It’s Wednesday, October 25th, 2017…but before we begin, we beg your indulgence as we offer, to borrow a phrase from the great Thomas Sowell, a few random thoughts on the passing scene.

First, watching Tucker Carlson’s interview of former NFL player Clint Gresham, we were struck by two inescapable facts:

(1). Tucker would make a lousy prosecutor, as he failed to confront Gresham with the obvious hole in his argument: the undeniable, statistical truth Blacks are NOT singled out for slaughter by racist police officers; and (2). those who claim America is an unjust, racist society…whether it be the well-meaning but hopelessly misinformed Gresham…Matt Damon, who recognizes racism where it doesn’t exist but won’t report sexual harassment when he actually sees it…The Nuts Who Say Knee…the malevolent, Socialist souls at Black Lives Matter and Antifa…or even common, ordinary Dimocrats burning with guilt over the actions of their slave-owning, cross-burning secessionist forefathers…simply aren’t dealing in reality.  And no amount of fact-based reasoning can or will dissuade them from their feeling-based beliefs. 

Exhibit “A”: the latest expression of educated Liberal idiocy…

White privilege bolstered by teaching math, university professor says

 

…clearly confirms the increasing disconnect from reality which characterizes The Left.

Need we mention, anyone interested in locating the true source of racial discord in America need look no further than…

…the previous occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.?!? 

Second, while we don’t personally like Trump, let alone approve of the vast majority of his tweets, we recently reviewed his early comments regarding John McCain, and we’ve no doubt whatsoever his reference to McCain’s capture was an incredibly poor attempt at what, under any circumstances, would have been a very bad joke.

Which should surprise no one, seeing that The Donald’s general command of the English language is worse than anyone on the planet other than Jethro Bodine…

…hence he can hardly string a sentence together, let alone tell a joke.

Consequently, his comment to the widow of Sergeant La David Johnson, “He knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyway”, should be likewise attributed to his unartful vocabulary rather than deliberate disrespect.  As for his purported failure to use Johnson’s name, you’ll forgive us were we, in an unrehearsed setting, similarly hesitant to repeat the name “La David” without confirming its correctness.

Lastly, for those wondering about Dubya’s willingness to criticize Trump after adamantly refusing to reprove the most destructive President ever to occupy the Oval Office…

…this may explain it:

That,…and perhaps the President who let Saddam Hussein’s attempt on the life of his father influence his decision to sacrifice American lives by invading Iraq is still a bit piqued at the treatment accorded his fumbling, bumbling brother…

…who was rather roughly handled in the run-up to 2016:

Though, as the previous two videos indicate, largely as the result of self-inflicted wounds.

What Dubya’s statement fails to address is the appropriate course of action when the Press…assumed (at least nominally) to be acting in a bi-partisan, unbiased fashion…is totally in the tank for one particular political party…to the point of utter inaccuracy and deliberate deception.

Now, here’s The Gouge!

At the top of today’s line-up, courtesy of NRO, Andy McCarthy details…

The Obama Administration’s Uranium One Scandal

Not only the Clintons are implicated in a uranium deal with the Russians that compromised national-security interests.

 

Let’s put the Uranium One scandal in perspective: The cool half-million bucks the Putin regime funneled to Bill Clinton was five times the amount it spent on those Facebook ads — the ones the media-Democrat complex ludicrously suggests swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump.

The Facebook-ad buy, which started in June 2015 — before Donald Trump entered the race — was more left-wing agitprop (ads pushing hysteria on racism, immigration, guns, etc.) than electioneering. The Clintons’ own long-time political strategist Mark Penn estimates that just $6,500 went to actual electioneering. (You read that right: 65 hundred dollars.) By contrast, the staggering $500,000 payday from a Kremlin-tied Russian bank for a single speech was part of a multi-million-dollar influence-peddling scheme to enrich the former president and his wife, then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton. At the time, Russia was plotting — successfully — to secure U.S. government approval for its acquisition of Uranium One, and with it, tens of billions of dollars in U.S. uranium reserves.

Here’s the kicker: The Uranium One scandal is not only, or even principally, a Clinton scandal. It is an Obama-administration scandal.

The Clintons were just doing what the Clintons do: cashing in on their “public service.” The Obama administration, with Secretary Clinton at the forefront but hardly alone, was knowingly compromising American national-security interests. The administration green-lighted the transfer of control over one-fifth of American uranium-mining capacity to Russia, a hostile regime — and specifically to Russia’s state-controlled nuclear-energy conglomerate, Rosatom. Worse, at the time the administration approved the transfer, it knew that Rosatom’s American subsidiary was engaged in a lucrative racketeering enterprise that had already committed felony extortion, fraud, and money-laundering offenses.

The Obama administration also knew that congressional Republicans were trying to stop the transfer. Consequently, the Justice Department concealed what it knew. DOJ allowed the racketeering enterprise to continue compromising the American uranium industry rather than commencing a prosecution that would have scotched the transfer. Prosecutors waited four years before quietly pleading the case out for a song, in violation of Justice Department charging guidelines. Meanwhile, the administration stonewalled Congress, reportedly threatening an informant who wanted to go public…”

In a related item, this just in from The WaPo via FOX News:

Clinton campaign, DNC helped fund research that led to salacious Trump dossier, report says

 

Who knows; independent, unbiased reporting may still live at the publication Katherine Graham’s father bought out of bankruptcy.

Turning now from that which may constitute the independent and unbiased to a completely biased and wholly-owned subsidiary of the Dimocratic Party, as Peter Berkowitz writes at the WSJ…

James Comey and Robert Mueller Imperil the Rule of Law

The former FBI directors tend to investigate Republicans far more zealously than Democrats.

 

“News broke last week about possible Russian wrongdoing in the U.S., and it didn’t involve the Trump campaign. The Hill reported that in 2009 the FBI “gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States.”

The FBI kept that information from Congress and the public, the Hill reported, even as Hillary Clinton’s State Department in 2010 approved a deal that transferred control of more than 20% of America’s uranium supply to a Russian company. The Hill also reported the FBI had documents showing that during this period Russia engineered the transmission of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

…One crucial difference distinguishes the probe of Mrs. Clinton from the two Comey-instigated special-counsel investigations of Republican administrations. Mr. Fitzgerald’s multiyear investigation of the Bush administration and Mr. Mueller’s ever-widening scrutiny of the Trump campaign exhibit a tenacious and nearly unconstrained search for persons and crimes to prosecute. In contrast, Mr. Comey’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton reflects a determination not to prosecute systematic and obvious unlawful conduct.

Both excesses threaten the rule of law—but the dogged search for persons and crimes to prosecute poses the graver threat to constitutional government.“

Though, were we facing criminal charges, unlike Hillary…

…we’d take scant comfort were Jim Comey covering our back.

Next up, courtesy of the New York Post via Townhall.com…

Former NPR CEO opens up about liberal media bias

 

“This may seem like an unusual admission from someone who once ran NPR, but it is borne of recent experience. Spurred by a fear that red and blue America were drifting irrevocably apart, I decided to venture out from my overwhelmingly Democratic neighborhood and engage Republicans where they live, work and pray. For an entire year, I embedded myself with the other side, standing in pit row at a NASCAR race, hanging out at Tea Party meetings and sitting in on Steve Bannon’s radio show. I found an America far different from the one depicted in the press and imagined by presidents (“cling to guns or religion”) and presidential candidates (“basket of deplorables”) alike.

I spent many Sundays in evangelical churches and hung out with 15,000 evangelical youth at the Urbana conference. I wasn’t sure what to expect among thousands of college-age evangelicals, but I certainly didn’t expect the intense discussion of racial equity and refugee issues — how to help them, not how to keep them out — but that is what I got…”

As noted in a follow-on at Newsbusters.org:

“Then he met the hunters:

None of my new hunting partners fit the lazy caricature of the angry NRA member. Rather, they saw guns as both a shared sport and as a necessary means to protect their families during uncertain times. In truth, the only one who was even modestly angry was me, and that only had to do with my terrible ineptness as a hunter….

Gun control and gun rights is one of our most divisive issues, and there are legitimate points on both sides. But media is obsessed with the gun-control side and gives only scant, mostly negative, recognition to the gun-rights sides.

Take, for instance, the issue of legitimate defensive gun use (DGU), which is often dismissed by the media as myth. But DGUs happen all the time — 200 times a day, according to the Department of Justice, or 5,000 times a day, according to an overly exuberant Florida State University study. But whichever study you choose to believe, DGUs happen frequently and give credence to my hunting friends who see their guns as the last line of defense for themselves and their families…”

 

Then there’s this additional coverage provided by Jim Geraghty at his Morning Jolt:

“…Describing a storeowner who uses a firearm to drive off a would-be armed robber, Stern writes, “It’s not that media is suppressing stories intentionally. It’s that these stories don’t reflect their interests and beliefs.”

Journalism requires judgment. If you pick up a newspaper (pardon my anachronistic examples) and everything that’s on the front page seems boring, irrelevant, and not that important to you, you probably won’t buy it or read it. Journalists and editors need to have good acumen for what’s important in the lives of their audience and a sense of how to balance what you need to read and what you want to read. We all have a sense of how the world works, and those of us who follow politics tend to develop strong, even intense beliefs of how things are and how they ought to be. Revising those beliefs is a slow and difficult process.

The Washington Post’s health-care correspondent dismissed the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell as a “local crime story.” A Democratic senator is currently on trial in corruption, not far from the media capital of the country, with allegations of private jets ferrying the senator to party with gorgeous supermodels at lush tropical resorts and $100 million stolen from Medicare to pay for the lavish lifestyle and fill campaign coffers…and it’s gotten intermittent coverage at best. A longtime Democratic staffer was arrested by the FBI as he attempted to flee to Pakistan, wiping his phone of all data hours earlier.

Why do reporters in the national news media find these stories…not quite as compelling as conservative journalism institutions? A pretty plausible theory is that living and working among so many other like-minded left-of-center people leaves them with an inaccurate perception of how the world actually works. In their minds, abortionists are dedicated medical professionals who risk death threats to provide vital serves to women, not monsters. Democratic senators and their staffers are good people, dedicated, principled, and law-abiding. Cases that contradict these beliefs are inconsequential exceptions, and not worthy of extended public attention.

Orwell described this well: “The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right…”

We’d disagree with Mr. Geraghty on only one point: his assertion “living and working among so many other like-minded left-of-center people leaves them with an inaccurate perception of how the world actually works”.  We’d rather attribute reporters’ undeniable bias to the purposeful promulgation of their Progressive worldview. 

Which brings us to our When Worlds Collide segment, as FOX News details what happens when the demands of two Progressive special interest groups come into conflict:

UK government opposes ‘pregnant women’ in UN treaty, says it excludes transgender people

 

“The UK government objected to the term “pregnant woman” in a United Nations treaty, claiming the term “excludes” transgender people who give birth and should be replaced with “pregnant people,” reports said Sunday. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) voiced their opposition to the term in a statement regarding the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that asserts a “pregnant woman” must be protected and not subjected to the death penalty, The Sunday Times reported.

The move follows the UK government’s position to foster transgender inclusivity. Last week, Prime Minster Theresa May unveiled plans to go ahead with the so-called Gender Recognition Act that allows people to “self-certify” their gender. Critics of the bill, according to the Times, are concerned that the ability to self-identify could let biological men to get legal access to women’s shelters, changing rooms, hospitals and participate in women’s competitive sports.“

Folks, this is nothing less than the legalization of perversion and/or normalization of insanity.

Here’s the juice: Bradley Manning may change his name to Chelsea, but we will never refer to him by a feminine pronoun.  Let’s be clear: this…

…is not and never will be a woman, no matter how many times the MSM asserts he is, or how he “identifies” as a she on a given day…particularly days on which he rapes a ten-year old girl in a bathroom.  Similarly, this…

…is NOT a “man” who eventually gave birth; it’s a mentally-disturbed, pregnant woman.  To borrow a line from Aerosmith…

We for one are unwilling to play along with this latest Progressive attempt to subvert the moral standards of America.  And it’s worth reminding Jim Comey and Robert Mueller this is the side they’re choosing.

It’s also worth noting the spineless spin Snopes put on this particular occurrence.  After featuring the following headline atop their finding of supposed fact…

Was a Transgender Woman Convicted of Sexually Assaulting a Young Girl in a Bathroom?

A spate of blog posts attempted to link the rape of a 10-year-old girl in her home to laws allowing transgender people to use bathrooms that correspond to their identity.

 

…Snopes followed up with these rather limpid lines:

“CLAIM

A transgender woman raped a young girl in a women’s bathroom because bills were passed allowing transgender people to use bathrooms which correspond with their gender.

RATING

WHAT’S TRUE

A transgender woman named Michelle Martinez was convicted of sexually assaulting a young daughter of a friend in a bathroom in a private home.

WHAT’S FALSE

The incident did not occur in a bathroom Martinez was using because of transgender bathroom bills.

ORIGIN

In mid-October 2017, conservative journalists and bloggers sought to link a case of child sexual abuse to an ongoing debate about allowing transgender people to use the public restroom that matches their gender. Proponents of so-called “bathroom bills”, legislating that transgender people must use the restroom of the sex assigned to them at birth, have spuriously argued that transgender women’s use of women’s restrooms puts children in danger of sexual abuse.

The story was typically titled something like “Transgender Wyoming woman convicted of sexually assaulting 10-year-old girl in bathroom,” and it was repeated by Daily Caller, Daily Wire, Red Flag News, Silence is Consent, Fox News, and Louder With Crowder. The latter site claimed that the alleged assault was a direct consequence of bills allowing transgender people to use the bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity…”

We don’t know what constitutes a “spate” to Snopes, but the fact is, only the Crowder post made any connection whatsoever between the push for bathroom bills and the proven rape.  The other blogs simply reported the facts.

What amazes us most is Snopes won’t even remotely consider the possibility the same thing could have happened…or will happen…in a public restroom open to trannies.

Finally, on The Lighter Side…

Magoo