It’s Wednesday, April 18th, 2018…but before we begin, by now, you’re probably aware of this story as “reported” earlier by Newsweek.com:

Calls Grow to Boycott Starbucks After Two Black Men Arrested for Not Making Order

The young lady at the 1:21 mark is the only one in the video who makes any sense other than the police commissioner.

“Calls are growing for a boycott of the Starbucks coffee shop chain after police were filmed arresting two black men waiting for a friend in a branch in Philadelphia. Under the #BoycottStarbucks hashtag on Twitter, people accused the chain’s employees of racially profiling the men, and criticized police for arresting them when they refused to leave.

…In a video statement, [Police Commissioner Richard] Ross said store employees called 911 to report a disturbance and trespassing. When officers arrived, Ross said, staff told them the two men had wanted to use the restroom but were informed it was only for paying customers. The pair repeatedly refused to leave when politely asked to do so by the employees and officers, he said.

“If you think about it logically, that if a business calls and they say that someone is here that I no longer wish to be in my business, they [the officers] now have a legal obligation to carry out their duties. And they did just that,” Ross said.

“They were professional in all their dealings with these gentlemen, and instead they got the opposite back.”…”

There are several aspects of this “story” which leave us scratching our head, and frankly lead us to believe the entire incident is a set-up.

First, who asks to use the restroom?!?  Seriously, when we pull into a fast-food restaurant (the pallor of our complexion notwithstanding) to answer an urgent call from nature, we don’t stop at the counter to ask permission, particularly if we’re not going to order anything.  However, in the interest of impartial reporting, we’ve been informed by The Boss he’s repeatedly seen people using Starbuck’s restrooms as their private shower and changing area, thus certain locations require patrons to get a code from the counter in order to use the facilities.  Were this the case in this specific Starbuck’s, the dynamic duo would indeed have been forced to ask.  But if so, it was no where reported.

Second, how long were they waiting?  Again, not reported.  Based on the Starbuck’s employees experience thus far, these two have asked to use the restroom, ordered nothing and sat down in seating better utilized by paying customers.  And when questioned by the employees about their continued presence, why not simply order a coffee while they waited?  Or at the very least inform the staff they were waiting on their friend, and would order when he arrived?

Third, the White guy in the vest was meeting with them to discuss real estate investments?  Seriously?!?  While you can never judge a book by its cover, these guys don’t exactly impress us as the next Trammell Crow and Sam Zell.

Fourth, they’ve already hired an attorney; for what?!?  To sue the Philadelphia police for doing their duty, answering and acting on a legitimate 911 call?  To shake-down Starbuck’s?  There’s your answer.  And if the politically-correct coffee giant’s reaction thus far is any indication…

Starbucks closing 8,000 US stores on May 29 to conduct ‘racial bias training‘

…everyone in on the scam is looking at a profitable payday.

Fifth and last, we used the Newsweek.com article not because of its headline, but rather due to its closing paragraph…

“Police departments across the United States have come under criticism for repeated instances of killing unarmed black men in recent years, which activists blame on racial biases in the criminal justice system.“

…which, in our opinion, explains Newsweek‘s slanted “reporting” and the motives of those behind this charade.  Is it any wonder Newsweek, a once prominent print publication, has been reduced to an insignificant presence on the web?

Here’s the juice: at some point, Blacks in this country will have to come to grips with the fact a small but significant segment of their fellows have created an understandable and indeed justifiable angst on the part of those in the presence of young Black males…including other Blacks.  That’s not racism…it’s human nature; and an acceptance of irrefutable statistical evidence.

Now, here’s The Gouge!

First up, two thoughts on the real villains revealed in the FBI scandal: first, writing at FOX News, Chris Swecker asserts…

Comey’s actions are ‘unworthy’ of the FBI, says former Assistant Director and 24-year veteran agent

“Through his actions during his relatively brief tenure as FBI Director and now in penning and promoting a salacious “tell all” book, it is now quite evident that James Comey’s higher loyalty is to James Comey, and James Comey alone. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, to the FBI, where I served for 24 years, or to the selfless men and women who work there – all of whom he has tossed, once again, into the middle of a political firestorm.

The ancient Greeks had a word for the excessive vanity that would cause someone to place his interests before those of his country and those of the dedicated public servants he was called to lead – it’s called hubris.

There is no other plausible explanation for his series of ill-advised actions, beginning with the then-director’s now-infamous press conference in July 2016, when he acted contrary to 28 US Code Section 547, Section 9 of the United States Attorneys Manual and over 100 years of established practice between the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). He did this in declaring, without ever consulting with a DOJ prosecutor, that Hillary Clinton was un-prosecutable in the wake of a kid gloves investigation.

His actions are unworthy of the storied law enforcement agency I served for close to a quarter of a century, and they shocked many of us who worked with and around him during his years serving in the Department of Justice…”

Though those of us who knew him for a far shorter time, while disappointed, were not surprised.

Second, courtesy of the WSJ, Bill McGurn reveals…

McCabe, the New ‘Deep Throat’

Another top bureau official who leaked, lied and blamed other FBI agents.

“Before there was Andrew McCabe, there was Mark Felt. Or, as he is better known, “Deep Throat.”

Both Mr. McCabe and Felt were FBI deputy directors. Both leaked information about an FBI investigation that was under way. Both did so for the sake of their own careers, lied about it to their bosses, and even let other FBI agents take the blame…”

Likewise James Comey; which puts McCabe, Comey and Felt not in good company, but rather the same crooked cabal of corrupt collusion.

As Jim Geraghty noted as his Morning Jolt:

“James Comey, to George Stephanopoulos last night, describing the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton: “There was nothing she said that they [the interviewers] believed we could prove was false.”

Really? They didn’t look very hard, did they?

Clinton told agents that she could not recall “any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records of handling of classified information.” As Jeryl Bier laid out, on January 22, 2009, Clinton signed the standard State Department Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement declaring, “I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information.”

…This is why network news divisions should not choose famous political operatives to anchor their political news coverage. Particularly one that, say, donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Can’t you just picture Comey, like other pathological liars before him…

…spinning the details of his yarn over and over in his head, not realizing he was less like Bill….

…and far more like Hillary:

Fortunately for the rest of us, thus do would-be tyrants sow the seeds of their own destruction.

Next up, we offer three separate assessments of The Donald’s first formidable foray into foreign affairs; (1) again writing at his Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty suggests…

The Airstrikes in Syria: The Best Option in a Bad Situation

This morning, to the extent the joint American-British-French strikes in Syria are still in the news, they’re the focus of complaints about being insufficient or ill-considered. The Washington Post rushes to inform us of “the many things Trump didn’t accomplish in the latest Syria strike.” Thank goodness there are experts to tell us that launching 105 missiles did not “take ownership of the Syrian endgame.”

It’s abundantly clear that neither the American people, nor this president, nor many figures in his administration, nor most members of Congress, nor our NATO allies, nor our regional allies want to “take ownership of the Syrian endgame.” We would rather not deal with it at all, and for most of the Obama administration, that was more or less our policy, even when presidential “red lines” were crossed. A half-million deaths later…

Color me among the few who actually think this strike was about right…”

(2) Courtesy of AEI, Marc Thiessen respectfully disagrees:

Trump’s Syria strike was meant to project strength. It did the opposite.

“In 2013, after Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad crossed President Barack Obama’s red line and used chemical weapons on innocent civilians, a U.S. official told the Los Angeles Times that Obama’s retaliatory strike would likely be “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would elicit a response from Iran and Russia. In the end, Obama backed away from even such a small, feckless strike.

On Friday, Trump carried one out.

Trump deserves credit for acting (now twice) when Obama wouldn’t. He also deserves credit for getting U.S. allies to join us when Obama couldn’t. But let’s be clear: Friday night’s strikes were “just muscular enough not to get mocked.” As a result, they did more damage to the United States’ credibility on the world stage than they did to the Assad regime.

The U.S.-led strike did not hit a single airplane, airfield or delivery system, and it left Syria with chemical weapons capabilities. Even at the sites we did hit, the Syrians had plenty of time to move equipment and chemical stockpiles. There were no reported casualties on the ground, suggesting that the regime had evacuated the targets.

The Syrians know that they won. The Post reports that “on the streets of Damascus, there was jubilation as weapgovernment supporters realized that a more expansive assault would not materialize.” Retired Gen. Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the Army, said the Syrians had good reason to celebrate. “The response is very weak in my judgment,” he said. “It should have been decisive, it should have been consequential,” he continued.

Keane said Assad made a bet with his chemical attack and won. As Keane explained, Assad wanted to take out one of the last remaining rebel strongholds in the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta, which was holding out despite a brutal, nonstop bombing campaign by the Russians. Assad calculated that he could use chemical weapons to crush the resistance, achieve a military victory and then absorb what he expected to be a limited U.S. strike. So, he launched his chemical strike. Hours later, the rebels capitulated. And just as Assad predicted, the U.S. response was limited — leaving his air power, his command and control, and his chemical weapons capability largely intact. Assad was not punished. Quite the opposite — his attack played out just as he had hoped and predicted. Mission accomplished.

Far from being chastened, the U.S. response will embolden Assad, Russia and Iran. And it will embolden other U.S. adversaries as well…”

(3) Even in praising Trump’s strike, Dalibor Rohac points out…

“…Another even more pressing problem is that the strikes on Friday do not go anywhere near changing the balance of power on the ground — and much less toward imposing sizable costs on the Iranian and Russian regimes who are effectively controlling the situation. Without a more aggressive posture particularly against Russia — involving additional sanctions against regime officials and oligarchs, asset freezes, and cutting Russian state-owned and state-connected banks from the global financial system — Vladimir Putin has little reason to seriously rethink his complicity in Mr. Assad’s war crimes.“

Only time will tell.  In the meantime, we continue to rejoice Hillary remains on the sidelines, a harshly-voiced harpy utterly devoid of power.

Turning rather incongruously to The Lighter Side:

Finally, we’ll call it a day with this meme forwarded by Fielding Cocke, which, while somewhat inaccurate…

…nonetheless makes a valid point.

While Trump may be the ultimate loose cannon, the other three ALWAYS put their own self-interest above the safety, security and well-being of ordinary American citizens.  The Clintons for personal profit; Obama for the ultimate abasement of a concept: the Founders Republic…which his wife and he utterly despise.

Magoo