Benghazi Part III: Now with completely irrelevant questions

No history montage today folks.  If you need to know how we got here, feel free to click here, here, here, and here.  In fact, please click all the foregoing because it makes my total numbers go up, which only increases my self-esteem.  So CIA Director/General Petraeus quit his job because he had an affair with some broad who wrote a book about him.  Eventually, that whole thing became an episode of the Jerry Springer Show, complete with some FBI guy sending a shirtless photo to the lady who approached the FBI about angry emails being sent to her by the Petraeus mistress.  The timing of the Director’s resignation seemed odd, since the FBI knew about the affair since late summer, but no action was taken until just before Petraeus was scheduled to testify in front of Congress regarding Benghazi (not to mention just days after Barry’s re-election).

Since then, Petraeus has agreed to testify behind closed doors, because apparently Americans don’t get to know what their employees are doing with all those taxes.  The entire focus of the meeting appears to be who told UN Ambassador Susan Rice to tell everyone else that the attack was caused by some YouTube video about Muhammed that no one watched, when others claimed everyone knew it was a terrorist attack almost immediately.

Not that Muhammed

Patraeus proceeded to agree with the other sources, and in doing so, contradict his earlier behind-closed-doors explanation.  Yes, everyone did know it was a terrorist attack almost immediately.  So someone gave Susan Rice lies to read to America about how quickly we knew the attack wasn’t the result of a bad movie review.  Today we learned that someone at the Department of National Intelligence changed Rice’s lines from “terrorist attack” to “angry protestors who happened to have grenade launchers sitting around the house.”  All of this has taken about a week.  To all of this I ask: Who Cares?

Does it really matter why Susan Rice stated it was a protest over a video?  Does it even matter who told her to say that?  Isn’t it more important that Barry himself proceeded to tell both Univision and The View that it was a spontaneous protest something like a week later?  Or better yet, aren’t a whole bunch of things surrounding the entire attack significantly more important than why Rice claimed a terrorist attack was a protest?

I submit the following questions are far more important than any of the questions previously asked by Congress:

          1.  Why were repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi repeatedly denied?

          2.  Why would Ambassador Stevens choose to meet with someone in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, when he knew it lacked sufficient security?

          3.  Who was Ambassador Stevens meeting with that night, and why?

          4.  Who knew about the meeting and signed off on it?

          5.  Did any of the terrorists know about the meeting?

          6.  Why were reports from Benghazi, that an attack was imminent, completely ignored by whomever received the reports?

          7.  Why did it take 19 hours to get any military assets to Benghazi, even though everyone knew about the attack approximately 20 minutes after it started, and a live feed from an unmanned drone was being watched in the White House, in real time?

          8.  Is there any truth to the report from a Fox News source that Navy SEALs were repeatedly told to stand down after they reported hearing the attack as it was happening?

          9.  Is there any truth to the rumor that terrorists were being held captive, and interrogated, at the Benghazi facility?

These questions are all more important than who told Susan Rice to lie about the true nature of the attack.  It’s no mystery that the Obama Administration doesn’t like calling terrorism by its name.  These are the questions that the President should be made to answer.  If he refuses to answer them, than he should be impeached.  Will he be made to answer them?  Probably not.  But I’m sure the Repubs will make every effort to make sure we think they’re trying to make him answer them.

Let it Burn.

America just re-elected a guy who presided over four years of deficits exceeding a trillion dollars.  That’s never happened before (the deficits I mean…we’ve re-elected presidents before).  The White House believes it now has a mandate to raise taxes on the wealthy.  The House of Representatives believes it has a mandate to keep that from happening.  The Senate believes it has a mandate to never produce a budget, which it has failed to do for more than three years now.  Is any of the foregoing true?  Who knows.  I have no confidence in most Americans knowing the difference between the debt and deficits, let alone ways to fix it.

The day after the election, House majority leader John Boehner said he was ready to talk to Barry about reducing our deficits.  He said he was ready to put new revenue on the table through tax reform.  Some of the more pathetic members of the Republican party have even agreed to increase taxes the wealthy, despite overwhelming proof that doing so will have virtually no impact on the deficit, while actually harming the economy.  Barry’s response to Boehner:

President Barack Obama will begin budget negotiations with congressional leaders Friday by calling for $1.6 trillion in additional tax revenue over the next decade, far more than Republicans are likely to accept and double the $800 billion discussed in talks with GOP leaders during the summer of 2011.

$1.6 trillion.  Where will that come from, you ask?  Well, everyone agrees that eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000, which is what everyone was arguing about during the debates, will only amount to $824 billion over ten years.  While that’s certainly a lot of money, it’s only half of what Barry is looking for.  Where’s the rest going to come from?  Barry hasn’t told us that yet but I’ll be holding onto my wallet.

All of this is being discussed in an effort to avoid the upcoming “fiscal cliff.”  The “cliff” refers to what our economy is set to figuratively fall off of on January 1 due to the expiration of all the Bush tax cuts, plus a crap-load of automatic spending cuts.  In other words, taxes go up on everyone while spending goes down.  You’ll hear the Dems argue that the Repubs are “holding America hostage for the sake of the rich.”  You’ll hear some Repubs continue to say no to any new taxes, especially without significant entitlement reform, while some other Repubs will panic and say something like taxing the rich a little more won’t be the end of the America.

Who, me?

You know what gets lost in all of the “Bush tax cuts” argument?  The reality that the “cuts” were to everyone’s taxes, and a whole bunch of people were removed from the tax rolls altogether.  Fact is, our income tax system is more progressive now than it was thirty years ago.  The problem, as we all know, isn’t our tax rates; it’s our spending problems.  But hey, what do I know?  I voted for the other guy.

So, given that America has re-elected Barry, and given that Barry and the Dems and their constituents want taxes raised on the wealthy, I say Congress should simply do nothing.  “But that will cause our economy to go back into a recession and it will be terrible.”  I say let it come.  Our economy sucks.  Unemployment sucks.  Our debt and deficits suck.  And you know what?  The guy who was just re-elected doesn’t care.  He has an agenda, and I say let him have it.  You want to increase taxes on the wealthy?  Screw that.  I say raise taxes on everyone, and bring a whole bunch of people who voted for Barry back into the tax base.  Is anyone really serious about spending cuts?  Well, they’re coming up on January 1, 2013…$1 trillion of ’em.

As we speak, there are a surprisingly large number of people signing their names to petitions on the White House’s website, asking the feds to let their respective states secede from the union (the “surprising” part is that so many people are voluntarily giving the White House a reason to monitor their activities).   The left will tell you they’re all just a bunch of bitter-clingers who hate Barry because he’s black.  The reason the petitions were started is because many people see their country running down a path to insolvency and regular real unemployment being above 10% (it’s currently 14.6%), and they want off the train before it gets there.  In other words, the country’s in distress and we don’t have a president who cares.

Not an accident.

Despite what a majority of this country believes, money isn’t infinite, and companies aren’t charities.  About 870,000 Ohio households just received proof of the former yesterday.  Lots of people have been experiencing the latter for four years now.  In other words, the people made their beds.

Benghazi Chapter 2: Generals, Timeliness, and Sex Under the Desk

If you thought Benghazi was weird before, then you should probably sit down.  Before the election, all we knew about Benghazi was that four Americans were killed over a seven hour period, during an attack by a group of heavily armed protestors, and that the remaining facts were still unclear.  Of course, the conspiracy nuts out there thought the whole “we’re looking into it” thing was simply an effort by the Administration to stonewall until after the election.  Fools.  Well, my sources are telling me that Barry was actually telling the truth when he said he didn’t know much about the attack.   See, what happened is, he DVR’d the live feed of the attack so he could watch it later without commercials, but became too busy with the whole election thing to see it.

Just kidding.  I don’t have any sources, and Barry would never DVR an attack on Americans…unless it was to watch “Nashville,” which conveniently aired on September 12.

Barry LUVS country music.

Now that the election is over, however, hold on to your hat!  First, during the weekly Friday night document dump, the Pentagon released a timeline revealing that it took more than 19 hours for any military assets to arrive in Libya.

But there have been persistent questions about whether the Pentagon should have moved more rapidly to get troops into Libya or had units closer to the area as the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America approached. In particular, there was at least a 19-hour gap between the time when Panetta first ordered military units to prepare to deploy – between midnight and 2 a.m. local time in Tripoli – and the time a Marine anti-terrorism team landed in Tripoli, which as just before 9 p.m.

Why?  According to Pentagon chief Leon Panetta, the situation was “murky.”  It’s hard to believe that it was 19 hours murky, however, considering the consulate had notified the State Dept. about an expected attack three hours before it started, and that everyone, including the White House, was notified of the attack only 20-30 minutes after it began.  In other words, we still don’t know why it took everyone so friggin’ long to respond to the attack.

Also on Friday, we all learned that CIA Director General David Petraeus was resigning his position, effective immediately, because of an extramarital affair he had with his biographer.  The Administration, and its surrogates in the media, have obviously claimed the timing of the resignation has nothing to do with Benghazi or the fact that Patraeus was scheduled to testify before Congress this week.  The resignation follows the “retirement” of our head guy in Northern Africa (which is where Libya is located on the map. #geographybee).  General Carter Ham reportedly redirected an unarmed drone to the scene just 17 minutes after the attack began, and allegedly objected to orders to “stand down” after the first reports of the attack came in.

According to the FBI, however, the govt. already knew about Petraeus’s indiscretions from affair-related emails discovered this last summer.  So why did the resignation happen now?  It’s clear that the White House has been pointing its finger at the CIA since Benghazi hit the papers.  Is Petraeus the fall guy?  Or could it be that Petraeus leaked secrets to his mistress, which we all found out about when she gave a speech at the University of Denver on October 26.

‘I don’t know if a lot of you have heard this, but the CIA annex had actually  had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner. And they think that the  attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back,’ Broadwell declared during the speech, at the University of Denver.

The CIA denied the existence of the alleged prison in Benghazi, but that’s to be expected.  Still though, was the resignation forced as a result of the speech, thus making its timing just a coincidence with Petraeus’s upcoming Benghazi testimony, or is it just a cover?

Why was the FBI investigating the head of the CIA in the first place?  It is being claimed that the FBI got involved when the mistress sent threatening emails to some random woman named Jill Kelley, and Kelley went to the FBI.  During its investigation, the feds apparently found the scandalous emails between the mistress and Petraeus.  I bet I couldn’t get the FBI to investigate the threatening emails I receive on a daily basis.  Just sayin’.

This whole thing is really weird, and is only going to get weirder.  Closing quote by the mistress’s father:

He told the Daily News: ‘This is about something else  entirely, and the truth will come out.’

Don’t bet on it.

**UPDATE**

Fox News has a source confirming the mistress’s story:

A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan  militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was  being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and  annex that night.

According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there  were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners  from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this  location.

I wonder if they were water-boarded.  That would be awesome.

Dead Men Tell No Tales (now with repaired links)

I’ve watched a lot of movies about the CIA and stuff, and the whole Benghazi thing is certainly starting to resemble them.  Before we begin, while I don’t listen to him much (since he’s a little too dramatic), I have to give Glenn Beck credit.  He’s covering the murders in Benghazi far better than anyone else; and the national media is barely covering it at all.  The whole thing is getting pretty weird.  In fact, it’s becoming a little like the movie “JFK,” which, as my wife will admit, I watch a lot, and have decided that it’s 100% true no matter what some lame reenactment by the Discovery Channel tells me.

We wrote about this two days ago.  You can find that article here.  When asked about the emails that went to the White House just 20-30 minutes after the attack began, the Administration had no comment.  Since then, some stuff has happened.  First, we learned that Barry gave an interview to 60 Minutes on September 12, the day after the Libya attacks.  In the interview, he admits terrorists were behind the murders, which makes sense, being that we knew within two hours of the attack’s completion that terrorists were behind it.  Curiously, the interview never aired.  Why?  It was certainly relevant to what just happened the day before.

This morning, CIA head Leon Panetta decided to throw himself into the frey, by asserting,

‘You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,’ Panetta said.

The whole “we didn’t know what was going on” theme has become tired, since various reports indicate that both the White House and Pentagon were receiving emails and had a live video feed from a drone flying over the area.  Oh, and how much more information do you need than a mob of people shooting at a building containing our Ambassador?

And then there’s the following information, which has just come out:

Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador  Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to  ‘stand down,’ according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to ‘stand down.’ (Emphasis added).

Instead of followng orders to do nothing, Woods took it upon himself to organize a few people and go to the consulate to help out anyway.  They evacuated the consulate, then returned to headquarters.  What happened next is equally incredible.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were  taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were  no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the  compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In  fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a  heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security  officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested  back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special  Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground  involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more  than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just  480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One  Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force  operators.

Both Woods and Doherty were killed by a mortar at 4:00 a.m. Libya time, some seven hours after the attack began.  You should read the entire article linked above.  It’ll make you very angry.

The response to this attack by the White House was an abomination.  And don’t let them tell you the CIA didn’t give the information, or it was the State Dept.’s fault.  They all work for Barry.  He’s the Commander in Chief of our military.  In fact, handling stuff like this is literally the one thing the President has 100% responsibility over.  I’ve implied it before, but I’ll say it outright now: the Administration wanted Stevens dead.  There is absolutely no other explanation for why it repeatedly refused additional security before the incident, and refused to take action during the incident.  And now they’re lying to everyone in an effort to cover it up.

Oh, and what did our leaders say to Woods’ father as his body was rolled onto the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Based?

Obama: Sorry.

Hillary: Sorry, and we’ll “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

Biden: “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?”

Good Lord.  And these are the people who are going to protect this country?

Should Obama be Impeached?

More information about the Benghazi incident is coming out everyday.  Of course, the source of the information isn’t the White House, which is continue to stonewall.  It’s been obvious for weeks that the Administration is trying to run out the clock on the murder of four U.S. citizens, which includes an Ambassador, until after the election.  If information concerning the incident continues to move towards its logical conclusion, however, the election may not matter.

We already know that our Ambassador was attacked by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 of this year.  We also know that the attack took place at a “safe house” where Ambassador Stevens was meeting with a diplomat from Turkey.  We still don’t know why they were meeting, however.  We also know that Stevens requested additional security from the State Dept. several times, and was ignored.  Since the attack, the Administration has been regularly changing its story as to who knew what, and when.  Things are starting to become clearer though, and the White House is beginning to look complicit in the murders.

Today we learned that the White House was receiving continuous emails concerning the attack, the first one coming only 20-30 minutes after the attack began.  Also, the White House knew, as soon as two hours after the attack, that an Islamic terrist group, Ansar al-Sharia, was to blame.  It should be noted that Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen is considered to be an affiliate of Al Qaeda; no word on whether Ansar al-Sharia in Libya is such an affiliate (although if it isn’t, it may want to come up with a new name).  All of this information comes from emails leaked to Reuters.  As everyone knows by now, the White House first called the attack a spontaneous outburst resulting from some Youtube video that nobody saw.  This story continued while, at the very same time, the State Dept. reported it was a terrorist attack.

Now, one would think the alleged failure of Hillary Clinton to tell her boss, the President of the United States, that terrorists murdered a U.S. Ambassador would be an important issue to Americans.  On the other hand, when one’s presidency has been filled with incompetency, the failure to effectively communicate with staff doesn’t necessarily amount to a “holy crap” moment.  Either way, Libya does not seem to be impacting the President’s poll numbers much.  Now that we have the emails, however, the “failure to communicate” theory has been replaced with an active cover-up.

Why cover it up?  I believe it becomes obvious the longer this plays out.  This is from the Reuters article linked above:

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line ‘U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack’ and the notation ‘SBU’, meaning ‘Sensitive But Unclassified.’

Yes, you read that right: an email was sent advising the reader of the attack only 20-30 minutes after it started.  Keep in mind, the attack last several hours.  Who received the email?

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from  copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president’s secure command post.

Yep, it went to the White House.  Where was the President?  This was his “3:00 a.m. phone call,” and by all accounts, it seems like he hit the snooze.

And it gets worse.  This isn’t just about the Prez lying to us about knowing it was a terrorist attack almost immediately.  We had an unmanned drone flying over the attack as it was happening.  In other words, we were watching it happen.  If a drone can get there, why can’t our military?

The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday.

‘They stood, and they watched, and our people died,’ former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.

[…]

Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships — which could have been used to help disperse the bloodthirsty mob — were also stationed at three nearby bases, sources told the network.

So let’s review.  Not only did the White House absolutely know about the attack, as it was going on, it did nothing to protect our people.  This isn’t incompetence, or a failure to communicate.  This was purposeful inaction on the part of our Commander in Chief.  And not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but it sure looks like the White House was pretty okay with Ambassador Stevens being killed on September 11.  Why?  As we said earlier, we still don’t know why Ambassador Stevens was meeting with a Turkish delegate in a safe house in Benghazi; although we do know that heavy weapons are being shipped to Syrian rebels through Turkey.  We also know that Stevens was instrumental in running guns to Libyan rebels during the whole “let’s overthrow the government” thing.  We also know that some of the “rebels” who we were shipping guns to were members of Al Qaeda.

What does all of this look like to me (as well as others)?  Stevens, and three other Americans were killed by a group of terrorists that America armed, and it all went down with the President looking on.  Why did he do nothing?  We still don’t know.  But we will.  The biggest mistake the President made in all of this was blaming the CIA for bad intel.  Information will continue to leak out, and we’ll eventually have the full picture.  You won’t be able to ask Barry about it though, because he’ll be on The View, talking about Big Bird.

Things I Learned Last Night

I split-screened the Tigers-Yankees game and the presidential debate last night.  Actually, I had the debate on t.v. with the game on the computer.  I did the best I could to keep up with both, but with Verlander being Verlander, there wasn’t a whole lot going on in the game.  Here’s a list of the things I learned last night:

1.  Justin Verlander is a stud, and obviously worthy of Kate Upton’s love and affection.  Tigers one win away from World Series.

They will give birth to many top-heavy Cy Young winners.

2.  Gas prices are low when the country is about to go into a horrible recession.  Prices are apparently 100% higher when the economy is still terrible.  If you don’t understand this, it’s because you’re stupid.  Obviously.

3.  Barry hasn’t actually been our president for the past four years.  It’s been Congress…or Hilary Clinton…or maybe the CIA.  Except for that whole killing Bin Laden thing.  That was all Barry.

4.  Barry has a fantastic economic plan that, while entirely devoid of details, is way better than Mittens’.

5.  Barry definitely used the word “terror” the day after four Americans were killed in Libya.  While it wasn’t used in the context of actual terrorism in Libya, it is possible he was referring to Sharktopus.

aka Candy Crowly

6.  Mittens has a binder full of women.

7.  Automatic weapons should be illegal in America.  They’re ok in Mexico.

8.  Barry’s private answer on why his administration failed to provide adequate security for our embassy in Libya was apparently better than his public answer, says the guy who asked the question:

Obama’s retail politics left an impression on Ladka: ‘I appreciate his private answer more than his public answer,’ he says.

9.    Rich people suck , and they should be taxed more.

10.  Mittens stared into the soul of the kid asking the first question.  No, seriously,

‘Mitt Romney’s first answer — I felt like he was staring into my soul, just right through me, when he was asking me the question.’

11.  Barry raged against the alleged Gender Pay Inequality Machine with the Lilly Ledbetter Act.  This resulted in absolutely no change in the alleged inequality.

12.  Barry’s love and respect for his single mother has lead to him paying female employees less than male employees at the White House.

13.  People who are threatening to assassinate Mittens if he wins like to leave a papertrail for the Feds.

14.  Mittens has more money in his pension than Barry does, and spends more time looking at it…just like this guy:

15.  Barry’s economic plan is not built on government creating jobs.

16.  Barry’s “jobs bill” involves taking tax-payer money and giving it to govt. agencies to hire people.

17.  Barry kept his promise to pass a comprehensive immigration law by doing nothing about immigration.

18.  Phil Coke has a filthy slider.  I added that because my wife hates it when I use the term “filthy” to describe a pitch.

Mad Men, Mitt Romney, and Non-Traditional Occupations. TGIF

Because I couldn't think of a better picture.

I watched only part of the first season of “Mad Men,” before I simply couldn’t take it anymore.  It’s a testament to our times that a show so full of depraved people could be so popular.  In case you haven’t seen it, the entire show is about a bunch of overgrown children running around on their wives.  Needless to say, I was surprised to come across an article seemingly equating Don Draper with a guy whose personal life is about at squeaky clean as they come.  But after reading it though, I understood.  “The Draperizing of Mitt Romney” does a nice job of laying out the culture war that has been created by the left, in the hopes of retaining the White House.

The president’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, has gone further, quipping that the former Massachusetts governor ‘must watch ‘Mad Men’ and think it’s the evening news’ while jabbing that Romney’s views are out of a time when ‘bosses could dictate on women’s health.’

Ha, that David Axelrod, what a card.  His concluding statement, of course, is a reference to the president’s healthcare plan which forces Catholic employers to provide free contraception to their employees, despite their belief that contraception is a sin.  Obviously, the statement about bosses dictating women’s health is complete nonsense, since no one is telling any woman that she can’t use contraception, but Axelrod’s never been known for getting the punchline right.

The article harkens back to yesterday’s kerfluffle about Ann Romney never working a day in her life.  The point wasn’t really that Mrs. Romney had never actually worked a day in her life, it was that she was unable to understand the problems a modern woman must face.  Other feminists agree.

‘I simply have not seen her in any way as an advocate for women’s empowerment in society,’ said Kim Gandy, the former head of the National Organization for Women, of Ann Romney before Rosen’s comments. ‘And since Gov. Romney looks to her to find out what women care about, that does not bode well. I haven’t heard her speaking out about increasing women’s opportunity for higher paid employment, for women in non-traditional occupations, specifically for increasing pay equity for women, closing the pay gap, certainly not on women’s reproductive rights.’

Well, you probably haven’t heard her talking about these things because they’re made up issues.  Seriously, what’s a “non-traditional occupation?”  Kicker for a NFL team?  Is a wet-nurse a “non-traditional occupation,” because I’ve been looking to break into that market for a while.  And gender pay-gap?  There is no gender pay-gap if you actually compare apples to apples.  In other words, women who haven’t left work at some point to have children or take up mud wrestling are actually earning more than men at the same job.  And this fact doesn’t take into account another fact: the federal government shouldn’t be telling any private company how much they should be paying anyone.  The only other issue referenced is “reproductive rights.”  As indicated above, there is no “contraception issue.”  It’s completely made up.  And Ann Romney isn’t the first woman to be pro-life.  So get a grip.

Despite their consisting of entirely manufactured outrage, the culture wars will continue to be waged at all costs by the left.   Without being able to misdirect the attention of half of the population, the president might have to run on his record, which would be bad for him.  In other words, Barry’s presidency has been a nuclear holocaust to the economy, and he now has to run against a guy that has been a successful business man his entire life.  So what do they do?  Attack a guy who has an impeccable personal life, and accuse him of being a misogynist.  And while they’re at it, they’ll ridicule his “Suzy homemaker” wife who has done nothing with her life other than be faithful and raise five boys who aren’t guests on “Jersey Shore.” Oh yeah, and surviving breast cancer and living with MS.  Apparently the only way to  get any street-cred now days with the feminist left is to have at least one kid be a coked-up transvestite, who’s the product of a failed late-term abortion.  I am woman, hear me roar indeed.