Andrew McCarthy  on the media’s treatment of the “pipe bomb” story:

There is plenty of media commentary at the moment about incivility, in the form of incendiary rhetoric and actions. This is entirely appropriate. But I’m at a loss to understand how the climate is improved by spicing up reports with thinly veiled suggestions that President Trump may have triggered a series of potentially murderous attacks on political opponents. When Bernie Sanders supporter James Hodgkinson opened fire on the Republicans he targeted and nearly killed Representative Steve Scalise, I don’t recall much Times speculation about whether he could have been set him off by Democrats urging their supporters to get aggressive — “get in their face”; “if they bring a knife, we bring a gun” — when dealing with political adversaries.

Every one of these episodes is like a mini Reichstag fire, a Gliwice incident;  every Democrat from Maxine Waters to Kathy Griffin to the New York Times can openly fantasize about killing the President and attacking Republicans – but let Trump talk smack about reporters and suddenly we’re on civility patrol.

As we often observe after terrorist attacks, everyone needs to take a deep breath until facts begin to emerge. The investigators are doing their jobs. Chances are we will know soon enough who is actually responsible for the pipe bombs. Then we probably won’t need speculation about motive and incitement . . . though there will be no shortage of it, anyway.

As Andrew McCarthy points out, there  is no evidence yet as to who did it – which doesn’t excuse the media’s double standard in covering the story.  At any rate, my speculation is of no more (or less) value than what you’re seeing on the news right now.

So I’ll speculate:

• – The bombs were amateur productions: https://twitchy.com/…/former-bomb-disposal-officer-weighs-…/
• – They targeted obvious Democrat figures – the Clintons, CNN, Obama, and George Soros – but only in a way that was practically guaranteed to get discovered long before they reached their ostensible targets (at least some were apparently packed in padded envelopes).
• – They came out two weeks before the election.

Seeing that, what would YOU think?

The NYTimes lied about Republicans, guns, Sarah Palin, and pretty much everyone in their editorial about the Hodgekinson attack – down to making up facts from thin air 

Davie French unravels the Times’ depraved attack on truth:

Let’s be blunt. In its zeal to create moral equivalencies and maintain a particular narrative about the past, the Times flat-out lied. There is simply no “link to political incitement” in Loughner’s murderous acts. The man was a paranoid schizophrenic who first got angry at Gabby Giffords years before Palin published her map.

This is, of course, part of an ongoing pattern of slandering everyone to the right of Martin O’Malley:

Let’s not forget, this is the same editorial board that, one year ago, laid blame on Republican Christian politicians for an Orlando terrorist attack by a confessed Islamic jihadist. Omar Mateen swore allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but the Times editors believed (again, without any evidence) that he was inspired in part by Republican objections to granting men access to women’s restrooms. The editorial board should retract its editorial and apologize.

And would someone – Pat Kessler?  Bob Collins?  Erik Black?  Cat Richert? Nina Totenberg? – finally let slip the dogs of our mainstream media’s vaunted “fact-check” industry?  We’ve got a chain of howlers here:

In addition to lying about Palin, the Times couldn’t resist yet another nonsensical attack on gun rights — claiming that “studies” have shown that armed citizens would “probably” kill or wound innocent bystanders in the effort to stop the killer. Which studies? In fact, we have considerable real-world experience showing that armed citizens can stop mass shootings without harming innocent civilians.

We do, indeed.

As Dennis Prager says, the Second Civil War has been underway for some time, now.  Until Wednesday, it largely wasn’t a shooting war.

French also notes how Sarah Palin likely has a decent defamation case against the Times, even though she’s a public figure.  I hope she does.  I’ll contribute.