It’s Monday, October 15th, 2018…but before we begin, a quick bit of commentary occasioned by a recent conversation with our good friend G. Trevor Vietor.  The two of us were discussing the Dimocrats’ increasingly divisive politics and disregard for the rule of law, as well as the double standard employed in the reporting of any race-related crimes where the perpetrators were Black and the victims White, and vice-versa.

The discussion brought to mind an incident some six years back in Norfolk, VA, when a pair of White reporters for The Virginian-Pilot, the local Liberal rag, one male, one female, were set upon while stopped at a red light and severely beaten by a mob of Black assailants.  You may recall the incident, which was significant not only because of the unprovoked nature of the assault, but because the reporters’ own paper declined to report the mob attack until it was made public by other sources.

Trevor didn’t remember the incident, and when we used Google to find an article about it to forward, imagine our surprise when a rather specific search turned up…

…nary a link; not ONE!  Despite rephrasing the search a number of different ways, the results were the same: zero…nada…a big, fat goose egg.

Our curiosity piqued, we turned to Bing, and turned up not one…

…but multiple links detailing the assault using the same search wording we’d initially tried on Google.  At which point we realized, we’d just experienced the internet equivalent of Progressives’ deliberate dumbing-down of our system of public education: if links to an inconvenient happening, inconvenient because its circumstances don’t fit with the latest Liberal narrative, don’t show up on an internet search, did it ever actually happen?!?

Holy 1984, Batman!

Just as Quint’s surviving the sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis led him to conclude…

…in the future, we’ll never trust the results of a Google search.

Now, here’s The Gouge!

First up, courtesy of The Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro suggests…

This May Be The Looniest Anti-Male Op-Ed Ever Written. And The Washington Post Just Published It.

“On Friday, The Washington Post ran what could easily rank as the single looniest op-d they’ve ever run: a piece from Victoria Bissell Brown, retired history professor at Grinnell College, arguing that men are incapable of being good, even if they oppose sexism. Men are, by nature, vile and terrible, and can’t fix anything by listening to women – instead, they must change from within. Sadly, though, they’re not capable of such change, which begs the question: what the hell are men supposed to do, aside from die?

Brown begins by talking about screaming at her husband. Really.

I yelled at my husband last night. Not pick-up-your-socks yell. Not how-could-you-ignore-that-red-light yell. This was real yelling. This was 30 minutes of from-the-gut yelling. Triggered by a small, thoughtless, dismissive, annoyed, patronizing comment. Really small. A micro-wave that triggered a hurricane. I blew. Hard and fast. And it terrified me. I’m still terrified by what I felt and what I said. I am almost 70 years old. I am a grandmother. Yet in that roiling moment, screaming at my husband as if he represented every clueless male on the planet (and I every angry woman of 2018), I announced that I hate all men and wish all men were dead. If one of my grandchildren yelled something that ridiculous, I’d have to stifle a laugh.

But she didn’t stifle a laugh. Instead, she doubles down in the pages of The Washington Post…”

Forgetting her uncontrollable paroxysms of anger, Ms. Brown’s uninviting visage…

…not only brings to mind Winston Churchill’s celebrated rejoinder to Lady Nancy Astor…

…it leads us to believe, like Meatloaf in Paradise by the Dashboard Light, her husband’s…

In a related item, writing at NRO, Kyle Smith observes Victoria Bissel Brown’s righteous indignation might not serve to save her from her own, as, at least in politically-correct Progressive circles…

‘White Women’ Becomes a Disparaging Term

The Left is lumping white women together into a giant bloc subject to absurdly broad stereotyping and vitriolic condemnation.

“Using “white men” as a putdown is no longer extreme enough for the Left. Now it is moving on to doing the same for “white women.”

How rapidly this transpired. It was less than two years ago that the approximately 98.7 percent of white women working in media who were openly rooting for Hillary Clinton saw their hopes dashed on Election Day. The first murmurs of betrayal began. Exit polls showed 52 percent of white women backed Donald Trump, and much sorrowful tsk-tsking ensued. Sorrow turned to disbelief. Disbelief turned to rage.

Today, white women are being lumped together into a giant bloc subject to absurdly broad stereotyping and vitriolic condemnation. They’re being told to step back and know their place by writers in the New York Times (“white women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain”), The New Yorker (“despite the enduring legacy of testimony by black women, white women have often played the protagonists in the history of sexual violence, and black women have been relegated to the supporting cast”) and NBC News (“white women who voted for Trump…clearly have no issue with the president’s openly misogynistic behavior, his demeaning of female reporters and his mocking of [Christine Blasey] Ford”).

A writer for The Root castigated Taylor Swift because “like some white women, she uses her privilege to not be involved until she’s directly affected.” Talia Lavin, the New Yorker fact-checker who resigned in June after erroneously suggesting that an ICE agent (who turned out to be a combat-wounded Marine Corps veteran) had a Nazi tattoo, continues to contribute to The New Yorker and tells her 51,000 Twitter followers, “patriarchy won’t protect you no matter how hard white women fight for it.” “White women use strategic tears to silence women of colour,” ran a headline in the Guardian. On the basis of five phone calls, plus the story of what happened to Emmett Till in 1955, Rolling Stone published an essay entitled, “Why White Women Keep Calling the Police on Black People,” blaming them for “a new 21st century version of Jim Crow.” It wouldn’t be terribly difficult, in a nation of 300 million, to come up with five examples of black men who had murdered white women, but if you wrote an essay entitled “Why Black Men Keep Murdering White Women” you would rightly be barred from writing for just about any reputable journalistic outfit. The intellectual error of making invidious generalizations about large groups of people based on superficial characteristics is obvious. So is the moral error…”

But what can one expect from a political party, which as Derek Hunter details at Townhall.com, is dependent upon mob rule?

Of Course The Liberal Mob Is Real

“There are few things that get liberals riled up like exposing them for exactly who and what they are. They hate it, almost as much as they hate people who don’t fall in lockstep with their every demand. So when President Trump started talking about the “mob” liberals have become, “journalists” leapt to their defense, naturally. But there is no defense from the truth; no matter how earnestly a CNN or MSNBC personality insists the Sun rises in the west, that doesn’t make it so. The Democratic Party is the party of the mob.

It wasn’t that long ago that the fringe of the political left was just that – a fringe. They’d used mommy and daddy’s credit card or their trust fund money to congregate at a G7 summit or meeting of the International Monetary Fund, then go back to whatever college town they refused to grow up in. Now there is no afghan of the party left, it’s all fringe.

What used to be ignored as it smashed the windows of a Starbucks and set trashcans on fire in the streets every couple of years is now what the Democrats are counting on to deliver them a majority in the House of Representatives.

So where did this mob come from?

The simple answer is they’ve always been there, only they’re emboldened now…”

Which prompts NRO‘s Andy McCarthy to wonder…

Who Will Save Democrats from Their Leaders?

In a better time, we would be talking not about Eric Holder but about real Democratic leaders.

“‘When they go low‘…that’s where they are sure to find Eric Holder.

Sometimes, the former attorney general is excusing hard-Left, unrepentant, anti-American FALN separatists by helping a Democratic president spring them from imprisonment for their terrorist crimes.

Sometimes, he is helping a Democratic president commute the sentences of hard-Left terrorists whose only regret was their failure to shoot it out against police who interrupted another bombing spree in their war against the United States.

Sometimes, he is volunteering his legal services and his status as a former top Justice Department official to file a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of the al Qaeda jihadist who was apprehended while plotting a second wave of 9/11 mass-murder attacks.

Sometimes, he is defying congressional committees investigating his Justice Department’s reckless, politically driven “gun-walking” scheme gone awry — the Fast and Furious “investigation” that armed murderous Mexican drug gangs and got a border-patrol officer killed.

Sometimes, he is sharing a podium with his friend Al Sharpton, who is threatening to incite mayhem — as Sharpton is wont to do — if police fail to trump up a racially charged case rather than let the evidence determine whether to indict.

Sometimes, he is trying to keep his story straight about that time when, as a Columbia undergrad, he proudly joined other campus radicals in occupying a building and the dean’s office — forcible intimidation to extort political concessions.

And sometimes, Holder is just engaged in old-fashioned political corruption: helping a Democratic president circumvent the Justice Department in carrying out the pay-to-play pardon of a notorious fugitive.

But if there is anyone who knows about “going low,” it is Mr. Holder. He is, after all, the first attorney general in American history to be held in contempt of Congress.

And low is exactly where Holder — along with Hillary “No Civility Unless We Win” Clinton and the rest of the social-justice arriére-garde — has taken a once-great political party.

In a better time, we would not be talking about Eric Holder. He would be dismissed as a fringe radical who endorses forcible, extortionist tactics against political adversaries (and then, in familiar Holder fashion, spends the next day pretending he didn’t say what he said). In a better time, we would be asking why anyone would care what Eric Holder says, about anything.

But today, Holder is important. Today, he is a mainstream Democratic leader. Today, his antics illustrate two things we fail to bear in mind at our peril.

First, the high-minded airs put on by the hard left are a fraud, and a dangerous one.

…That brings us to the second point Eric Holder’s incitements should clarify.

The latest regression to the 1970s “any means necessary” politics that today’s Democrats have reincarnated was triggered by Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. But don’t be confused. The fact that Kavanaugh was the occasion for Democratic anarchy does not mean he was the cause.

This was not about Brett Kavanaugh. This was about power. The character assassination heaped on Kavanaugh would have been used against any President Trump nominee poised to shift the Supreme Court rightward. Remarkably, Democrats now kick themselves for not attacking the nominee even more viciously. Doesn’t matter who the nominee was. The real objective was not to destroy Kavanaugh but to convey what Democrats have in store for any conservative who seeks high public office. If you don’t grasp that, you’re not paying attention…”

Given one bullet and our choice of target, these two would leave us truly torn…

…unless one or the other would move a leetle bit to the left or right. 

Since we’re on the subject of those guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, the WSJ‘s Kimberly Strassel asks if you know…

Who Is Michael Sussmann?

The FBI’s general counsel met with a Clinton lawyer in September 2016.

“When Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked about the origin of the infamous Trump dossier, James Comey brushed off most of the questions. The former Federal Bureau of Investigations director said someone on his “senior staff”—he couldn’t remember who—had “briefed” him on the dossier “sometime in the fall” of 2016. Mr. Comey had been told it came “from a reliable source.” He insisted he “never knew exactly which Democrats had funded” it. He then continued on about his book, which meditated on the importance of “truth.”

That interview, in April 2018, is relevant in light of a recent report from the Hill’s John Solomon that James Baker, the FBI’s general counsel from 2014-17, met “weeks before the 2016 election” with a lawyer from Perkins Coie. That’s the firm that hired Fusion GPS to compile the dossier on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

My sources confirm that the Perkins partner who bent Mr. Baker’s ear and handed over documents was Michael Sussmann, point man for the firm’s DNC and Clinton campaign accounts. They also confirm the subject of the meeting was Russian interference in the election, including hacking and supposed ties to Donald Trump. Much of this comes from an interview House investigators conducted last week with Mr. Baker.

The significance of this revelation is enormous for everything from FBI investigatory malpractice, to its dishonesty, to its current fight with the White House over document disclosure. That the FBI’s general counsel was even meeting with a top lawyer for the Clinton campaign shortly before the election is proof of that the bureau strayed beyond obvious guardrails.

It’s alarming enough that the FBI felt free to open a counterintelligence investigation into an active presidential campaign. That it also felt free to gather information for that probe from the opposing campaign is mind-boggling. Team Clinton had the most powerful position on earth to gain from Mr. Trump’s downfall. No conflict there, right?…”

As we’ve so often observed before,…like a whorehouse at low tide!  Or, perhaps more accurately, like Sodom and Gomorrah, the stench of which reached even to up Heaven.

Turning now to The Lighter Side:

Then there’s these two bits of pointed humor forwarded by Shannon Wood and Brendan Clark, respectively:

Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with another sordid story straight from the pages of The Crime Blotter, and this just in from the Volunteer State:

Tennessee man loses leg after his son ran him over with a lawn mower when he attacked him with a chainsaw

“…Officers were called to a home in Bristol, Tennessee, on June 28 and found Douglas Ferguson, 76, bleeding from his head and leg, according to a press release from the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office.

A preliminary investigation indicated that he tried to attack his son with a running chainsaw while his son mowed the yard. His son, who was not identified, ran over his father with the lawn mower as a way to defend himself, the press release stated.

Detectives said the father and son had an ongoing feud…”

To borrow a line from Stripes, “Doug Ferguson,…

Thanksgiving dinner…we’re not so sure!

Magoo