speech, hate speech...
Until you reach the stage that most of the western world is at - where polite society has ruled anything worth talking about out of bounds. At which point the masses turn to impolite society - Trump, Brexiteers, Salvini, Orbán...
Is it true that "hate acts follow hate speech"? To lazy types like, alas, "severely conservative" Republican Senate candidates, the logic is self-evident. As I wrote almost a decade ago:
Ever since this magazine attracted the attention of Canada's "human rights" regime, defenders of the system have clung to a familiar argument. In a letter to Maclean's, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., Canada's chief censor, put it this way:
"Steyn would have us believe that words, however hateful, should be given free rein. History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. That is why Canada and most other democracies have enacted legislation to place reasonable limits on the expression of hatred."
"Hateful words" can lead to "unspeakable crimes." The problem with this line is that it's ahistorical twaddle, as I've pointed out. Yet still it comes up. It did last month, during my testimony to the House of Commons justice committee, when an opposition MP mused on whether it wouldn't have been better to prohibit the publication of Mein Kampf.
"That analysis sounds as if it ought to be right," I replied. "But the problem with it is that the Weimar Republic — Germany for the 12 years before the Nazi party came to power — had its own version of Section 13 and equivalent laws. It was very much a kind of proto-Canada in its hate speech laws. The Nazi party had 200 prosecutions brought against it for anti-Semitic speech. At one point the state of Bavaria issued an order banning Hitler from giving public speeches."
And a fat lot of good it all did.
More on this in my book Lights Out (personally autographed copies of which are exclusively available at the SteynOnline bookstore - and Steyn Club members, don't forget to enter your promotional code at checkout to enjoy special member pricing).
In fact, the opposite is true: The absence of a wide degree of vigorous free speech leads to "hate acts", to violent societies where, in the absence of a culture of dissent, the state thinks nothing of, say, chopping you into dozens of pieces in its consulate.
But Mitt took the bait and revealed, yet again, that he's a rube and a patsy and a pushover.
Let us stipulate that we live in awful, vulgar, witless hyper-partisan times. Does instant stupid mouthing-off on the Internet encourage violence? There's just as much evidence that it's a safety valve: Just as "sexting" seems to have replaced sex for large numbers of people, so venting seems to function as a violence substitute: Hey, let's get that guy and string him up on the edge of town! Er, actually, I was thinking I'd just Tweet that he's a f**ktard douchebag in capital letters, and then watch "Carpool Karaoke" before turning in...
I have had some small distant connection with letter bombs. They are an inefficient way of dispatching your enemies, which is why for high-profile assassinations the IRA preferred placing actual bombs in situ themselves: They did not trust the murders of, say, Lord Mountbatten, Sir Anthony Berry, Ian Gow, Robert Bradford and Airey Neave to the vagaries of the Royal Mail. Setting aside their unreliability, in the over-entouraged political culture of contemporary America there is zero chance of a letter bomb to a former president finding its target. Or even to Maxine Waters. From another book of mine well worth your time, The Face of the Tiger:
I have to confess that my first reaction, on hearing that 34 staffers in Tom Daschle's office had tested positive for anthrax, was a gasp of amazement: Tom Daschle has 34 staffers? Why?
A plotter competent enough to have all his "suspicious devices" arrive at the homes of half-a-dozen high-profile targets within twenty-four hours of each other is sophisticated enough to know that those devices are not going to get anywhere near close enough to kill or wound those targets - and that's before one considers the nature of the "bombs":
Some bomb technicians who studied photos of the device that circulated on social media suggested that the bomb sent to CNN had hallmarks of fake explosives — the kind more typically depicted on television and in movies, rather than devices capable of detonating.
A digital clock was taped to the middle of the pipe, a feature that experts say is typically shown on fictional bombs in an attempt to ratchet up dramatic tension, but unnecessary in real life.
In fact, bombmakers generally avoid attaching visible clocks to their devices to keep from tipping off their targets about when the bombs are set to explode.
Golly, it's almost like the "bombmaker" knew these bombs weren't ever going to be exploding anywhere, no way no how.
The point of terrorism is to terrorize - that's to say, terrorize the general population, and thereby change the way they live. Earlier this year, paying tribute to my much-missed compatriot George Jonas, I quoted one of his shrewdest insights:
George said a great thing about terrorism a couple years ago - that the the point about terrorism is: it's not about hijacking airliners, it's about hijacking the debate. It's about hijacking the conversation and that's how successful terrorism works. It wants to terrorize you into avoiding certain subjects.
Sending multiple bombs that will never reach their targets is an ineffective way to kill former presidents, vice-presidents, cabinet secretaries and movie stars ...but it's such an ingenious way to "hijack the debate" that you'd almost think that was its purpose.
Whether or not that proves to be so, the pile-on by Democrats and media these last twenty-four hours confirms they're happy to co-opt it as such: Pipe bombs? You deplorables need to pipe down.
Two years ago, after an actual political murder - of the Yorkshire MP Jo Cox - a week before the Brexit referendum, a similar effort was made to tie violence to the "tone" of conservatives:
Britain Asks if Tone of 'Brexit' Campaign Made Violence Inevitable
- above a photograph of Nigel Farage and one of his Brexit posters. Because Nige is the real perp.
A few days later, Britons who favor withdrawal from the European Union reacted to being tarred as accomplices in murder about as you'd expect. So, if the elites want more Trump, more Brexit, more populism, telling the masses to shut up pretty much ensures they're going to get it.
The answer to more violence is not less speech. That way lies darkness and tyranny. It's disgusting to see a Republican senatorial shoo-in, the next Emir of Incumbistan, too lazy to give any serious thought to the subject before reflexively virtue-signaling his compliance.
~Thank you to all those Mark Steyn Club members who helped make our inaugural Steyn Cruise a sellout. If you couldn't make it this year, don't miss our second cruise, which we'll be announcing shortly.
Catch you on the telly tonight, Thursday, when Tucker Carlson and I will have more to say about more violence and less speech, coast to coast on Fox News at 8pm Eastern/5pm Pacific, with a rerun at midnight eastern. Hope you can join me.
If you prefer me in audio only, I'll be back tomorrow, Friday, with a brand new nightly radio yarn in our series Tales for Our Time.
If you prefer me live in person, this Sunday afternoon - 3pm October 28th - I'll be at the Boston Marriott in Newton, Massachusetts to accept the Genesis Award from CJUI (Christians and Jews United for Israel). It should be a fun time, so, if you're in the New England area, I look forward to seeing you there.
You can find more information on The Mark Steyn Club here - and don't forget our special Gift Membership.
Comment on this item (members only)
Submission of reader comments is restricted to Mark Steyn Club members only. If you are not yet a member, please click here to join. If you are already a member, please log in here:
Member Login
90 Member Comments
Mitt Romney is the swampiest of swamp ol' Mormon fuddy-duddy two time Presidential candidate failure. We're listening to him why?
On the subject of the bomber, I'll just float this out there...This story just died. Mentally ill seemingly homeless guy mails completely ineffective 'bombs' to several Democrats, has a WHITE van with Trump decals perfectly placed all over the windows. We don't hear anything about this now. Just like the Mandalay Bay shooter. Just like Blasey Ford. Would it be a stretch to believe it's all a setup? Just sayin'....
I guess not every mad bomber has to be a genius.
Here's my question to all:
How do you get someone like Mitt to realize Mark is correct in his observations? Is it even possible, or do we need to replace the Mitts of the right?
To me, it's obvious that Mark is right and Mitt is wrong. But is Mitt hopelessly wrong, or can he be awakened to the truth?
Pressure him, hold him accountable, contain him until he is forced to make a difficult decision - one between two difficult choices. Right now, he's in the land of make-believe where the choices are false ones, playing to the media's preferred "right answers" to get the good press and adulation. McCain went the same route. It's good for them, good for Democrats, but bad for the country. Deep down there's a conservative or at least semi-conservative in there. He's a bad candidate, but if he does get elected, his feet will have to be held to the fire constantly to escape his instinctive tendencies. Someone will have to babysit him constantly. Who's going to do that? Lousy candidate, shouldn't be running. We don't need more McCains and Flakes.
That's a tall order, Sol. I agree 100%... Since my husband and I live here in Utah I hope we're up to the challenge. My concern is that he is pretty much in lock-step with the the majority of LDS members here, (good, honest, caring, generous & concerned people, (and the majority in our district) but I get the sense that Trump is just too unrefined for them) and they are tired of the chaos. We're not LDS, retired military & an AF brat, - a little less refined, and a little more street smarts, so our voices will be pretty much in the minority. ...but "oh my heck" (strong language out here) he's at least not as bad as the democrat opponent.
What a beautifully written paragraph:
"The answer to more violence is not less speech. That way lies darkness and tyranny. It's disgusting to see a Republican senatorial shoo-in, the next Emir of Incumbistan, too lazy to give any serious thought to the subject before reflexively virtue-signaling his compliance."
More speech, more negotiation. I have always found it bizarre that the left attacked Trump for opening channels of communication with Russia, North Korea, et al. He is willing to talk things out and seems to look for win-win situations, such as the potential economic bonanza in North Korea. HIs successes fuel their fear and anxiety, though, and they have little left but cranking up the decibels. Sadly enough, since the left has made a black-white issue out of good vs evil, and they have no answers, their only fallback is ugly confrontation.
" I have always found it bizarre that the left attacked Trump for ... "
Fill in the blank. Bizarre is a good word. The farther left they fly, the more demented they sound and act.
Though my husband and I voted for Mitt for president, and though I am an advocate of term limits and citizen-politicians across the board, Mitt's comments make me wish that Orrin Hatch would stay on another couple dozen years. As a conservative in Utah who is watching the progressive, insidious agenda slowly-but-surely take hold of our state, it absolutely galls me to have to vote for Mitt for the Senate. Every time he makes a sanctimonious comment about reaching across the aisle, compromise, bringing Utah values and civility to DC, an angry-old-bitter-holier-than-thou McCain/not-so hidden agenda flashes across my mind. I am convinced Mitt hopes to establish a shadow-government and possibly depose Trump in 2020, and I'm not looking forward to it one bit and I think it'll be even worse if we lose the House...I'm guessing he'll take it as a referendum on refined sensibilities...don't do much...just look good doing it. WHEW...glad I could finally get that off my chest!!!
Can someone explain how Mitt Romney runs for U.S. Senator from Utah after being governor of Massachusetts?
What concerns me more than the "bomb" situation is the economy. Several months ago I became concerned about the number of very wealthy people who hate Trump and what he stands for. Could there be a concerted effort by them to tank the stock market just prior to the mid-term elections? Then, Bill Maher actually went on record calling for a recession to get rid of Trump. We have already seen a terrible week in the stock market and I have a bad feeling about the next week or so.
As to the "bombs", am I wrong in thinking that the home addresses of people like Soros, the Clintons, and others would be hard to get?
Saw your interview with Tucker. You said in your post "Post-Democracy and the Populists" that when people believe that "no matter how you vote, nothing is going to change" results in revolution. We have individuals that are angry and frustrated and the bombs are the inevitable end point when all else fails. When you feel that the government isn't protecting you from those out to hurt you or your voice is being ignored, violence is the answer to the left and any nut job hoping to make a name for themselves. We are going down a very dangerous road that has convinced the left that "Your path to utopia is being blocked by heathens and infidels and if you find them, cut them down or they'll hold you down." Civil war may happen again in this country if we're not careful. Winning the midterms is a start but winning a battle isn't the same as winning a war. We are at war with an ideology that hates us, wants to rewrite history to a socially acceptable view, and views us as evil. We can't take any chances moving forward. Our fight for our nation has already begun and we need to end it soon if the midterms don't do it for us. Be careful.
They must be terrified of losing the mid-terms - armies marching to the borders, scares, doom and gloom everywhere. But oddly, the weather outside is quite nice and every person we met in all social/economic interactions today smiled and said, "Have a good one!" Which is 'reality' ?
My doubts that habitual purveyors of fake news would turn up their collective noses at the chance to scream the party line re some faker's fake bombs are minimal. That they are not anything other than "Reichstag bombs" would be a miracle as well.
Think of that media as players in a theatrical production playing to an audience who is susceptible to the blandishments of advertisers on their networks. Their job is to make money for their corporate owners. Truth, facts, patriotism, etc. have little to do with their breathless presentation of shocking -- I say shocking -- events which their audience find delectable and spellbinding.
The selection of targets is so weird that I am suspicious. I have no respect for the likes of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Holder, but really, who the hell are they? Only they could think they were important enough in the scheme of things to try to bomb.
Apparently no one tried to bomb anyone. 10 devices mailed, 0 detonations. That indicates lack of intent. Somebody is playing us. If I was important enough to attack, I'd be disappointed if the attack was fake.
Well that's kind of my point. No one but them would think they were worth bombing. Ergo fake bomb attempts.
Feel The BERN! Evidently, Bernie Sanders was not important enough to receive a fake "pipe-bomb", but look at some of the nobodies / has-beens who did...
It's clear that in the 2020 campaign, Bernie will blame President Trump for not mailing him a "bomb"...
The proponents of limiting speech and expression should read SteynOnline if for nothing else than Mark's repeated warning -"If people are denied respectable outlets for the exression of their views, they will most certainly turn to unrespectable outlets to express those views." (I hope got that right)
As usual an excellent insight into why total freedom of speech actually dissipates aggression I remember a book I read of HL Mencken he was complaining about the lack of freedom of speech even back in the twenties his quote was freedom of speech don't make me laugh
"Er, actually, I was thinking I'd just Tweet that he's a f**ktard douchebag in capital letters, and then watch "Carpool Karaoke" before turning in..."
Nailed the Millenials.
In Luke chapter 19, Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem is recounted. While the crowds (the deplorables of the day) were cheering Jesus, the Pharisees (the Mitt Romneys of the day), asked Jesus to shut them up. In verse 40, Jesus replied "If they keep quiet then these stones will cry out." For a long time I didn't understand what that meant. Now I do.
As a Brit who doesn't know his US politics that well, it is very disappointing to hear the low-down on characters like Mitt Romney and John McCain, who have (until McCain's demise at least) always been portrayed as crazy far-right loons by the mainstream news channels here.
There are a few key concepts that the majority of right wing politicians don't get that make their judgement very hit-and-miss.
One is, of course, hate speech, which really seems to have gained traction and moved from a left-wing fringe concept into the mainstream over a short period of time. Mark has articulated the false logic as well as anyone can, but the simple point is that the existing concept of incitement to crime defines the boundaries of acceptable speech much better and does not need to be improved upon.
Another problematic concept is that of inalienable human rights. It is completely unbalanced as a principle because the inalienability excludes reference to responsibilities, which are the natural corollary to rights. Rights need to be alienable by conduct in principle. The valid rationale for a concept of rights is as as an inhibition on the state using unfair practices to silence dissent. When applied to bodies other than the state, one man's "human right" not to be treated in a certain way is a roundabout way of describing criminal law from the perspective of the victim. Inverting the perspective from criminal to victim should not affect the outcome of what is and is not legal. Nonetheless, in reality, the most marked effect of human rights law has been on the punishment of citizen-on-citizen crimes where the state has no vested illicit interest. The fact that the European Convention on Human Rights has decreed the death penalty (and probably soon the smacking of children) beyond the scope of democracy is an affront. The bureaucratic authors seem bent upon stealing the clothes of the Gospels to serve them in their brave new secular world.
Diversity and inclusion is the third flawed concept that too many on the right get tangled up by. This is the notion that there is strength in a society where we import cultures that have different opinions than our own (diversity) and the notion that we assimilate those cultures within our own culture (inclusion). It follows that the more diversity we have, the more difficult inclusion will be. There therefore need to be limits on diversity if we are to remain cohesive as a society. It is also possible for some divergent opinions to be incompatible with cohesive society, but the exercise of any judgment on this point by reference to culture is unacceptable. Hence it is beyond the Pale for any UK conservative politician to endorse Trump's restrictions on arrivals from Muslim countries.
Good thoughts. Re "unalienable rights", I suppose the US Constitution is describing the original pact. It probably went without saying that if you committed a crime, you forfeited your unalienable rights. The idea of unalienable rights is that they are endowed by the Creator, and cannot be taken away by government. If you commit a crime, you - not the government - have deprived yourself of those rights. Due process is in place to protect you from the government putting you in that jeopardy unjustly.
I don't pretend to be an expert, but I wonder if one meaning is, you can't give those rights away for your descendants?
Back in the day, you could sell yourself into slavery. If so, your descendants would be slaves, too. You had "alienated", i.e., sold, your right to freedom, hence they no longer had it - just as if you sold your house, they would no longer have it. "Inalienable" means you can't do that.
I think one meaning is that you can't give those rights away for your descendants. Of course, at the time the Constitution was written, there was the "peculiar institution" for which the compact set the stage to be included.
In the US, diversity does not include diversity of opinions. The diversity bureaucracy requires rigid uniformity of thought and assumes the required diversity of physical characteristics will maintain that dogma. It never does, thus enforced diversity always fails. The real problem with celebrating diversity instead of tolerating it is it inevitably encourages segregation. That's always destructive for any society.
I had always assumed the concept of inalienable human rights was developed in Europe by secularists, rather than being derived from the US constitution. My understanding of the US constitution is that it deals exclusively with the relationship between the state and individuals, which is what a constitution should do.
So I found it strange that those who do deny the existence of a creator and portray themselves as democrats would have the arrogance to put themselves in the role of constitutional framers for all countries for all time and assume a mandate to pontificate on things like the right of prisoners to vote, which is not in the domain of constitutions. Their attitude to universal truths is obviously formed by their Christian heritage, but they are like children who have just learned the tooth fairy does not exist and pour scorn on those who still do, but continue to believe wholeheartedly in Santa Claus. At least children who believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus have a consistent perspective. (This may come across as anti-religion, but I'm not try to equate theism with childish naivety.)
Regardless of the inspiration for the inclusion of inalienability in the European Convention, it is an absolute term and I do not think it would be justifiable to assume that the concept does not apply if someone commits a crime. It is the very purpose of including the word "inalienable" that it precludes such a conclusion. Which is why it is so flawed.
Yes, I do get dis-orientated by the role reversals over the past 20-30 years. The left won the argument that you cannot judge a person by physical attributes such as race and the right came to admit that colonialism was wrong. To my mind, the anti-racism argument wasn't adequately sympathetic to history and the fact the race was a much more consistent proxy for culture than it is today and the majority of the cultures that were colonised were consistently backward. Nonetheless, leaving aside the punishment of South African whites for the historical predicament they found themselves in, the fact that the inequalities of racial categorisation were being put to bed was a generally a good thing in the late 20th Century. It is perverse to see the left now insisting on revenge discrimination on all the old battle grounds that they triumphed on. The main difference between the tribalism of the left and the right is that the left is radical - shaking up the old order; whereas the right is conservative. The problem with conservatives is that once they lose a battle, they accept the new status quo and that is when people on the right realise they need to be radical in order to compete with the left.
Yes. Diversity actually means conformity. Just as tolerance, as practiced, is intolerant. It means those who preach diversity and tolerance get to lord it over others.
David Blair...
The Left is encapsulated by the phrase 'by any means necessary', which is quite clear: we will take any position that brings us along to achieving Heaven On Earth [or, if you prefer, 'Immanentizing The Eschaton'].
Bob, I don't disagree with using whatever means necessary to immanentise the eschaton, provided you are damn sure you've correctly identified what the eschaton is.
Conservatism is a sensible acknowledgement of the limitations of any small sub-set of humanity to dictate a course for the whole of it. But the principle runs into difficulty when the basis of the status quo is a narrow ideology, rather than a set of customs and traditions that have risen organically to the top.
When the ideology is producing bad results, it becomes necessary for the conservative to develop a more scientific approach to analyse which elements of the status quo merit their place and which were imposed without merit. Then it comes down to a dirty fight between the competing ideologies, because the incumbents aren't going to surrender their position any other way.
Diversity and multiculturalism are sham constructs designed to enrich those who profess to be experts in these areas. The Duke University Group of 88, of lacrosse scandal infamy, has profited no end. It is worth reviewing the excellent commentaries of KC Johnson. Here is an example: https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2010/05/23/what_ever_happened_to_the/
P.S. mindingthecampus.org offers superb updates of academic foibles, antics, and follies.
But being a conservative is not an Ideology.
Yes, it is more of an instinct, which is ingrained in people to varying extents. My point is that it is necessary to develop and fight for an ideology in certain circumstances. Being conservative/preserving the status quo is generally healthy, but it is not a panacea.
I do believe that the political wave proclaiming the virtues of diversity and multi-culturalism is propelled by a relatively small group of people who have cynically identified personal benefits associated with mass migration. But the vast majority of the population is behind it on the basis of a mixture of: pseudo-science around the benefits of challenge and new blood; a distaste for intolerant people whom they perceive to be their sole ideological opponents on this issue; and a sense that the view is fabulously fashionable and can be paraded with pride in public.
After the first 2012 debate between Romney and Obama, when Romney ctiticized the fake stories Obama told about the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack, and the debate "moderator" argued with Romney about it, and Romney described Russia as America's primary geopolitical foe and Obama ridiculed him for not being hip with the new pro-Russia attitude, Romney actually won the audience for being aggressively pro-American.But apparently Romney did not feel comfortable being aggressive and critical,and backed off the winning strategy in the last two debates, and lost the election. If Romney had been a more forceful critic, i.e.more like Trump, he could have won the election, but it is contrary to his personality.
Yes, he did back off. Instead of going in for the kill, he let up and became it, which is what many wealthy Republicans on an electoral trophy hunt, wanting to be liked by the trendy pols, media, and DC matrix, get ensnared in.
"It's disgusting to see a Republican senatorial shoo-in, the next Emir of Incumbistan, too lazy to give any serious thought to the subject before reflexively virtue-signaling his compliance."
Alas, it's also to be expected from just about every Republican save Trump...
Your last sentence is the key here.
We're going on and on and on about denying the Democrats a victory in November, but do we [I mean the Remnant of the American people who get it] understand that we're setting ourselves up for a frustrating two years of GOPe control?
Believe me, I'm voting for the bozos like Mitt, as I see no reasonable alternative. R's may be incompetent, but they aren't actively seeking to destroy the country. Incompetent people can at least occasionally do the right thing, even if only by accident.
But that doesn't mean I have to like or respect the bozos like Mitt....
The Daily Mail reported that the PVC pipe bombs were filled with sulfur and shards of glass for shrapnel. There were also X-rays of the "bombs." High school chemistry teaches that sulfur is not an explosive. The digital timers from Amazon appeared to be wired so they could not even ignite the sulfur. The most dangerous aspect of this bomb would be if you cut your finger on one of the shards. Of course, other bombs could be real. One thing I find curious is the details being released vary from the usual "we don't comment on on-going investigations" meme.
Given all this, try to choreograph the attack. A package is delivered and then opened by the intended target at the exact time the time bomb is set to detonate. The odds of this happening approach the odds of winning the lottery, which brings me to the point of my comment. The biggest loser in the MegaMillions drawing on Tuesday was Mark Steyn. I had sworn that if I had won I would give a half share of the $1.6 Billion to relieve Mark from his impoverishment, even though Mark had not paid his share of the $2 ticket. Sadly, only one of the numbers matched. I gave Mark a second chance on Wednesday with a $600 Million Powerball prize. This time no numbers matched. So Mark was a DOUBLE loser. I won't be offering any more chances like these again.
I was going to comment that if these alleged mail bombs were a Leftist plot to influence the mid-term elections then they would have contrived more realistic fakes. But then I reminded myself of the infamous fake George W. Bush Air National Guard letters from the 2004 election.
The key to solving any criminal investigation is motive. Who benefits from 10 fake bombs? What would motivate anyone to send them? One fake device could be irrational, which is often the explanation for bizarre crimes. Ten fake devices is too methodical to write off as irrational outburst. This was probably executed exactly as planned. So, who benefits?
The only evident benefit so far seems to be for the media, as with the fake Bush letters.
Then again, the news clips show a package showing the sender was Debbie W-S. Sometimes the simplest solution turns out to be the right one...
Today's headline in the Tucson Daily Star - "Trump's Harsh Criticism Preceded Delivery of Bombs" - well there you have it folks. You have to give it to the insane left, always one step ahead of the ever timid right. The FBI, the best in criminal profiling on the planet when investigating crimes of this nature always start with 'who benefits'? These bombs actually did go off as intended and with the full power of the media piling on full throttle this recent surge in the polls for republicans likely is over. I'm like a broken record here - but most conservatives have no idea what they are up against in 2018 America. Romney is what I like to call an "intelligent moron" and is by no means alone among well educated conservatives. Last week Gov. Jerry Brown speaking of President Trump (on camera), said we've got to get rid of this guy "by any means necessary". No reaction from the MS media and little push back from the right either. Mark and Tucker get it along with most on this wonderful web-site but I fear that we're all just whistling in the wind. America is in deep trouble.
I think it is the more prudent course to withhold judgement on these alleged mail bombs until more facts are known. I do find the timing of this story somewhat too convenient since it is apparently being used for all it is worth by the MSM. Still, I would rather believe that it is on the up and up, and perhaps some loon is sitting in his basement manufacturing fake bombs to send to people on some list he has and that the timing is just a coincidence. But then again, I'd rather believe that Christine Blasey Ford's belief in her story was authentic and the disclosure of the charges at the precise end of the Kavanaugh hearings was just a coincidence. I'd also rather believe that Jim Comey's briefing of the President on the Steele dossier and his making notes of their meetings was also on the up and up, and that its resulting in the appointment of Robert Muller was just a coincidence. I'd also rather believe that Joseph Mifsud's approaching of Carter Page was really in the interest of protecting the Trump campaign and that his later disappearance was just another coincidence.
I'd really like to believe that our authorities have actually prevented real harm coming to real people, who for all their faults don't deserve to be blown up. But here is the problem with establishing a pattern of underhanded and deceptive behavior. When something that is actually authentic happens, it makes it that much harder for many of us to really believe. And that is a tragedy.
But will Obama acknowledge that his package contains a really cool clock?
Just as soon as someone in the Democrat Party says Keith Ellison's accuser should be believed.
You reminded me of Clock Boy, Ahmed Mohamed, who was initially expelled for building what was a functional bomb timer placed in a briefcase with simulated explosives. After an outcry of enraged supporters of Islam he was re-instated and Obama invited him to the White House. I doubt Trump will invite this guy to lunch.
While I'm remiss to stamp a judgment to this bomb-a-thon, the timing of it reeks of an "October surprise" false flag operation. We have many stories pointing to Leftist hoaxes from fake racist symbols and words scrawled onto walls, to false police reports of Islamophobic harassment in subways and school sidewalks. I don't trust the Left as far as I can throw them, and I am sorely tempted to write this whole episode of "23 Bombs and Counting" off as a cheap, desperate ploy to depress Republican turnout in November.
I will, however, wait on the evidence before I issue my final judgment. Or apology. One or the other.
Maxine Waters has declared herself unafraid. Actually, she said, "I ain't afraid." Why should she be? It was a ruse and we all know it.
Mad Maxine ain't afraid, and Hillary ain't no ways tarred. What a party they have!
Why put stamps on the package if you intend to hand deliver them to the location? Note the absence of a postmark in the package pictured above.
Heh! Exactly. Decoration. Perhaps a postal service pension supporter, diligently paying for non-use of the service?
Why would you put a clock on a letter bomb? Is the USPS so reliable that you can know to the minute when the recipient will be opening the package?
Like Mark, I'm withholding any judgment on the "false flag" nature of these "bombs."
What I found most interesting about the limited information released so far is that the *first* bomb was received at the home of George Soros. It takes time for items to propagate through the mail, and the fact that the quickest delivery time was to Soros may be of interest to the investigators.
I know it is too early to say but it could be a false flag attempt by the democrats to use the victim card as they are very fond of that manoeuvre. Call me suspicious with the timing, but it has been known for those on the far left to attack themselves with violent hate speech/acts and then blame those on the right,
It would not surprise me if this whole situation is entirely concocted and enacted by the left. I hope they don't frame some unwitting unstable patsy who is about to inherit a wardrobe of MAGA hats,
So true. I'm on the bottom side of the world upside down in Australia sitting in my tractor and my immediate thought on hearing this news was that it stank!
Every single comment I seen on UK blogs was doubt.
They wouldn't be surprised if it was the lefties. They have gone so low now. This would be a new low.
What was strange, I never seen any lefty blogger challenge it.
Most of the blogs were talking about the timing. The midterms. Then is it perfect timing a caravan is heading with children at the same time.
It is like it is all getting funded.
If all the blogs in the UK are like this. What is the average American thinking?
It will take years before the lefties are trusted again. Maybe decades.
Personally I couldn't see a madman being that retarded.
I wonder if somebody could do an in-depth analysis of what the fallout is on a college campus after a "racism" hoax. Obviously, at first when everybody believes it, there's a big PC clampdown - "teachable moments", "diversity seminars", more well-remunerated commissar positions, more classes in which no substance is taught, etc, etc, etc.
When the hoax is discovered, the perp gets egg on their face, sure. But is any of the above ever rolled back? That is,is the Left ever worse off than they would have been had they not engaged in naked, barefaced lying?
If the answer is, as I suspect, "no", then what should we expect as these people graduate from college and assume leadership of the Democrat party?
This could well be a right-wing basement-dwelling loser, but I would not be at all surprised to find it's an Oberlin graduate pretending to be a right-wing basement-dwelling loser.
"When the hoax is discovered, the perp gets egg on their face, sure. But is any of the above ever rolled back?"
Roy, it doesn't have to be rolled back by the leftists in charge at universities. What matters is that if the students find out that the act of racism was a hoax, that will bother the most active-minded among them. It will make a difference to some portion of students who may become more suspicious and critical in their thinking.
I've been following the #WalkAway movement. I listen to a few of their videos every day - every day there are new members adding to the collection. In case some readers don't know, the #WalkAway movement is comprised of former Democrats and other former leftists (some are even in countries other than the US) who have left the Democrat Party/The Left because of a change in their political understanding and/or disgust with the ugly tactics, intolerance, and irrationality of the party and the ever further leftward movement of the ideology and policies.
There are many kinds of "red-pill" moments or a series of moments that have lead these people to reassess their views and affiliations. But one of the common ones is having the experience of asking a reasonable, critical question and being piled on by every leftist within hearing with insults and mockery instead of calm reasoning and a decent respect for honest inquiry. Or sometimes it's simply witnessing someone else being treated that way. This can be enough to lead some people to begin to do first-hand research into what the people on the right are really saying, what they really think and stand for. It's enough to make some realise that they've been trusting too much and researching too little. Finally, independence of mind and honesty becomes more important to these people than keeping their current social circle.
So don't underestimate how irrationality, bullying, and lying eventually undermine the practitioners. All we have to do is keep debunking the left and the most reasonable of their number will eventually thank us. Honesty and reason are the winning tactics, as long as we aren't afraid to be vocal and to let tidal waves of hideous accusations ride over us, we will prevail. Honesty, reason, and *courage* are what it takes to win this war.
Bombs not designed to explode combined with a massive, coordinated call for conservatives to shut up, smacks of Democrat Propaganda Theater. One would never know from the breathless "news" coverage that Democrat leaders constantly rabble rouse and name call (in the vilest terms), that Antifa thugs beat people up, or that Democrat low-lifes threaten Republicans in restaurants, on the street, and even show up at their homes.
If this be "hate speech," make the most of it!
The Democrats have had a bad couple of weeks (for them) media-wise. The caravan of "political asylum seekers" is getting closer and the Democrats have either nothing to say about it (Chuck Schumer) or are gleefully cheering them on (Kamala Harris.) The latter seems the majority position within the party and it ain't playing in Peoria. Prior to that we had a couple of news cycles dominated by the Elizabeth Warren DNA fiasco and the resultant discrediting of "minority quotas." All of this makes the appearance of these "explosive devices" seem a little too convenient. It has (of course) enabled the media to attempt to create a firestorm about "incivility" and about how (Trump's) "hateful speech" leads to violence (although no violence occurred in this case.
It is both pathetic and comic that the party of "Antifa", "Get in Their Faces" and the "The Resistance" now wants to paint itself as frightened little birds victimized by that big bully Trump. Pathetic.
Actually, hate acts do tend to follow "hate speech". But the target of the act is always the speaker. If the speaker is even allowed to speak.
That statement from Romney sounds like Bernie Sanders politically absolving his opponent of her crimes in a debate, while President Obama and the FBI were figuring out a way to let Hillary off the hook gently.
Romney the hedge hog senses easy foraging, in the counterfeit courage of a triangulating senator, with the departures of McCain and Jeff Flake.
One wonders how Steve Scalise REALLY feels about the breathless chattering about the threat to to Democrats by non-exploding non-bombs that were destined to never actually get to their targets. I smell a wheel of false-flag Stilton.
By the way, why would a letter bomb use a clock as a triggering device? I haven't found the USPS to be particularly reliable about when they deliver my mail.
Mark, pithy and interesting as always, particularly the bit about hate speech laws in the Weimar Republic. You wrote about that a year or so ago when some visiting professor at Dartmouth used the same example of "wouldn't the world have been a better place if they'd had hate speech laws in Germany."
As for Mittens Romney's comment -- "Hate acts follow hate speech. It is past time for us to turn down and tune out the rabid rhetoric." -- after handily wining debate #1 in 2012 against President Trump's feckless predecessor, Mittens turned down his rhetoric and lost the election. Been there, done that, and don't want to repeat it.
I'm pretty sure this column qualifies as hate speech.
I'm Australian and thus I've been programmed for hating Americans. Therefore I hate you for saying that. Thanks
Yeah? Well, I'm 'Merican, and I'm programmed to hate any foreigner whose tribe has yet to walk on the Moon. So go fly a kangaroo!
Affectionately,
Clark
Why is that? We love our Aussie friends and beer, but maybe not in that order, Rob. So is it love doesn't make the world go 'round after all? It's really hate?
I think BBinPEI is a Cannuck. (Does Cannuck apply to the Atlantic Provinces?)
Hey Rob - you may want to check where PEI is, eh...
I think they're trained to hate America in PEI as well. I vaguely remember reading one of LM Montgomery's novels where two characters get into a fight over which flag is "on top": the Stars and Stripes or the Union Jack. That was back when Union Jack meant Canada.
The articles of Confederation were sighed in PEI in 1867, so I'm guessing it's still safe to consider PEI as part of Canada. I might be wrong though; the history books say that my province joined Canada in 1875, but people still ask me how long I'm visiting Canada whenever I'm in Ontario. As the GG kept pointing out in 2017, it's all traditional aboriginal land. Tread softly and hit hard.
LOL, Rob! I know you're kidding, but I don't want my fellow American's to get the wrong idea. :D
It's probably true that universities here (I'm in Melbourne - an American married to an Aussie), as in universities all over the Western world, probably smear America mercilessly. But most of the Australians I know seem to at least like the USA if not love it. The people I know are quite capable of thinking for themselves and being skeptical of authority. Of course, that's the sort of people I prefer to hang out with. But most people I talk to in cafes and shops - they're reasonable people who listen and consider and don't fly off the handle when people disagree with them.
I'm very happy here. :D
Now why would I want the truth to get in the way? Get with the zeitgeist please.
Oh no..fellow commonwealthian. Hmmm that makes hating a bit tricky? Is he white middle aged male?
In living on traditional aboriginal land here in Australia mate. Are they the same traditional aboriginals?
Yeah cmon get with the program..hate is the new black. Feel the vibe baby.
LOVE IS THE NEW BLACK! Oh er can I retract that..I realise the error of my ways.
I know ppl..they say it never happened.
Absolutely. But only when we step outside of Canada, which is, like, pretty rare. We pretty much spend our time sated in Timbits.
Our Arizona friends have told us the PEI license plate motto, "Birthplace of Confederation", could be mistaken for the US Confederate states and cause trouble. Someone in my family, who eschews mention, wants us to get a license plate cover to cover it up before we head south. As for the "Birthplace of Confederation" motto, I think "Birthplace of Canada" would be a much stronger branding.
"Are they the same traditional aboriginals?"
Rob,
Maybe. When I was briefly in PEI as part of the Steyn Cruise, I saw a billboard depicting the local aboriginals/natives/injuns etc in feather headdresses front of a tipi. This looked very strange, but maybe the Sioux and Nakoda did hunt bison in PEI, and it wasn't recorded in the history books. Next time, I'll look closer to see if one is holding a digeridoo. While government officials trip over themselves to be politically correct, aboriginals practice unrestrained cultural appropriation among themselves.
That is between BB, God, his intrusive government and Google.
Hey Andrew..crack up. I was watching (bits I'll have you know) the opening ceremony of the invictus games on the forecourt of the most holiest shrines in Australia the Sydney Opera house. They had the mandatory 'welcome to country' groan without a couple of let's call them 'well fed' members of the Sydney based'garrigal' nation in loin cloth (of course closer to jesus) playing d didgeridoo! Now er I'm guessing your just another ignorant whitey on aboriginal affairs, so I'll inform you that didgeridoos were never in the Sydney area and are indeed from approximately 4000 kms away. Imagine my offence at witnessing this disgraceful act of cultural appropriation! I still haven't recovered.
Andrew, here's another little known interesting fact. Back when Sydney was settled, there were several warring tribes on and around the area. When relationship broke down with one particular tribe due to theft and minor issues the colonisers employed the services of another tribe who indeed hated and were at war with the problem tribe. so armed with weapons from the whiteys they happily marched off and massacred the despised tribe thus laying claim to the first official massacre in the new nation of Australia.