Bristol Palin Rips Liberal Media Coverage of Family Brawl, Tells Her Side of Story

Mediaite.com:

So by now, you’ve all heard about that infamous Palin family brawl and maybe even listened to the audio of Bristol Palin telling the police what happened. Well, now Palin has written a lengthy blog post not only clearing up exactly what happened, but lashing out at the media for its coverage of her family.

ADVERTISEMENT

Palin says a friend got knocked out by some guy, whose mom pushed her little sister Willow when she got upset with him. Bristol went to confront her, but ran into some giant man who reportedly shouted, “You cunt! Get the fuck out of here, you slut!”

And according to Palin, he proceeded to start pushing her down to the ground. She hit him in self-defense, and describes the intense situation as “scary and infuriating.”

Palin then takes the opportunity to go after the media for latching onto rumors and random people as eyewitnesses. She thinks this is part of a broader pattern of how conservative women are treated:

Violence against women is never okay… Even if that violence occurs against conservative women. Imagine for a second the outrage that would happen if Chelsea Clinton had gotten pushed by some guy. Had she tried to defend herself, the liberal media would’ve held her up as some feminist hero.

But it wasn’t Chelsea.

It wasn’t Hillary.

It wasn’t someone they liked or someone they agreed with.

It was a conservative.

And once again, the hypocrisy of the media is laid bare.

RELATED: CNN’s Carol Costello Apologizes for Comments About Palin Brawl

Supreme Court Allows Texas to Go Ahead with Voter ID Law

Mediaite.com:

The Supreme Court today officially permitted the state of Texas to proceed with its controversial voter ID law for this November’s midterm elections. A majority of justices earlier today rejected a Department of Justice request to prohibit Texas from engaging in a practice it believed to be discriminatory.

A federal judge sided with the DOJ and struck down the law just last week, ruling that it “creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.” He even compared it to the poll tax.

A federal appeals court overturned that ruling this Tuesday, and now the Supreme Court has weighed in and will allow Texas to proceed with the law in place.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent warning that the law “risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters.”

RELATED:  Hard Evidence Supports the Need for Voter ID Laws

Report: Barack Obama Planning to Bring Ebola-infected Foreigners to US for Treatment

Townhall.com:

Despite mounting pressure from lawmakers and the public, President Obama on Saturday said that he would not cave on the issue of imposing travel bans on West African nations.

“We can’t just cut ourselves off from West Africa,” he said in his weekly radio address. “Trying to seal off an entire region of the world—if that were even possible, could actually make the situation worse.” 

If that were true, then why has nearly every African nation—plus a number of other countries (and airlines) around the world—imposed a ban or significant restrictions on the Ebola-stricken countries in West Africa? It’s simple: quarantines work. As Ann Coulter noted in her column this week, “It’s becoming increasingly clear that this is just another platform for Obama to demonstrate that we are citizens of the world.” 

Indeed. Our commander in chief has even sent thousands of U.S. troops with only four hours of training to West Africa to combat the virus. The safety and security of Americans has clearly taken a backseat to wellbeing of those overseas. 

And if all this weren’t enough, a conservative watchdog group is out with a shocking new report that claims the administration is looking to bring Ebola-infected foreigners to the U.S. for treatment. Yes, you read that correctly.

Judicial Watch has learned that the Obama administration is actively formulating plans to admit Ebola-infected non-U.S. citizens into the United States for treatment. Specifically, the goal of the administration is to bring Ebola patients into the United States for treatment within the first days of diagnosis.

It is unclear who would bear the high costs of transporting and treating non-citizen Ebola patients. The plans include special waivers of laws and regulations that ban the admission of non-citizens with a communicable disease as dangerous as Ebola.

One source tells us that the Obama administration is keeping this plan secret from Congress. The source is concerned that the proposal is illegal; endangers the public health and welfare; and should require the approval of Congress.

If this plan comes to fruition, the public outcry will be deafening. The fact that the cost of this would undoubtedly fall on the backs of taxpayers is one thing, the negligence it would show for the American people is quite another. 

RELATED: O’Reilly Rips ‘Pathetic Ideological Loons’ at MSNBC for Ebola ‘Racism’ Attacks

Jon Stewart Criticized Democrat Hypocrisy on Campaign Spending

CanadaFreePress.com:

Previously, we’ve discussed Obama’s belief that the GOP is the ‘party of billionaires.’  He made that proclamation while on his way to attend a $32,000.00-per-plate fundraiser at the home of a billionaire real estate mogul named - again, not a joke -“Rich Richman.” We’ve also talked about the desperate letters which ask people to give Obama five dollars so he can stave off impeachment.  ...And we’ve acknowledged his refusal to skip fundraisers in favor of actually doing his job because, as his administration puts it, schedule changes might “alarm the American people or create a false sense of crisis.”

Yet all across the country, Democrats are regularly outspending their Republican rivals as they desperately cling to control of the Senate, and the “beg letters” continue to pile up. All of this, while Obama and his allies run around moaning about how Republicans love fat cats and how there’s too much money in politics. The hypocrisy is painfully obvious.

Democrats love money in politics, as long as it’s their money in politics.

There’s nothing new about that, but it’s rare to see one of the faithful call them on their fearmongering cash-grab B.S. 

Enter left-wing icon Jon Stewart.  You may know him as the host of the Daily Show. ...Or possibly as the man NBC wanted to install as host of Meet the Press, before settling for non-comedian Chuck Todd:

Et tu, Jon Stewart?

RELATED: Ed Schultz Slams Party Apostate Jon Stewart for Criticizing Dems' Hypocrisy on Campaign Spending

New Poll Shows Barack Obama’s Approval Rating is at the Lowest Level of his Presidency

Politico.com:

President Barack Obama’s approval rating is at the lowest level of his presidency, a new poll says.

According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday, 40 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s job performance, the lowest score the poll has recorded since he took office. His rating is down 1 point from September.

The survey comes less than a month out from the November midterm elections. A large number of Democratic congressional and gubernatorial candidates on the campaign trail have been distancing themselves from the White House.

Among independent voters, Obama’s approval rating stands at 33 percent.

Forty-four percent of Americans approve of the president’s handling of economic issues, compared with 51 percent who disapprove, his lowest disapproval level in more than a year.

But the president’s approval rating on his handling of the conflict with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has plunged in less than a month. Thirty-five percent of Americans approve of his handling of the threat from ISIL, the terrorist group that the U.S. has conducted airstrikes against in Iraq and Syria. His net negative 16-point rating on ISIL is down 22 points from the end of September, when 50 percent of Americans approved of his handling of ISIL.

RELATED: Surging Georgia Democratic Senate candidate afraid to be associated with toxic Obama

10-Year-Old Charged with Killing a 90-Year-Old Woman, Will Be Tried as Adult

Mediaite.com:

A ten-year-old boy has been charged with homicide after he confessed to killing a 90-year-old woman. And because minors cannot be given such charges, the boy is being tried as an adult.

Tristen Kurilla, according to police, was visiting his grandfather, when he got into some kind of dispute with 90-year-old Helen Novak. And then he attacked her, put a cane around her throat, and punched her throat a number of times.

Novak died, and Kurilla is being held in custody. He said he only meant to hurt the old woman, not to kill her. He will be charged as an adult.

He knew what he was doing and 99.9% of 10-year-olds don't kill people when they get upset. I say give this budding sociopath life in prison without parole.

RELATED: Why a 10-year-old in Pennsylvania can be tried for murder as an adult

Will Blacks in North Carolina, and Elsewhere, Continue to Buy the Liberal Line?

Townhall.com:

Republicans need to pick up six seats in November to gain control of the Senate. 

Consensus to date points to good prospects of this happening. 

But one state where the picture remains unclear for Republicans is North Carolina. Republican challenger, speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives Thom Tillis, has failed to pull ahead of Democrat incumbent Senator Kay Hagan and average of latest polling shows him behind 3 to 4 points.

Mitt Romney won North Carolina in 2012 by three points. In the last ten presidential elections, Republicans prevailed in North Carolina eight times.

North Carolina is anything but a boilerplate blue state. And the Hagan-Tillis face-off is as pure liberal vs. conservative as you can get.

Tillis is an experienced legislator and solid conservative. 

So what’s the problem?

One issue is the volatile black vote. Not volatile as to their consistency to vote for Democrats but whether or not they show up to vote.

North Carolina, with a population that is 22 percent black, is a laboratory this November for whether the Republican challenger can successfully point to the dismal record of the Democrat incumbent regarding black progress and convince black voters that they should not vote for more of the same.

The big question in states like North Carolina, and with black voters nationwide, is how long will blacks continue to buy what they have been sold for years by liberals.

Hagan’s story line for black voters is the same as what liberals always tell blacks.

Don’t vote for the conservative because the conservative wants to cut government money. And don’t vote for the conservative because the conservative is “for rich people”, and “they’re racist”, and they, as Joe Biden said, “want to put you back in chains’.”

But will these voters really believe that the black poverty rate in North Carolina stands at 34 percent, versus 13 percent among whites, because taxes are not high enough or because government spending is not expansive enough? 

Or that the graduation rate of black males in North Carolina is, according the Schott Foundation, just 58 percent, because government is not spending enough on public schools?

Maybe blacks will finally grasp that government spending really benefits the political class and not the lower class.

RELATED: Lefty Rock Critic: Killings of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown Result of ‘Hatred’ for Obama

LAPD Offers $50,000 in Slaying of Transgender Woman Because It's The Politically Correct Thing To Do

TheRoot.com:

The last time anyone saw Aniya Knee Parker was when she was picked up on surveillance video about 3 a.m. on Oct. 2 on a street corner in East Hollywood, Calif. That’s when she was engaged in a struggle with three men over her purse and then shot dead as she tried to run away, police say, according to Los Angeles Times.

Now the Los Angeles Police Department is offering $50,000 to tipsters who help lead to the arrest of the assailants, the paper says.

“This is one of those unfortunate crimes that we’re going to solve with the community’s help,” LAPD Division Capt. Brian Pratt said during a press conference Friday at City Hall, the paper writes.

Parker, 47, who was transgender, may also have been targeted because of her identity, Christopher Argyros, manager of the Los Angeles LGBT Center’s Anti-Violence Project, told the Times, saying that transgender people are often victims of violence.

“We believe it is very possibly Ms. Parker was targeted because of her identity,” Argyros said to the paper. He said Los Angeles is home to one of the largest transgender communities in the U.S., whose members are often on alert.

Can't imagine them offering $50,000 for a normal, missing, black woman. But hey that's the price you pay when you allow the same Godless, white liberals you worship to manipulate you and treat you like second-class miscreants.

RELATED: State Department ends transgender exclusion from health plan

Feminists, You Can't Pick Your Battles

BloombergView.com:

Shikha Dalmia -- who, I should note, in the interests of full disclosure, is a colleague of my husband’s and a charming dinner companion, as well as a Bloomberg View contributor -- recently wrote a column for Reason magazine and the Week about affirmative consent laws. I’ve already said my piece about affirmative-consent laws, to which I will just add this: I am disturbed as hell by the number of feminists I’ve seen defending these laws on the grounds that of course they will rarely be enforced. Why pass laws you don’t intend to enforce? 

Unenforceable laws weaken our whole legal framework by conceding that really, the whole thing is just an arbitrary exercise of power by authorities -- a theory of justice that has not, I must point out, generally redounded to the benefit of women and minorities. It is, in the words of P.J. O’Rourke, “Pinning a ‘kick me!’ sign on the backside of the majesty of the law."
But Dalmia makes a different argument:

The truth is that, except in the first flush of infatuation, both partners are rarely equally excited. At any given moment, one person wants sex more passionately than the other. What's more, whether due to nurture or nature, there is usually a difference in tempo between men and women, with women generally requiring more "convincing." And someone who requires convincing is not yet in a position to offer "affirmative" much less "enthusiastic" consent. That doesn't mean that the final experience is unsatisfying -- but it does mean that initially one has to be coaxed out of one's comfort zone. Affirmative consent would criminalize that.

This invited a response, titled "Consent Laws Are Ruining Sex, Says Writer Who Probably Has Awful Sex," from feminist site Jezebel.

"This argument is bad and dumb for many reasons," writes Erin Gloria Ryan, adding that the assumption that a man trying to convince a tired woman to have sex "while she wonders to herself if this is what she really wanted is an assessment of heterosexual intercourse so grim that I feel a great deal of pity for the person whose life experiences have led to those conclusions. And even if that were the sexual status quo, why on earth would we defend it?"

Ryan goes on: "Secondly, the writer assumes that men are always the sexual assailants and women are always the victims and that rape always occurs in the context of a heterosexual coupling, which is so far from being an accurate statement that it's damaging to male victims of sexual assault and victims of female assailants."

One hardly even knows where to begin with this. First of all, there’s the awful reading comprehension, which converted “sometimes one partner wants sex more than the other, and coaxes the other person into it, which can sometimes lead to great sex that you’d have regretted missing” into “close your eyes and think of your children.”

And then there’s the sex shaming.

This is the sort of thing that feminists are supposed to be against. It frequently gets deployed against left-leaning feminists, and for that matter, any woman who argues that women belong in the workplace but might have trouble staying there because things are still just a teensy bit stacked against them. 

A certain sort of male commenter seems to take it as a given that any woman who argues that we need further progress toward equality is a frigid, castrating she-male whose husband or boyfriend would be too spineless and weak to satisfy them sexually even if they weren’t so busy polishing their Precious Moments figurines. And though they seem to think this is so obvious as to go without saying, they don’t; they write you four-page, one-paragraph e-mails or pepper your comments section with ALL CAPS!!!

When guys do this to them, left feminists easily recognize it for what it is: reactionary, misogynist bile spewed by angry people who couldn’t think of an actual argument. So why does Erin Gloria Ryan feel free to deploy it against a woman with whom she disagrees? Why didn’t her colleagues at Jezebel take her aside and say, “Hey, that’s not how we roll. We’re against sex shaming, remember?”

This is not the first time I’ve run into this idea that all’s fair as long as you restrict it to conservatives. Although the exact post seems to be lost to the mists of Internet time, I’ll never forget when a woman at a major feminist site accused me of holding the political opinions I do because -- wait for it -- I was trying to catch a man. Or the liberal men too numerous to count, or at least bother counting up over the years, who have hailed me with every misogynist slur you could imagine, and a few I’m sure you couldn’t. 

This is the exact opposite of the way things should work. If you want to argue for a principle, you need to embody that principle consistently -- at least, if you want to convince anyone else. Libertarians who argue that private charity can make up for government safety nets should be giving more of their income to private welfare charities than any other group. Conservatives who think that abortion should be completely illegal should not go and obtain them for their own daughters. People who oppose school choice should not send their children to private schools or relocate to an affluent suburb when they have kids. And feminists who are against sex shaming should be outraged when it happens to people whose ideas they despise, as outraged as they certainly are when it happens to one of their own. Otherwise, people just smirk at your “principle” and see it for what it is: something between sheer tribal hypocrisy and a lie.

Here’s what feminism actually means, or should: Women -- all women -- are just as entitled to hold opinions as anyone else. And here’s the really crazy part: They’re entitled to hold opinions that are completely different from yours, even if you are also a woman. And while you are absolutely entitled to argue that those ideas are immoral, impractical, befuddled, benighted, unscrupulous, intolerable and downright wrongheaded, you should not make disparaging remarks about the speaker's sex life. If you do, you should feel ashamed of yourself. And in this case, so should any feminists who manage to call out every third-tier state Republican campaign worker for misogynist comments but don’t find the time to condemn one at one of their own Internet homes.

RELATED:  Questions About California’s New Campus Rape Law

Mike Huckabee: I’ll Leave GOP Over Gay Marriage Issue

Townhall.com:

To former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, faith absolutely trumps politics, so much so that he has no reservations about casting off the R beside his name if the GOP abandons its opposition to same-sex marriage. 

“If the Republicans want to lose guys like me — and a whole bunch of still God-fearing Bible-believing people — go ahead and just abdicate on this issue, and why you’re at it, go ahead and say abortion doesn’t matter, either,” Huckabee said on the American Family Association’s radio show this week during a discussion on gay marriage. 

“Because at that point, you lose me,” he continued. “I’m gone. I’ll become an independent. I’ll start finding people that have guts to stand. I’m tired of this.”

Huckabee’s comments came after the Supreme Court announced earlier this week that they will not take up gay marriage, thereby clearing the way for same-sex marriages in Wisconsin, Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, and Indiana. This, of course, provides an opportunity for some GOP candidates who wish to avoid the issue to do just that:

The Supreme Court’s decision Monday clearing the way for same-sex marriages in five states may benefit an unlikely group: Republican lawmakers who can’t wait to stop talking about gay marriage, an issue that is increasingly becoming a drag for the party.

Advisors to multiple likely 2016 candidates told TIME after the news broke that they are hopeful that swift action by the Supreme Court will provide them cover. “We don’t have to agree with the decision, but as long as we’re not against it we should be okay,” said one aide to a 2016 contender who declined to be named to speak candidly on the sensitive topic. “The base, meanwhile, will focus its anger on the Court, and not on us.”

“I am utterly exasperated with Republicans and the so-called leadership of the Republicans who have abdicated on this issue when, if they continue this direction they guarantee they’re gonna lose every election in the future,” Huckabee said. “Guarantee it.”

“And I don’t understand why they want to lose,” he continued. “Because a lot of Republicans, particularly in the establishment and those who live on either the left coast or those who live up in the bubbles of New York and Washington, are convinced that if we don’t capitulate on the same sex marriage issue and if we don’t raise the white flag of surrender, and just accept it as inevitable, we’ll be losers.”

“I tell you,” he said. “It’s the absolute opposite of that.”

Taking a social conservative stand, how rare is that these days?

RELATED:  Supreme Court gives green light to Idaho gay marriages

Supreme Court Declines Gay Marriage Appeals

Mediaite.com:

Surprising most court observers, the Supreme Court declined to take up multiple same sex marriage appeals, letting stand lower court rulings overturning the bans on gay marriage in five states (with implications for six more). The Court issued its decision without comment.

Thirty-one states still prohibit same sex marriages, but SCOTUS’ decision to let the three lower court decisions stand would appear to effectively legalize the practice in the five states directly involved in the appeals plus six other states within the appellate courts’ jurisdictions, including Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Since the Court overturned DOMA last summer three appellate courts have struck down five state-level bans on same sex marriage in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The court’s 2013 decision required the federal government to recognize gay marriages in states that legally allow them, but declined to rule on whether the federal government could compel a state to allow same sex marriages. 

The decision is certainly a victory for gay rights advocates, though it stops short once again of implementing a nationwide right to same sex marriage.

What a bunch of lazy cowards.

RELATED: CNN’s Toobin Blasts ‘Outrageous’ SCOTUS Decision to Not Hear Same-Sex Marriage Appeals

Fined $13,000 by New York State For Not Marrying Homosexuals, Christian Farmers Are Fighting Back Against ‘Discrimination’ Ruling

DailySignal.com:

A couple who declined to allow a same-sex wedding ceremony on their family farm in upstate New York filed an appeal today that their attorney says will challenge “every facet” of a recent discrimination ruling against them.

In September 2012, a lesbian couple approached Cynthia and Robert Gifford about holding their wedding on the Giffords’ Liberty Ridge Farm. The Giffords, who both grew up in Clifton Park, N.Y., declined, citing their religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Because Liberty Ridge Farm is open to the public for seasonal activities, such as its annual fall festival, the state of New York classifies it as a public accommodation that cannot discriminate on the basis of certain personal characteristics, including sexual orientation.

The lesbian couple, who recorded a telephone conversation with Cynthia Gifford, complained to the New York State Division of Human Rights, which is specifically chartered to prohibit “discrimination” based upon sexual orientation, among other characteristics.

In July, an administrative law judge found the Giffords had discriminated against the couple and ordered fines totaling $13,000—$1,500 mental anguish fine to each of the women and a $10,000 civil damages penalty to the state.

Once again, the powerful, perverted, white, Godless and rich Gay Mafia is targeting Christian business owners around the country and forcing their choice of hedonism down religious people throats. Thanks to Godless Gov. Mario Cuomo, these two dykes could've had their choice to be "married" in hundreds of places around the state. But because they're so evil and vindictive, they specifically targeted the Christian Liberty Ridge Farm, forced them to choose between God's word and man's, knew they'd say no and went ahead and sued them because they're also ugly, miserable and have nothing else better to do then destroy the lives of law-abiding Christians. Sad, indeed.

RELATED: Liberty Ridge Farm owners appeal ruling over lesbian wedding

Barack Obama Hasn't Come Up With One Original Idea Yet

NYPost.com:

Just before Labor Day, controversy erupted over President Obama’s garb at a presidential press conference — should he or should he not have worn a light tan summer suit when talking about ISIS? That was beside the point.

The issue isn’t the weight or color of his suit. The issue is that the suit is empty.

With almost six years of the Obama administration under our collective belts, the time has come to acknowledge a painful truth: This is an astoundingly idea-free presidency.

At that press conference, Obama stunned the world by saying, out loud and openly, that “we don’t have a strategy yet” on how to deal with ISIS. No president before him had ever said such a thing out loud, and for good reason: Having a strategy is the president’s job.

In the parlance of the universities where Obama spent so much of his time before 2004, when it came to a terror army running rampant through Iraq and beheading Americans, Obama was admitting he hadn’t done the reading, needed an extension on the paper, had to take an “incomplete.”

Well, there was no one there to grant him his incomplete — which is why, two weeks later, he found it necessary to give a nationally televised address to inform the American people and the world that, hey, guess what, he’d come up with a strategy at last. It involved sending arms to the very same Syrian rebels, which just happened to be a policy he had derided only a month earlier as “a fantasy.”

This maddening directionlessness was also on display in the American response to Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza in July — which would involve statements of support for Israel, followed by statements of anger about Israel’s conduct, which would be followed by more statements of support for Israel, and then word that the administration had delayed a standard-issue arms replenishment for Israel as punishment for its bad behavior.

This kind of policy and public-relations whiplash also characterizes the White House’s behavior when it comes to the failures of the Secret Service, with Obama press secretary one day saying the USSS’s director had the president’s full confidence and the next day announcing her resignation as though it had been what the president wished for all along.

And, of course, there’s the handling of the Ebola patient in Dallas, with the administration so desirous of not causing a panic that it spent several days misinforming Americans about whom the patient had come in contact with, how many people there had been, how many plane flights he’d been on, and so forth.

This inconstancy is the result of the administration’s elevation of cool and calm above all other qualities — leadership qualities like urgency, firmness, focus and determination.

The hard truth is that the Harvard Law Review editor and University of Chicago professor with two bestselling books to his name can’t formulate a policy to save his life, can’t oversee the implementation of the policies his administration has put in place and can’t adapt or rejigger them in a convincing way to take account of changing conditions.

RELATED:  Panetta: Obama vacillated on Syria

Morning Joe Asks: Was Female Secret Service Director Case of ‘Quota First, Competency Second’?

Mediaite.com:

Morning Joe and Laura Ingraham have found something to agree on. Close the borders! No, actually it’s the suspicion that Secret Service Director Julia Pierson was hired out not for her qualifications but out of a need to “rebrand” the Secret Service following a high-profile incident with prostitutes, aka a desire for political cover via gender diversity.

ADVERTISEMENT

“This is a delicate subject,” began MJ-regular Donny Deutsch, never a good start. “We need to be careful, though, that we are never ever throwing the baby out with the bath water as far as: the best person always has to get the job. As we go through her resume, you go: obviously, coming off the prostitute scandal, okay, yeah, women on top, good for the ‘brand,’ if you will. But the brand doesn’t work if it’s not competent. In positions of national security, quota second, competency first. It’s a delicate subject, but we’ve gotta talk about it.”

“I understand what donny is saying. after the prostitute scandal, somebody thought, hey, you know what, it would be really good for the Secret Service brand to have a woman running the place,” Joe Scarborough said. “Maybe she’s still there because of that, I don’t know.”

The panel then did what the MJ panel always does when it’s discussing gender issues: turned to Mika Brzezinski. Brzezinski brought up Pierson’s resume several times to the point that Scarborough asked if she’d found something fishy in it. Brzezinski said no, but added that it would be heavily scrutinized in the days to come. 

“I really don’t know more than that,” Brzezinski said. “I know, though, that we have now like four or five stories surrounding the Secret Service, which has been under a cloud of scandal already, that really don’t bode well for the agency’s strength and our confidence in it as a whole, so we’ll ask these questions.”

See if you can can’t the number of times someone in this segment said “I don’t know” while condemning a civil servant.

Oh, the irony. Radical feminism in addition to Barack Obama's love for putting women in high-powered positions regardless of skills may cost him his life.

RELATED: Dem Rep. Cummings Demands Secret Service Director ‘Has to Go’