Portland, ME, Politician Says Mass-Murderer’s Motive Was… White Supremacy

P. Gardner Goldsmith | October 30, 2023
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size



Mark Twain is claimed to have said, “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

Alas, perhaps Portland, Maine City Councilor Victoria Pelletier is not familiar with the adage, or she never independently reached that conclusion.

The Maine Wire’s Steve Robinson reports:

“A city councilor from Maine’s largest city has blamed the single largest shooting of white people in Maine’s modern history on ‘white nationalism.’”

Evidently, at the time she uttered her words of wisdom, Ms. Pelletier’s Holmesian didactics extended beyond the police and judicial system pinpointing the suspected culprit of mass murder in Lewiston (whom police Saturday found dead in Lewiston, Maine), and she was able to discern his motive.

“’As the statements begin to roll out,’ City Councilor Victoria Pelletier said in a Friday Instagram post, ‘make sure you peep which one of your representatives actually calls this what it is: an act of violent, white nationalism and domestic terrorism.’”

Pretty impressive psychological analysis.


Especially since she likely knew little about him, and, if one wanted to wander into her morass of mental derangement, one could tell her that the victims were… well, Mr. Robinson has that covered:

“As of Friday morning, every publicly known victim of Robert R. Card’s Wednesday night shooting spree has been white.”

Why do so many politicians and people who want to steer political agendas create asinine narratives such that we might have to dirty ourselves by responding to their errant nonsense?

Portland’s Princess Pelletier wrote a lengthy, manifesto-style diatribe about the killings - because, of course, they had nothing to do with her, but, perhaps, she felt compelled to make the vicious attacks partially about her, about race, about “power imbalances” (as we oft hear from various Neo-Marxists who want to gain political power and push others around) and about “privilege.”

“The motive is he’s white, he has a gun and he can enact terror and violence on innocent people because the world has awarded him the privilege to do so.”

Which means that, you, too, are partially guilty of HIS crime. We see how it works.

Of course, Ms. Pelletier is not alone in saying dumb things after the fact. Even some conservatives on Boston talk radio, and some of their callers, have noted that Card had complained of hearing voices, was seen by psychiatric specialists, and was cited for threatening to kill people on a military base.

But some of these same, supposedly pro-gun-rights, pro-2A New Englanders then have said, “Given this, why didn’t police take away his firearms?”

Related: NY Gov. Hochul Claims 'Executive Power' To Grab Guns & Collect Personal Info | MRCTV

Which is an implicit call for immoral and unconstitutional so-called “Red Flag” action without explicitly calling it “Red Flag” gun confiscation.

As I have reported for MRCTV, and noted on my Twitter/X feed:

“The Red Flag law concept circumvents due process, breaches numerous aspects of the Bill of Rights, and jumps away from actually charging someone for criminal threatening. If the govt claims someone has made culpable threats against another, a gun is not the only weapon he can get.”

This façade of “protection” that is projected by unconstitutional Red Flag action not only infringes on the rules of the U.S., it is immoral, and already has seen police kill an innocent man in Maryland. As I noted in May, of 2022:

“And one wonders what Gary J. Willis, of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, would say about this all-out attack on the right to keep and bear arms and right to due process.

Sadly, tragically, Mr. Willis cannot provide an answer, because in 2018, he was killed by police who invaded his home just after 5 a.m., in a Red Flag raid.

And, in Maine, the real suspect, the real danger, was a man who was a marksman for the Army Reserve. Indeed, Robert Card’s position with the military brings to mind the fact that the targets he selected were soft targets, where people could not be armed (alcohol was served in the bowling alley and in the bar where the killer took so many innocent lives). And those facts bring to mind one more inevitable and logical question many civilians might have.

John Lott has noted in his research the strong correlation between higher gun ownership among civilians and lower violent crime. Lott also has noted that violent criminals tend to avoid areas of higher private gun ownership.

Related: Associated Press Laments 'Too Few' Uses of Rights-Violating 'Red Flag' Laws | MRCTV

But politicians who call for onerous gun-grab statutes don’t want civilians to have guns, and the fact that political gun “bans” leave guns in the hands of the government may make one wonder if this suspect’s position in the Army could have given him easy access to guns, regardless of the “gun ban zones” for civilians.

And that might get a few more folks thinking about how dangerous it is for only agents of government legally to carry arms. The more private citizens can arm themselves, the safer – and freer – they will be. One doesn’t need a lot of research to figure that out.

And one certainly doesn’t need discursive nonsense from politicians like Pelletier to get it, either.

Follow MRCTV on Twitter/X!