Reason Roundup

More Suspicious Packages Intercepted Friday as Migrant Caravan Captivates Trump: Reason Roundup

Packages may be meant to spread fear, not harm, say investigators.

|

Valente Rosas/Newscom

Two more potential explosives found Friday morning. Federal investigators are looking into the wave of potential explosives sent to prominent liberal politicians, donors, and former officials this week. Three more suspicious packages have been found since yesterday morning, including one addressed to Sen. Cory Booker, one to former intelligence chief James Clapper, and one to former Vice President Joe Biden (his second; both were intercepted at New York mail facilities yesterday).

The Los Angeles Times reports that "two people with knowledge of the investigation" say investigators "now suspect that either a would-be bomb maker is inept or the packages were intended to spread fear rather than inflict injury or death," since none of the devices found have ignited.

But the "sources warned Thursday that additional devices…are believed to be within the postal system" and may not all be so harmless. New York Police Commissioner James O'Neill said at a press conference: "As far as a hoax device, we're not treating it that way."

Three additional packages have been found since yesterday morning, including one addressed to Sen. Cory Booker, one to former intelligence chief James Clapper, and one to former Vice President Joe Biden (his second). This brings the total so far to 12.

Meanwhile, the big concern at the White House is still the Central Americans coming here to seek asylum. President Donald Trump has authorized sending up to 1,000 additional U.S. troops to the southern border, and he is now considering whether to shut down immigration for people from Central America, similar to his play with several predominantly Muslim Middle Eastern countries last year. From The Washington Post:

Under U.S. law, foreign nationals fleeing persecution have the right to apply for asylum once they reach American soil, but the executive order under consideration would suspend that provision and bar Central Americans as a matter of national security, according to those familiar with the proposal.

With the midterm elections two weeks away, Trump has seized on the migrant caravan as a vehicle for his own campaign messaging, depicting the Central American families as dangerous criminals and Democrats as their enablers.

Yesterday, Trump tweeted: "To those in the Caravan, turnaround, we are not letting people into the United States illegally. Go back to your Country and if you want, apply for citizenship like millions of others are doing!" But applying for asylum is legal—and can only happen from U.S. soil. And asylum is the only chance for many in the migrant caravan.

At the Cato Institute blog, immigration analyst Alex Nowrasteh notes that "not a single terrorist in any visa category came from Mexico or Central America" between 1975 and 2017.

FREE MINDS

Breitbart is suing over anti-advertising campaign. Advertisers have been dropping Breitbart News en masse after a campaign from the group Sleeping Giants. The campaign features screenshots of ads next to Breitbart text, and it encourages people to share these with the advertisers on social media. Now the company has filed a lawsuit against Sleeping Giants. "Breitbart's representative writes that potential claims against Sleeping Giants include violation of the Lanham Act (the federal trademark protection), tortious interference, and 'unfair, fraudulent, and deceptive practices intended to cause Breitbart economic harm,'" notes Columbia Journalism Review.

The company's letter (which has also been published on Breitbart News) goes on to say that Breitbart believes Sleeping Giants "has sought to deceive the public and, in particular, purchasers of online advertising, by making false, deceptive, and disparaging claims about Breitbart" and has run a "highly-orchestrated, partisan campaign whose organizers have proven willing to use deception and harassment."

QUICK HITS

  • "By 2038, there won't just be one internet—there will be many, split along national lines in the midst of a tech cold war between China and the U.S."
  • The E.U.'s Court of Human Rights just ruled that defaming Muhammad isn't protected the the right to free expression.
  • "Responding to federal regulators' worries about rising rates of teen vaping and the possible health implications," Altria Group has said it will put a temporary halt to pod-based e-cigarettes.
  • Pennsylvania's Lebanon County will pay $4.75 million to the family of "a teenager who collapsed and died after four days of heroin withdrawal in jail. The family's lawyer said jail staff ignored her dire medical needs for days and then lied about it." Now the "Pennsylvania Corrections Department, under Secretary John Wetzel, has started offering methadone and other drugs approved to treat opioid addiction," AP reports.

NEXT: Planned Parenthood and NARAL: 'We Still Believe Julie Swetnick'

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But the “sources warned Thursday that additional devices…are believed to be within the postal system” and may not all be so harmless.

    They could go postal at any time?

    1. Does anyone even get this reference anymore?

      1. Does it mean to slowly deliver a constant stream of catalogs addressed to the previous resident?

        1. *applauds enthusiastically*

          This…this is the type of incisive commentary that keeps me coming back to H&R.

          *wipes tear from eye*

      2. ‘Going postal’ referenced postal employees shooting coworkers, not fake news about fake bombs being sent in the US Mail.

        1. That can’t be right!!! “Going postal” means you’re all steampunk retro, romantic-like, and you send a mash note via “snail mail” to your babe, instead of just sending an instagram like usual, to impress her! “Snail mail” (AKA “going postal”) is even more “retro” than an email, and will be SURE to impress her fiercely!

        2. Going postal can also mean that you are going to the post office to drop off mail.

          1. Going to the post office to drop off mail is a euphemism for what happens after you eat a big bowl of Post Bran Flakes cereal, so “going postal” can refer to an explosive package of another sort.

    2. Uwe Boll would like a word with you.

    3. Hello.

      “But the “sources warned Thursday that additional devices…are believed to be within the postal system” and may not all be so harmless. New York Police Commissioner James O’Neill said at a press conference: “As far as a hoax device, we’re not treating it that way.””

      Simon says CHECK THE NY FEDERAL RESERVE!

  2. Friday is here.

    1. Wait… it’s here too. OMG IT’S EVERYWHERE!

        1. New job wearing on you already?

          1. Nah, I just had business travel, last Saturday to yesterday and I’m tired boy. Got this weird one day in the office today.

            1. That’ good. Yeah, business travel sucks balls. I hope you get some nice rest. Go hike the Flatirons or something 🙂

      1. No it isn’t everywhere. Some places are/were stlll Thursday, others Saturday.

    2. Who remembers Friday?

      https://bit.ly/2CJi24O

        1. Laugh but chick got 126 million views.

          Who hasn’t asked a girl ‘front or back sear’, amirite?

          /nervous grin.

          1. I fucking love Jeffrey Tucker. I don’t know why he’s not so popular here. Too good I’m guessing.

            1. He is not popular on here because he has been, over the last couple of years, warning about the alt-right’s slow slide into fascism.

              1. So he’s an idiot.

        2. That two people made jokes about linking to Friday, and neither of them were Ice Cube’s opus, is why libertarians don’t win elections.

          1. I was thinking about it but I’m probably the whitest person here so I didn’t want to be accused of cultural appropriation

            1. Are you an albino?

              1. No, but I’m so white that, if I admitted I saw Friday, libertarians would accuse me of cultural appropriation

                1. Only ‘Reason’-able libertarians.

      1. bye, Felicia.

  3. “By 2038, there won’t just be one internet?there will be many, split along national lines in the midst of a tech cold war between China and the U.S.”

    As long as I’m in the same one as tmz.com.

    1. Personally, whichever one features the most cat memes and Brazilian police LiveLeak videos is the one I’m using.

      1. …and porn.

  4. The E.U.’s Court of Human Rights just ruled that defaming Muhammad isn’t protected the the right to free expression.

    They like their heads attached to their necks.

    1. When we start murdering people who disagree with us it will be the Libertarian Moment.

      1. Please, think of it as correcting them.

        1. Gillespie will write a pedantic column blaming the beheadings on American white nationalists…the same ones who DESPISED his Italian ancestors!

  5. http://www.thenewneo.com/2018/…..rn-europe/

    It is becoming dangerous for gays in Western Europe. This is a real tragedy. And it is a totally forseable consiquence to allowing mass migration from countries with cultures that hate gays. Yet somehow, their right to migrate is all that matters. The rights of gay people leaving in Europe to leave openly without being in fear of their lives is never considered.

      1. *sighs*

        goddam squirrels

        It is difficult to acknowledge these truths without sounding bigoted.

        I kind of disagree. It isn’t hard to acknowledge these points, it’s hard to have a conversation about them because as soon as you mention the word ‘Islam’, there are people who scream racist in an attempt to shut down the debate. The whole point of screeching racist/Islamophobe/whatever is to narrow the bounds of conversation and get your opponents to shut up.

        So I guess my point is that it is hard, for some (most?) people to stand up in the face of screechy retards and say “fuck you, I’m gonna speak my mind.”

        My initial reaction, FWIW.

        1. The thing is that just because you can’t judge every individual by the characteristics of their society, doesn’t mean that culture and societal mores don’t matter. Of course not every Muslim immigrants hates gays or wants them back in the closet or worse. But that fact does not mean that if you let millions of Mulsims into your society, a whole lot of them won’t feel differently and things will get much harder for gays.

          Libertarians are rightfully suspicious of government and understand throwing people in jail is almost never an effective way of solving a problem. Yet their response to concerns over the adverse effects of mass immigration is “well we can just throw the offenders in jail”. Yeah sure we can and should. And unlike throwing people in jail for drugs doing so for bashing a gay person would be just. But, throwing people in prison for bashing gays isn’t going to help the gays if you have a society where a large portion of the people hate them and want to kill them. Law enforcement doesn’t do a very good job at changing the attitudes of a large number of people. It only works to protect society from devients. It doesn’t work if you are trying to prevent behavior that is common or at least it doesn’t without resorting to draconian measures that would never be agreeable to Libertarians.

          1. Cool. Let’s talk about the adverse effects of various native-born Americans reproducing too. Are you in favor of requiring abortions among evangelical Christians, since they’re likely to teach their children homosexuality is wrong?

            1. Those negative effects, whatever they are, have given us the society we have today. If you import different people, you will get a different society. The fact that this one isn’t perfect doesn’t change that fact or ensure that the one you get with mass migration won’t be worse.

              It is really that simple. And pointing out that natives commit crimes too is not a sensible response to the point.

            2. Those negative effects, whatever they are, have given us the society we have today. If you import a bunch of people from a different culuture, you will end up with a different society. The fact that the current society is not perfect doesn’t change that fact or ensure that the society you get will not be worse.

              Those are the facts. And pointing out that natives commit crimes too isn’t a sensible response to the point.

            3. Cathy’s right, we need to stop the scourge of migrants from all of the Christian majority countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. Enough is enough!

              1. Look lap, homosexuality is only punishable by death in Muslim countries because the magic dirt there causes everyone to support it. Once those people come to the magic tolerant dirt of the United States, they will be sex positive, gender fluid, tolerant progressives just like she is.

            4. Cathy L|10.26.18 @ 10:11AM|#
              “Cool. Let’s talk about the adverse effects of various native-born Americans reproducing too.”

              II’m not the only one sorry your mom didn’t have an abortion.

            5. Shorter Cry More Cathy – “let’s change the subject”

          2. Agreed: culture and societal mores matter.

            I just think that to address these issues we need more speech instead of less speech, as well as more individuals standing up to people who are trying to forward their agenda by shriveling the discourse. Which requires courage and bravery in the face of ignorance and sometimes violent intolerance. Looking at you, antifa.

            1. I agree. We need to start telling the truth and having an honest debate. Just because importing Muslims has the real potential to make life harder for the gays, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it or that it is a problem that can’t be solved.

              Indeed, if you do support allowing immigration from Muslim countries, you should want an honest discussion. The only way such immigration will ever work is if society is very clear up from that this society tolerates gays living openly and if an immigrant doens’t like that tough shit. The worst thin you can do is what seems to be happening which is make even speaking about the issue racist and verbotten in polite society.

      2. Astute observation, Aloysius.

        1. Goddamn squirrels. Now it looks like I was actually responding to something you actually wrote.

      3. “Um, Merton and Aloysious will have to sign an ‘X’ because only four of us can write.”

    1. Gays AND Jews.

      Now in Italy, if you can’t prove you’re truly poor, no welfare for you.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xvbQQbu07Q

    2. Sadly, the gays would likely rather be slaughtered than side with conservatives they find “icky”. Progressivism trumps all.

      1. With the possible exception of certain brain-dead partisan trolls, I doubt it. Democrats keep up their “compassion and tolerance!” rhetoric in part to hide the fact that any one of them could be thrown under the bus at a second’s notice, should it be necessary for the greater good. I think each member of the various interest groups under their big tent feels like they are a special, highly valued part of a family.

        1. Blacks as a group are by far the ones most harmed by mass immigration. And they are the most loyal Democratic voters. Yet, the Democrats think nothing of throwing them under the bus and supporting mass immigration. They will throw the gays and the Jews under the bus if doing so is necessary to placate the Muslims, should the Muslim vote ever become important enough to require it.

          1. Blacks sided with the Democrats during the height of the Dixiecrat era. Because the GOP couldn’t protect them from the Democrats.

    3. Muslims are NOT tolerant and especially not tolerant of gay people.

      Import a bunch of Muslims who refuse to assimilate and this is what happens.

      Good thing Europe does not have many Jews or we would be having this discussion about Muslim violence against Jews.

    4. I am glad John is finally becoming concerned about the gays. Whence this change of heart?

      1. Just because I don’t think the Constitution demands that the states redefine marriage or them or that the state step in and demand everyone approve of their lifestyle does not mean I don’t think they should be able to live in peace however they want.

        Everyone has that right. Gays and Jews just happen to be the ones most adversly affected by mass immigration of Muslims.

        1. Lefties think ‘concern for the gays’ means that you must be protective of them like for children and violate everyone else’s rights to cater to the gays.

      2. I’m going to defend John here. One can oppose gay marriage without being a bigot against gays.
        Just as one can support legal abortion while being morally opposed to abortion.
        Just as one can support drug legalization AND be bigoted toward the filthy junkie losers who litter the streets here in the Bay Area.

        1. Exactly.

          Its what Libertarians are best at. Protecting all people in the USA under the Rule of Law, while some Libertarians personally opposing the personal choices of the group in question.

        2. I am all three of those. I am anti abortion as a moral matter but do not think there is any way to effectively criminalize it without violating privacy rights and subjecting every miscarriage to criminal investigation. And I think drugs should be legal because I don’t think it is the government’s duty to save people from themselves not because I have any sympathy or affection for drug addicts.

        3. Didn’t John get banned from the Glibs for calling Jesse a degenerate?

          1. Not that I am aware of. I never called Jesse a degenerate. And who knows why the glibs do whatever it is they do.

            1. Well then I apologize. That is what someone said on here a while back.

              1. I always liked Jesse. I honestly don’t remember doing anything like that. If I did, then I was wrong and should not have done it. But, I have no memor of ever doing so.

                1. Any inkling as to why you got banned?

                  I know Eddy expressed some mysterious reason for leaving, I think Just Say’n as well. But I don’t know if they were banned.

                  1. No idea BUCS. They never said and I never cared enough to ask.

        4. John is correct.

          Also.

          +1 Obama evolving.

  6. America has a right-wing terrorism problem

    Political violence is a thorny enough problem when it’s carried out by underground extremists. But it is a lot more dangerous when it becomes a tactic for a ruling party. If one cannot win free and fair elections, well then violence might serve just as well ? and if it works, then there is no way to stop it.

    It is important to note that so far, none of these extremists or proto-fascists have at yet shown much in the way of physical courage. Sending a mail bomb anonymously, or ganging up with 10 friends to kick someone already on the ground, or jumping a slightly-built reporter out of the blue, is more about bullying and mob violence than it is the kind of truly unhinged zealotry that inspired the Asanuma assassination. But things are escalating fast.

    Conservative leaning ‘The Week’

    https://goo.gl/EMpcBn

    1. You assured me not two days ago that the Scalizi shooting didn’t matter because no one died. No one has even been injured in this nonsense. So, it is no big deal by your own standards.

    2. Antifa has caused more bloodshed since the 2016 than all of the other purveyors of political violence combined. Until your side shuts that shit down, you don’t get to whine about getting back doses of your own medicine.

      1. Antifa is not “my side” you idiot. I don’t give a damn about their little counter protests where no one is killed.

        I dislike progressives as much as I do conservatives.

        But it is an objective fact that the right (with 73 politically inspired murders since 2006) is far worse.

        1. I’m still trying to fit which type of useful idiot you are in the script. You’re an interesting one.

        2. I dislike progressives as much as I do conservatives.

          Now you’re just being silly. You know damn well left-libertarians like us would be much better off if the more progressive candidate (Clinton) had won in 2016. You did vote for her, didn’t you?

          1. Preach. Even my Johnson hangs left. We are the pure and true.

            1. I am moving on. I’ve tucked my Johnson away for now.

        3. “I dislike progressives as much as I do conservatives.”

          Bullshit

          “I don’t give a damn about their little counter protests where no one is killed.”

          Like the congressional baseball shooting, the fact that no one has been killed by Antifa doesn’t result in brownie points for Antifa. When you crack open people’s heads with hard objects, you’re taking a chance on killing someone. They’ve been lucky. The fact that they haven’t killed anyone yet is a bug, not a feature.

          Remember right after the election when you on the left were just dying to Punch a Nazi? We reasonable people out here warned you that violence begets violence, but the fervor to punch anybody you thought might be a Nazi was just too strong to overcome. Well, now you’re reaping what you sowed. Enjoy the harvest…?…

          1. Dipshit Dave Weigel up there may be a pathetic lying scumbag, but the good news is that he’s every bit as harmless and fake as these fake bombs his fellow Soros-loving buddy is sending out in the mail.

          2. You know. When Hitler wrote ‘Mein Kempf’ he basically said what he was thinking. When he came to power he basically said what he was going to do. Same with Islamic terrorists. They tell you they’re game plan.

            Yet, here we are. No one takes violent groups like Antifa who EXPLICITLY condone violent action as part of their game plan seriously.

            Very weird.

            1. Yet the lefties will dissect every comment by a conservative as a ‘dog whistle’ that actually means…

              1. Good observation.

                See Roseanne.

                Boy did they do a number on her.

                Sarah Gilbert got her wish.

            2. fwiw – ‘their’

              lest some grammar nazi chime in.

        4. Here we go again, arguing which side spawns more violence. Both sides spawn violence, and violence is bad, mmmmmkay? If you prove one side has a couple of less violent incidents on its hands, will that really make you feel better?

          1. Nope. I completely reject ‘both sides’ do it.

            ONE side. And ONE side only have perpetuated and induced more violence.

            The left.

            1. FFS, what god damn ‘conservative’ group is on the streets these days on the level of BLM or Antifa?

              And don’t tell me a loose collection of a dozen of so-called ‘alt-right’ groups. Or Proud Boys.

              Did The Tea Party ever commit a single of violence? I musta missed the part where they shot up a baseball field or smashed kids with a bike lock.

              1. Congress for the win of most violent group in America. Antifa, Skinheads, BLM, whomever can’t hold a candle to these assholes. Controlled by both parties pretty equally over the last few decades, I might add.

          2. Don’t know if you’re referencing my comment, but I’m saying what your saying. That’s why it’s aggravating when one is f the partisans whines about violence from the other side.

            1. CMB I’m replying to.

    3. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug|10.26.18 @ 9:35AM|#
      “America has a right-wing terrorism problem”

      List of turd’s posts which are not lies:

    4. The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

      He brought an American flag to protest fascism in Portland. Then antifa attacked him

      Quote:
      Paul Welch came to the downtown protest Aug. 4 to let his political leanings be known.

      With pride he clutched his U.S. flag as he moved among the crowd of like-thinking demonstrators.

      Soon a group of black-clad anti-fascist protesters, also known as antifa, demanded he lose the flag, calling it a fascist symbol. Welch refused, and a tug-of-war ensued.

      Video captured by Mike Bivins, a freelance journalist, shows what happened next.

      As Welch and the counter-protesters wrangle over the flag, another masked counter-protester begins to strike Welch’s body from behind using a weapon concealed in black fabric.

      That person then uses the weapon to club Welch on the back of the head, causing him to collapse instantly. The demonstrator with the weapon wanders off.

    5. ganging up with 10 friends to kick someone already on the ground

      Just someone. A completely random someone. Certainly not 1-3 Antifa protester(s) who was there to stir up trouble at their event. I mean, Antifa-types would totally stir up shit and you’d have to be pretty stupid/ideologically motivated to pick a fight with 10:1 odds and if you did stir up shit with 10:1 odds there are lots of apolitical people who might say you got what you deserved, but this was just someone. Like the limo driver who’s car Antifa torched or the guy carrying the US flag *in solidarity* at a protest in Portland.

      1. It’s not like the someone who got beat down and then kicked had thrown a bottle at a group of people, and started a fight. It was just spontaneous right-wing violence.

  7. Pennsylvania’s Lebanon County will pay $4.75 million to the family of “a teenager who collapsed and died after four days of heroin withdrawal in jail…”

    I’d hate to be the prison staff and county officials who had to shell out for this.

    1. I’d hate to be the prison staff and county officials who had to shell out for this.

      You would think they’d shield these employees from that responsibility. Otherwise, people could just the pants off any safe injection site where something similar happens.

      1. I mean just sue the pants off of.

      2. I don’t understand why many libertarians are so eager to entrust government employees to administer drugs. It does not spell “safe” to me.

        1. I’m only for making it legal to run an injection site. People can either try to make a business of it, or a charity can run it. Government should just get out of the way.

          1. I’m only for making it legal to run an injection site.

            What’s the difference between running an injection site and getting high with friends? Given the significant overlap of homelessness and substance abuse, is there a reason why safe injections aren’t provided as part of homeless centers’ services rather than requiring a stand alone facility?

            As far as I can tell, the entire safe injection site movement is 100% pure top-down.

          2. I want a non-interventionist push to drug legalization. Because safe-injection sites are somewhat orthoganal to the actual issue at hand with the government force forcing drug sales underground and increasing uncertainty in the supply. Safe injection sites seems like a band-aid so they can ignore the issue caused by themselves.

        2. C’mon lap, these wouldn’t be government employees. They would be state-certified paid employees of a non-profit entity. Now, of course, these non-profits are frequently managed and funded by former politicians and political action groups but they are still private entities. Private companies that, presumably, would be shielded from wrongful death prosecutions that other private entities don’t enjoy but they’d still be privately owned nonetheless.

          What part of private non-profit do you not understand? This is a totally organic solution to a social issue and certainly not some sort of expansion of healthcare into a kind of social safety net.

          1. I admit “non profit employees” administering drugs does sound way better, if you’ve never known or worked with any non profit

    2. love it.

  8. Under U.S. law, foreign nationals fleeing persecution have the right to apply for asylum once they reach American soil, but the executive order under consideration would suspend that provision and bar Central Americans as a matter of national security, according to those familiar with the proposal.

    Doesn’t anybody care about “the rule of law” anymore?

    1. Sure, but “I’m the law in these parts”.

      1. You misspelled “pants.”

    2. Since you are referencing people that have zero legitimate claim to asylum, the Rule of Law is working perfectly in this regard.

      USCIS Political Asylum rules

      1. Don’t they have to present themselves at a port of entry in order to determine whether they have a legitimate asylum claim? Or does Trump just get to send in the troops because he’s already made that determination?

        It’s the rule of martial law.

        1. Don’t they have to present themselves at a port of entry in order to determine whether they have a legitimate asylum claim? Or does Trump just get to send in the troops because he’s already made that determination?

          Does the presumption of innocence extend beyond the US border to non-citizens? Does the President have to wait until they actually attack border control points before they can be deployed or could he have troops at the ready in case they do? Posse comitatus makes it sound like he just can’t have them performing police actions, which a flood of immigrants seeking asylum doesn’t sound like police action (not that the slim distinction between CBP, Police, and the military doesn’t render the issue moot).

          1. Posse comitatus makes it sound like he just can’t have them performing police actions

            Are you saying the president can’t grab them by the posse?

        2. So Leo, you’re NOT going to read the rules about asylum that I cited?

          There is nothing in those asylum rules that says that a nation cannot protect itself from hordes of people who have no claim to asylum but want to swarm the border police.

          1. There’s nothing in the asylum rules listed at your link that says the President has any authority to play judge and jury here. I don’t understand your point.

        3. BTW: US Embassies keep non-Americans out all the time. Many US Embassies are protect by Marines inside the property and local security forces outside the property.

          Even when Vietnamese swarmed the US Embassy in Saigon, the locals were kept out.

          Embassies are not the to handle thousands of locals swarming to get the USA to do what they want.

    3. Is executive order unlawful? Often they are, but is that one?

      1. Well, I’m not a lawyer, but this is my understanding.

        SCOTUS has determined that the President can limit immigration through executive action, but that was largely due to the statute as passed.

        However, asylum is a different process. It’s not clear that the President can essentially order a blanket denial of asylum based on country of origin.

        1. I am also not a lawyer, but as far as blanket denial, that’s on the grounds of national security, which is obviously bogus but I think still legal?

        2. However, asylum is a different process. It’s not clear that the President can essentially order a blanket denial of asylum based on country of origin.

          Word from Guatemala and Mexico is that they’ve allowed people with legitimate/credible asylum claims in but that most of them can’t establish who they are or where they’re from in any manner capable of determining eligibility for asylum. That is if they didn’t just tear down parts of the border gates/fence and then walk through entirely unchecked.

      2. EOs apply to direct Executive Branch employee on policy.

        EOs are not laws that average Americans have to follow. Only congress and states can create laws that average Americans have to follow.

    4. Strangely, whenever it comes to enforcing immigration law in order to keep out migrants, the restrictionist crowd says “yes! yes! enforce the law! rule of law! keep them out!”

      But then whenever it comes to *breaking* the law in order to keep out migrants, the restrictionist crowd says “yes! yes! do what Obama did with his pen and phone! keep them out!”

      Something tells me this is a case of principals over principles

      1. “But then whenever it comes to *breaking* the law”

        What law is being broken? It is shady as hell, but I think still legal.

  9. It’s a little maddening that law enforcement won’t just come out and tell the truth: these are all fake bombs. Every single one of them. As in, there’s a zero percent chance of them doing any harm to anyone, except maybe the off-chance someone gets a paper cut opening one up.

    And of course they’re all being sent by a Clinton/Obama/Soros lefty asshole in a sad and pathetic attempt to fire up their base, because everything else they’ve tried the last two years has completely failed. The Russiagate hoax failed, falsely smearing Kavanaugh as a sexual predator failed, and I think this latest disgusting set-up is going to fail as well.

    1. Yeah, it must be the Democrats sending these out.

      1. It seems unlikely to be anything but that. The bombs could only explode if the recipient worked hard to make them do so.

      2. Normally I find you to be one of the more rational commenters here Leo.

        Looking at the evidence we have accumulated so far it’s extremely difficult to conclude this is anything but a desperate, crude attempt to sway the midterms in favor of the Democrats.

        The fact these devices are harmless as constructed strongly suggests this was done solely to manipulate public opinion, and not to settle scores with old enemies.

        1. I’m not saying that it’s not that, I just don’t understand how someone like Mikey can claim with confidence that it absolutely is.

          The fact these devices are harmless as constructed strongly suggests this was done solely to manipulate public opinion, and not to settle scores with old enemies.

          That’s certainly a possibility. It could also be someone trying to send a message to political enemies. My point remains, anybody who is certain about what this is almost certainly arrived at that conclusion based on their political slant.

          Normally I find you to be one of the more rational commenters here Leo.

          *blushing*

          1. I just don’t understand how someone like Mikey can claim with confidence that it absolutely is.

            Because he is on Team Hate The Left. That is all the proof he needs.

          2. It certainly could be the work of some Trumpian denizen of a Panhandle trailer park; that is quite possible.

            Personally, my money’s on him being a 40-something white male Democrat Party activist in Palm Beach County.

            He will be a vegetarian/vegan who drives a Subaru with numerous stickers plastered to the tailgate (“FEEL THE BERN” and “RESIST”) and sport some type of beard.

            Remember, you read it here first, folks.

            1. I still get the feeling this is going to turn out to be someone with some largely unintelligible worldview who will be called left or right depending on who’s observing them.

              My only hope is we get a Manifesto to read out of this. Been awhile since I read a Manifesto.

        2. I’m afraid I can’t agree with Bearded Spock’s “fake bomb = harmless” assumption. The arrival of a battery wired to a chunk of Play-Doh, or an envelope full of Splenda with a note “Die of anthrax, left-wing scum!”, would presumably give rise to extra precautionary measures, slowing down the mail-handling process, increasing manpower costs, and creating a climate of fear among the employees. The sender(s) of the devices may have hoped to bring about just that kind of disruption.

          As an analogy, I might decide to call in a fake bomb threat or pull a fire alarm at Enemy Headquarters. There’d be no need for a real bomb or fire; the confusion and trouble created would serve my purpose.

    2. There’s no way this is a hoax or “false flag.”

      Regardless, you must not know many progressives if you think they’re not fired up. All my progressive friends are as motivated as I’ve ever seen them, ever since the GOP rushed through the Kavanaugh confirmation.

      #BlueTsunami

      1. Both of them?

    3. Wow, it’s amazing how you just know this.

      1. Honestly, if they were real bombs, wired to blow, they wouldn’t couch the language so carefully. They’d just call it a bomb, not a “suspicious package/device” or “suspected bomb”.

        That’s the give-away. Pay attention to what people say, and how they say it. Then ask yourself what message they are trying to convey. This shouldn’t be hard, my high school expected it of us when I was a kid.

        1. I could unduly heap meaning onto how things are phrased in news articles and convince myself of conspiracy theories — or, I could refrain from filling in the gaps in breaking news with paranoid speculation.

      2. Wow, it’s amazing entirely predictable how you just know this.

        there fify

  10. …Breitbart believes Sleeping Giants “has sought to deceive the public and, in particular, purchasers of online advertising, by making false, deceptive, and disparaging claims about Breitbart” and has run a “highly-orchestrated, partisan campaign whose organizers have proven willing to use deception and harassment.”

    Sleeping Giants is this close to making Hillary president retroactively.

    1. CRIPPLE FIGHT!

  11. I guess we’re not going to get any Reason-takes on “blackface”. If I’m wrong it seems like that is squarely in Jesse Walker’s wheelhouse. Failing that, I’ll recommend the intro to Nick Tosches’ Where Dead Voices Gather.

    1. SIV’s idea of blackface is plucking a Silkie before violating it.

      1. You’ve posted 19 times already in this thread. All of thise posts are dumb attempts at humor that fail or attacking John and getting it wrong.

  12. “As far as a hoax device, we’re not treating it that way.”

    Neither, I see, are journalists.

    1. Fake news about fake bombs.

      1. Fake proper English.

  13. The E.U.’s Court of Human Rights just ruled that defaming Muhammad isn’t protected the the right to free expression.

    As a left-libertarian who emphasizes tolerance, diversity, and inclusion, this sounds like good news to me. For the best argument that hate speech should not be protected, check out Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky’s piece Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America.

    #LibertariansAgainstIslamophobia

    1. Berlatsky has written all of 3 articles for Reason over the last 4 years. I’ve never heard of him before now.

      1. Admittedly, I wish he could be a more frequent contributor than he has been in recent years.

  14. The E.U.’s Court of Human Rights just ruled that defaming Muhammad isn’t protected the the right to free expression.

    What if you preface the “defamation” with “No one can deny the possibility that” or “A lot of guys might say that”?

  15. “By 2038, there won’t just be one internet?there will be many, split along national lines in the midst of a tech cold war between China and the U.S.”

    “One Google to rule them all.”

    1. My precious.

      1. What do the Chinese have in their pocketses?

        1. Rhino horns?

        2. Filthy Hobbitses.

          1. wait, we were already talking about them….Hitler?

  16. …Altria Group has said it will put a temporary halt to pod-based e-cigarettes.

    Those are filled with Tide detergent?

    1. Invasion of the vape snatchers!

  17. With the midterm elections two weeks away, Trump has seized on the migrant caravan as a vehicle for his own campaign messaging, depicting the Central American families as dangerous criminals and Democrats as their enablers.

    Trump is using possible foreign influence in America as a campaign issue? Who else would sink so low.

  18. Desperate Lefties trying to get sympathy votes this election 2018.

    It wont work as enough Americans are fed up with lefty propaganda and violence. It will be a bloodbath for Democrats.

    1. Wrong. Democrats will win the House and Senate. Mueller is just waiting for a blue Congress to deliver his final report, which will have definitive proof of Russian collusion. 2019 can’t come soon enough!

      #BlueTsunami
      #TrumpRussia

      1. Most of my friends are progs, OBL. And none of of them think the dems will win the senate, and aren’t terribly optimistic about the house either…

        1. I keep seeing all of this swing towards Republicans in Senate races. I find it hard to believe that there isn’t an equal swing towards Republicans in the Congressional districts within those states. I doubt many people are showing up to ticket split and vote for the Republcan Senator and the Democratic House candidate.

  19. Anybody else getting Bidtellect bullshit in the comments?

    1. I am not seeing that. Elaborate on what you are experiencing.

  20. Meanwhile, the big concern at the White House is still the Central Americans coming here to seek asylum. President Donald Trump has authorized sending up to 1,000 additional U.S. troops to the southern border, and he is now considering whether to shut down immigration for people from Central America, similar to his play with several predominantly Muslim Middle Eastern countries last year.

    And SCOTUS verified he had that authority to do so. He should absolutely do it.

  21. “At the Cato Institute blog, immigration analyst Alex Nowrasteh notes that “not a single terrorist in any visa category came from Mexico or Central America” between 1975 and 2017.”

    They’re Democrats therefore they can’t be terrorists.

    #resist

  22. These cheesy ass fake bombs likely came from:

    1) A democrat that is desperately trying to stir something up to fire up their base.

    2) A republican playing regular 2D chess trying to make it APPEAR like a democrat in a cheesy plot to stir up their base, hence actually stirring up the republican base due to the disdain for the dems and how far they will go.

    …but ya, my money is on #1

    1. Corey Booker was targeted today I heard, which makes me think it is a Bernie Bro, since him and all the other dems represent the elite establishment wing of the party.

      1. Damn, that’s an outstanding point I hadn’t even thought of.

        How come Sanders, Lizzie Warren, Kamala Harris, Ocasio-Cortez, and none of that ilk are getting sent any of these harmless fake bombs? Hmmmmmmmm.

    2. They appear to be quite ridiculous and that makes the possibility that it is a false flag much greater.

      The problem for the Democrats is that the media and Progressives in general are so nasty and stupid they are completely unable to attack Trump without also attacking all of his supporters. So, their attempts to pin this on Trump never win anyone over to their side. Telling someone they are responsible for violence they had nothing to do with is just going to piss them off not convince them to change their minds.

    3. 3) one of our trolls who was upset that they aren’t getting a holiday bonus this year

    4. I’ve wondered if it could be a troll LARPing in RL just to cause mayhem and watch people meltdown. Honestly, that’s more likely than a Republican at this point IMO.

  23. So is it a Mad Fake Bomber or Fake Mad Bomber?

    1. Both. They are competing organizations.

      1. Well, then, which of the 2 orgs should we be selling weapons to, out of these 2?

        Also, do you favor the People’s Liberation Republic of Judea, or the Liberators of The People of the Judean Republic?

        We’ve got to pick a SIDE, dammit!!! The hottest places in Hell are reserved, you know, for those people who, in a crisis, refuse to pick a side!!!

        1. I have always been a fake mad bomber guy myself. You just can’t reason with the mad fake bombers.

  24. Again, there is only one credible accusation to make, and that’s against Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

    Schultz’s chairmanship of the DNC was marred with scandals, including collusion with the Clinton campaign against Bernie Sanders to assault our democracy, forcing her to resign in disgrace.

    Furthermore, she has links to political groups on the left, and it’s well known that extreme leftist groups have threatened violence with increasing vitriol and frequency.

    Last but not least, Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s name is on the return address for the pipe bombs. She’s the only individual tied to this terrorist plot. That makes her the only suspect.

    Therefore, we should launch a full investigation into Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s ties to terrorism. Seeing as how credible an accusation that is, I don’t see how we proceed with the midterm elections until that investigation is completed, hopefully years from now.

    Or, if you can prove Debbie Wasserman Schultz isn’t behind the terrorist plot, go ahead. Otherwise, that’s all you need to know, really.

    1. LOL. She was also tied to those shady-ass Pakistani IT workers too!

    2. Seeing as how credible an accusation that is,

      Who, whom.

      Are you an aggrieved minority making an accusation against a white devil? No? Then your accusation isn’t credible. I know these things because I read Robbie Soave and Peter Suderman.

      1. I’m just as much a Native American as Elizabeth Warren, and that counts.

        Get of my land, oppressor!

        1. But… are you a woman? No? MALE DEVIL!!

          I can hurl these accusations because I self identify as a pencil sharpener.

    3. i’m convinced.

  25. Several local Dem candidates for congress are pushing the meme that Trump/GOP is heartless in turning away asylum seekers, immigrants, etc. etc. You know the rhetoric. But do any of you know what the Dem plan to reform immigration is? Have they made any concrete proposals? Have they introduced comprehensive legislation so voters can compare with GOP proposals? It’s more like “elect us and then we will tell you what our super secret immigration proposals are.” That voters fall for this nonsense (from either party) is why America, as described in the Declaration, would appear to be doomed.

  26. I wonder if Trump is having an moment of quiet introspection and epiphany right now.

  27. “It’s more like “elect us and then we will tell you what our super secret immigration proposals are.” That voters fall for this nonsense (from either party)”

    Truly a “both sides” guilty issue, with both sets of voters regularly conned.

    Still waiting for them immigration proposals the Dems have been holding onto but didn’t bother putting forward when they were in control. Surely they would have solved all the issues. They also talked a big game about our foreign engagements and wasting of money in the middle east; then their magic solutions disappeared when they got in power.

    “so voters can compare with GOP proposals”

    Like that healthcare proposal from the GOP that will make premiums magically all go down and cover EVERYONE (their naive words, not mine). Or the repeal/replace (ideally full repeal) that I heard every day for years. Add to that the lip service to entitlements that never gets any legs or policy proposals. And the balancing of the budget that was magically going to happen when they got in control :/

    1. No no, Jimbo. You see, the Republicans *tried* to repeal ObamaCare. They really honestly *tried*. They deserve credit for *trying*, even if they failed. Sure they had all the levers of power that they needed to repeal ObamaCare. But they just couldn’t do it. But don’t you dare criticize them for not doing it. It can’t be because they weren’t serious about repealing ObamaCare. Oh no. It’s the Democrats’ fault yet again. They had all the power but it’s still the Democrats’ fault. Stop hating on Republicans for *trying*!

  28. I’m seeing unconfirmed reports that they may have taken someone in custody for this fake bomb hoax.

    I’ll bet anything that NoVa Nick turns out to be right and it’s a Bernie Bot.

    1. How about $10,000.

    2. Confirmed, arrest has been made in Florida.

    3. And it turns out to be Florida Man. How extra ordinary.

  29. its clear the fake bombs are an inside job by the FBI just like fast & furious was.

  30. Why is this webpage using significant memory on my computer????

    1. Inside Soros job. Better put boards on your windows. The Rendecknacht is nigh.

      1. I guess I know to much but then you never understood sarcasim.

        however they apparently have caught the bomber. Of course the next conspiracy is they caught him so fast that he was probably helped all along by the FBI and the FBI made sure the bombs were inert. Part of the false flag operation by the out of control FBI. hows that for a halloween trick or treat.

        My step dad was big on conspiracies long before the internet, so i know how to make them. however there is always a little bit of truth behind every conspiracy the trouble is separating the two

  31. If you had to guess a state from which the MAGA bomber hailed, what would you honestly say?

    Come on Florida, Jesus!

  32. “suspicious” at this point?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.