Video: Classic Margaret Thatcher on her 87th Birthday

First up, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher shreds a socialist...



Second, her prescience in 1990 about the then future of the Euro only solidifies her legacy...

Ben Affleck: Conflict of Interest at State Department?

It's been all but confirmed that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a premeditated attack by al-Qaeda, which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. As Frank Gaffney points out, the lack of security at the consulate, coupled with the false narrative of the Obama administration / State Department - that a video was the cause of the attack - both warrant further investigation into the extent of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government, which is what Rep. Michele Bachmann called for back in June.

'Argo', the new movie directed by Ben Affleck is getting quite a bit of attention and promotion. It's a film Affleck is extremely proud of making. At a premiere screening of the film in Washington, D.C. on October 10th, Affleck referred to the controversial Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton - Huma Abedin - as "a really close friend of mine" and went on to say:

“In fact, Huma — the reason why she’s here — is she was instrumental in helping us shoot the State Department. As you know, we shot at the real State Department. We never would have had any of that stuff in our research [otherwise]. ...Huma was enormously helpful, and obviously we invited her and she brought her husband. I look forward to seeing him.”

On October 12th, Affleck appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher and adamantly defended the Obama administration. By extension, he defended the State Department, which is home to his "really close friend" who was "enormously helpful" and "instrumental" in the production of his film. If not for Huma, according to Affleck, there wouldn't have been any access to the real State Department. That could potentially make Affleck biased in favor of the State Department. After all, it is taking great heat over its handling of the Benghazi attack.

It's called conflict of interest.

The Hollywood actor / director actually argued that Barack Obama cannot be expected to know about the security detail at every consulate all over the world.

That's not the point; it smacks of deflection and bias. The point is that Obama administration / State Department policies should have prevented it. When the Regional Security Officer (RSO) testifies that he felt like the State Department was his biggest obstacle after being denied security assets by his Regional Director (RD), we have a procedural problem that is a direct extension of the president's policies. Take a look at what RSO Eric Nordstrom said in sworn testimony when describing his failed attempts to get 12 additional security agents from that RD:

"His response to that was, 'you're asking for the sun, moon, and the stars.' My response to him was... 'Jim, you know what makes it most frustrating about this assignment? It's not the hardships, it's not the gunfire, it's not the threats. It's dealing and fighting against the people, programs, and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me.' I added to that by saying, 'for me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.'"

Affleck also accused Republicans of purposely politicizing the attack so soon before the presidential election. Uh, not only did the attack happen so close to the election but there are four dead Americans and testimony from State Department officials that security was either denied or taken away, which left the consulate incredibly vulnerable. That doesn't even take into account the false narrative that the anti-Muhammad video caused the attacks, a false narrative the administration had to withdraw.

Incidentally, that narrative exactly mirrors the one coming out of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group to which Abedin has irrefutable familial connections; her mother is a leader with the Muslim Sisterhood.

Senator John McCain, who has been on the wrong side of the Libya issue ever since it began, issued the most vehement defense of Huma Abedin from the Republican side of the aisle in either House of Congress. His defense of Abedin included this quote:

"…it has been alleged that Huma Abedin, a Muslim American, is part of a nefarious conspiracy to harm the United States by unduly influencing U.S. foreign policy at the Department of State in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes."

At minimum, there appears to be a bureaucratic conspiracy at the Department of State that has had the consequence of benefiting al-Qaeda in Benghazi. U.S. foreign policy was indeed unduly influenced by something or someone before the attack. It's what we call a self-evident truth.

At the October 10th Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) asked Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb (:30 mark) if it was her "sole discretion to deny extra manpower" in Libya. Lamb's response was, 'no'. Adams pressed Lamb for names of those who did... and she got them - Scott Bultrowicz and Eric Boswell.



The obvious question then becomes:

Did Bultrowicz and Boswell have sole discretion to deny extra manpower?

If yes, why did they do it? If no, what are the names of those who did? Darrell Issa and company should keep moving up the ladder. The fact remains that the administration's response to the Benghazi attack had the effect of benefiting all Muslim fundamentalists. Making the claim over and over again that the attacks were the result of the anti-Muhammad video were in sync with the claims of those fundamentalists. The Brotherhood's motives for doing so involved an agenda to criminalize any criticism of Islam. What was the motive of the Obama administration?

Egypt's president Mohamed Mursi, whose wife is also a Sisterhood member and close colleague of Huma Abedin's mother, made that very clear:



The Saudis are still pushing that line to this day. Incidentally, Huma Abedin is connected to a very influential Saudi herself - Abdullah Omar Naseef. For years (1996 - 2008), she served on the board of an institute Naseef founded. For many of those years, she served with Naseef.

Now then, why would U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, White House press secretary Jay Carney, and State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland all push the same narrative (riots caused by video) as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis?

Also at the October 10th Oversight committee hearing, Rep. Trey Gowdy called for the testimony of Ambassador Rice and Carney - under oath - so that they can reveal who told them to blame the attack on a video and because Gowdy "want(s) to know why we were lied to."



One of the reasons why Huma Abedin's familial associations matter is because she can be easily conflicted. National Review's Andrew McCarthy explained that perfectly last August. If Affleck is "a really close friend" of Huma, wouldn't he be easily conflicted as well, especially when it was Huma who gave him access to the State Department as well as protocol guidance that greatly enhanced his film?

How many other people are conflicted as a result of their relationship with Huma Abedin?

Video: Joe Biden appears mentally unstable (no, seriously)

This RNC ad highlighting Joe Biden's debate performance is not taken out of context. If you saw the debate, this is only a small sampling of his behavior. Biden appeared to be either mentally or emotionally stable, laughing and smirking throughout. On top of that, the state of both the world and our country doesn't warrant much laughing at all, especially from the vice president.

Perhaps the reason for so many gaffes might have something to do with his mental stability.

This ad from the RNC is spot-on:

Left-wing absurdity: Defending Obama administration in the wake of dead bodies

No one screams louder about wanting bi-partisanship than the voices from the left. However, time and time again, it is demonstrated that the left is far more entrenched in the idea of defending its party at all costs. The quintessential case-in-point would be contrasting the fates of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Nixon left office as a direct result of bi-partisan opposition. House impeachment and Senate conviction was inevitable; he resigned.

Bill Clinton remained in office despite being impeached in the House for perjury and obstruction of justice (lies and cover-ups). He wasn't removed from office because there was zero bi-partisanship in the Senate, except for a few Republican Senators who voted 'not guilty'. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate because there wasn't a single Democratic vote to convict on either of the two counts.

In Operation Fast and Furious, the highest officials at the Justice Department were found to be complicit in gun-walking that resulted in the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexicans. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the ranking member on the Oversight Committee, which spearheaded the investigation, fought tooth and nail to defend DOJ as well as the Obama administration. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), to which Cummings belongs, walked out during the contempt vote of Attorney General Eric Holder, who had refused to honor a Congressional subpoena for documents after having to withdraw a letter that was demonstrably false (lies and cover-ups).

The Democrats on the committee demonstrated that even dead bodies wouldn't  prompt them to seek justice when it was their party on the hook. Not one of the Oversight committees' Democrats voted to bring contempt charges against Holder to the House floor, though some Democratic congressmen did vote for contempt once it got there. Just prior to the vote, Barack Obama did what Richard Nixon did. He asserted Executive Privilege to prevent those congressionally subpoenaed documents from being released.

Fast forward to Benghazi-gate. Like Fast and Furious, Obama administration policies led directly to dead bodies. In the case of our consulate, there were four dead Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Administration officials changed their stories multiple times, first saying the attack was the result of an anti-Muhammad video and then being forced to admit the attack was coordinated and planned (lies and cover-ups).

Despite State Department officials and security officers on the ground confirming that multiple requests were made - unsuccessfully - for additional security assets, the left continues to defend the Obama administration on grounds that it didn't know and has a lot on its plate. In the case of Fast and Furious, that included DOJ. In the case of Benghazi,  it includes the State Department.

When Clinton was not removed from office in 1998, it was a major flashpoint in American history. The Democratic Party laid the foundation for its despicable behavior today. Crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice were dismissed and Clinton was defended because of what the lie was about and why he tried to cover it up. A new standard had been set; it was ok to lie and attempt to cover up said lie if the lie itself was perceived to be minor.

In 2012, it's evident the Democrats have set a new standard for acceptable lies and cover-ups. An administration that has lied and covered-up in both Fast and Furious and Benghazi-gate is being defended by Democrats, in the wake of policies that have led to dead bodies.

In Clinton's case, he was protected because the lie was perceived to be insignificant. In the case of Fast and Furious and Benghazi, a different course is being chosen - since lying about murder has not devolved to acceptable behavior - at least not yet (then again, the left seems content with lying about abortion not being about murder).

As a consequence, the administration is defended because it was ignorant of the circumstances that led to murder. In Fast and Furious, we were to believe that neither Barack Obama nor Eric Holder knew that guns were being put into the hands of people who would use them to kill Brian Terry along with hundreds of other innocents. In Benghazi-gate, we are to believe that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton knew about the requests for additional security by those who would be killed, despite testimony from State Department officials to the contrary.

We are also told that when U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney repeat over and over that the attack in Benghazi was in response to an anti-Muhammad video, they weren't lying. Again, the significance of the lie is not at issue. Denying lies were told - despite evidence to the contrary - is still the chosen course of action. That is, until lying about murder reaches the level of being considered acceptable.

In 1998, Democrats protected Bill Clinton by equating perjury with a white lie.

In 2012, Democrats are protecting the Barack Obama administration by equating dead bodies as the direct result of the administration's policies with events outside the administration's control.