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: Is S.E. Cupp coming down with Scarborough syndrome?

"Conservative" S.E. Cupp's stinging criticism of Clint Eastwood's speech could be an early indicator that she may be coming down with Scarborough Syndrome.

Joe Scarborough was first elected to Congress in 1994, as part of the 'Contract with America' movement after two years of Bill Clinton. Less than ten years ago, he had his own show on MSNBC - Scarborough Country - in which he was far more conservative than he is today as co-host of Morning Joe. So what happened? Aside from the obvious answer, that the Obama administration all but uses MSNBC as a ventriloquist dummy and its hosts have to be very conscious of how far they can go, Scarborough befriended leftist Mika Brzezinski, who is his co-host. He also surrounds himself with liberals every day.

It is human nature to want to be accepted by one's peers. When those peers are collectivist-minded liberals who would rather gang up on the lone conservative than find differences among themselves, it translates into peer pressure. Conservatives who swim in a tank full of liberals every day can appear to almost subconsciously and slowly cry uncle, ceding what they believe to be minor points in the hopes of gaining acceptance.

That never works. On the contrary, the behavior is reinforced when liberals let up and laugh along or nod in agreement.

That leads to S.E. Cupp. She is a young conservative who recently took a gig at MSNBC as a panelist on a show called The Cycle. Often the lone conservative alongside three very liberal co-hosts, Cupp is susceptible to Joe Scarborough syndrome and her response to Thursday night's Clint Eastwood speech at the convention may be an early symptom. It wasn't just that she didn't like it. The manner in which she expressed that dislike was red meat to her co-hosts. That could be another symptom.

If there was one thing about the Republican convention that got under the skin of the liberal media, it was Eastwood's speech, in which he talked to an empty chair as if Obama was sitting in it. When the subject of Eastwood's speech was brought up, liberals became the most rabid. There are also indications that the speech got under Obama's skin; a tweet was sent out from @BarackObama that included a photo of the president in a chair with a caption that read, "this seat is taken".

Here is S.E. Cupp going overboard in her criticism of Eastwood. Is she in the early stages of Scarborough Syndrome? Her derision did at least two things; it ingratiated her with the liberals she was sitting with and it helped the liberal cause.

Via MediaIte:



Here is a Reuters news report on Eastwood's speech and the tweet that came out of the White House. Clearly, if MSNBC is an arm of the White House and the Eastwood speech got under the skin of Obama to such a degree, did S.E. Cupp decide to keep her job by deriding Eastwood instead of siding with conservatives? Ask yourselves when a liberal would ever ridicule someone on their side like Cupp did Eastwood. There are clearly far more instances in which they should have.

Latest target of 9/11 Truther Alex Jones: Angelina Jolie

If you've ever wondered why talk show host Alex Jones is so effective, it's because his conspiracy theories often contain a significant amount of truth. The problem with Jones has been - and continues to be - his view that entities like the United Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are the real villains at the end of the thread we're all pulling. He does this while giving the Muslim Brotherhood a pass; that group is nothing more than a tool of the UN and CFR according to Jones.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood is taking over the entire Middle East. Jones never seems interested in looking at the possibility that maybe - just maybe - some things are as they appear. If the UN and CFR are using the Brotherhood to achieve their goals, why are they ceding power to the group? Now, if Jones were to assert that the Brotherhood has infiltrated these groups and that's why they're pushing the Islamic agenda, he'd be onto something. But he doesn't; he simply gives the Brotherhood a pass as being nothing more than UN / CFR lackeys.

He is wrong.

That leads to this video of Jones ripping Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie. First, where Jones is right; he targets Jolie for supporting the NATO action in Libya and for her advocacy of the same thing in Syria. I don't know much about Jolie's positions, but if that's where she is, she's wrong and Jones is right to call her out on it.

That's where Jones goes on his conspiratorial tangent. As the Muslim Brotherhood acquires more power on a near daily basis, with the end goal of reestablishing the Ottoman Empire / Caliphate, Jones ignores that and goes after entities that are actually losing to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nice try, Alex. Maybe next time.

Via Gossip Cop:

Audio: John Wayne on Liberals in 1975

My, how Hollywood has fallen since John Wayne.

Mild language warning.

Seinfeld's Jason Alexander issues a 'Gay' Apology

The 'tolerant' homosexual community continues its side job as speech police. While appearing on the CBS Late Show, George Costanza (Jason Alexander) referred to Cricket as a 'gay game.' This so upset the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation that it demanded an apology from Alexander, who was all too willing to oblige. This would seem to serve as yet another example that Hollywood's actors are more concerned with being accepted than with speaking honestly.

Here is Alexander's apology via Yahoo News:

"My daily life is filled with gay men and women, both socially and professionally," he said in a blog statement released through GLAAD. "I am profoundly aware of the challenges these friends of mine face and I have openly advocated on their behalf. So, I can only apologize and I do. In comedy, timing is everything."

That is a gay apology and here is the exchange that prompted it.

Video: Hollywood Whacko Will Smith tips his hand on tax threshold

Will Smith, the guy who said in 2009 that "Barack Obama as an idea marks an evolutionary flashpoint for humanity," has apparently revealed a percentage of his wealth that is too high to part with. That figure is either at or below 75%. This is interesting because whenever conservatives engage liberals on tax policy, the left never gives a percentage that's fair. They always default to some "fair share" narrative and their brains seem impervious to the fact that 47% of Americans pay NO taxes and the richest 1% pays over 35% of the federal tax bill.

Here, Smith is confronted with the plan of newly elected French President Francois Hollande - an ideological clone of Smith's hero, Barack Obama - and backtracks. If Smith is willing to pay 30% and is unwilling to pay 75%, what is his limit? Inquiring minds.....

Via Daily Caller:


Will Smith on "Barack Obama as an idea..."

Video: Jon Lovitz explains his anti-Obama Rant

SNL's Jon Lovitz went on an anti-Obama, profanity-laden rant last week. At the rood of his anger was the idea that the "rich need to pay their fair share." It was obvious that Lovitz is against the 1% vs. the 99% meme. One week later, Lovitz appeared on CNN's Headline News to either defend or walk back his comments.

To his credit, Lovitz stood by his comment but he also referred to himself as a "Democrat" who voted for Obama. I can cut him some slack on that one because he's gone much further than most celebrities. Referring to yourself as a Republican when you're a Hollywood guy is the kiss of death. For all we know, he gets it but is just picking his battles. The battle he picks here is a good one and he's right on the money.

It is refreshing to see someone like Lovitz enunciate a conservative position so well, even if he's a self-proclaimed Democrat. Also, make no mistake. When celebrities come out and talk like this, it scares the left. That's why there's so much pressure on these celebrities to toe the liberal line. It's probably why so many of them come off as being so completely vacant intellectually.

Anyway, Lovitz gets it.



h/t The Blaze

Video: George Clooney's Interviews about Sudan

Here are two interviews with George Clooney about the situation in Sudan. The first is with Fox News Sunday, which was actually shot before he met with Barack Obama on March 15th but it gives you an idea of how he views the situation in the Sudan. In both interviews Clooney and his colleague John Pendergast accurately describe the situation relative to Sudan's oil, its internal battle on how to handle it, and China's concerns but they both overlook the root cause of the genocide. Look, I believe Clooney is well-intentioned but the elephant in the living room is Islam in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular.

Near the beginning of the interview with Chris Wallace, both Clooney and his partner, John Pendergast are asked to explain what's behind the genocide in the region. Both give explanations that completely bypass the root cause. They each talk about Northern Sudan - Clooney actually mentions the country's leader, Omar al-Bashir - but neither talks about the religion and political entity that's driving Bashir. In fact, at one point toward the end of the first interview, Clooney actually says his battle is not a political one but that he simply wants to save lives. This is naive and avoids the real problem, which puts him at a significant disadvantage.

The answer is that Bashir is supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, the same Muslim Brotherhood that is taking over the entire Middle East. This is an extremely important omission because until that reality is identified, any and all of Clooney's work is likely to be in vain, or at least dwarfed by the secret agenda of the unnamed enemy. In fact, if Bashir is removed - as Clooney justifiably wants to see happen - the mass murderer will likely be replaced by someone far worse, like Hasan al-Turabi, a much more strident Muslim Brotherhood adherent.

To illustrate this reality, I direct you to this previous post. I also encourage you to go here as well.

Again, Clooney is well-intentioned but he's flying blind, in denial, or both.

Via Fox News:



Clooney also interviewed with David Gregory of Meet the Press. Here, Clooney and Gregory admit that what is happening in the Sudan is the result of "ethnic cleansing" perpetrated by the government of Northern Sudan. Blatantly absent in this analysis is the religion practiced by that government (Islam) and the entity that supports it (the Muslim Brotherhood):

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

How are these Four Men Connected?

Ok, clockwise from top left: President Barack Obama, Hollywood celebrity and Obama shill George Clooney, Invisible Children filmmaker and producer of Kony 2012 Jason Russell at lunchtime on a San Diego street corner, and Northern Sudan President / Muslim Brotherhood backed Omar al-Bashir. How on earth are these four men connected, you ask? Look at the photos and I explain at bottom.

Let's start with the naked guy, Jason Russell. He is the producer of the wildly viral Kony 2012 video. The stated intent of the film was to make Joseph Kony famous. Kony, a sick and evil warlord who is much less effective today than he was five years ago, is responsible for tens of thousands of murders in Uganda; his soldiers would raid villages, make the children kill their parents and then turn those children into soldiers for his sick, sick army. On its face, the video was produced for a good cause - to garner international support against Kony so he could be arrested and tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The Obama administration endorsed the film, as did Hollywood celebrities like Oprah and P. Diddy. Russell stood to be a major player on the international stage but in the film, he is heard saying that Kony "is supported by no one." This is absolutely and demonstrably false. For years, Kony has been supported by the man pictured to Russell's left - Omar al-Bashir.

On Thursday, March 15th, Russell took to the streets without clothes and behaved in a most bizarre fashion; he allegedly "touched himself," vandalized cars (where did he hide the spray paint?), and repeatedly smacked the sidewalk with his hands while apparently doing a monkey impression.

Interestingly and coincidentally, on the same day (possibly at the exact same time) Russell was pounding sidewalk, Clooney was meeting with Barack Obama at the White House. The two men allegedly discussed Clooney's concerns about what was going on in the Sudan. Did Russell feel crowded out? If he knew that Clooney was drawing attention to Bashir (the real power behind Kony), did he conclude that Kony was being rendered irrelevant? Did it cause him to go stark raving mad on the streets of San Diego in broad daylight? For the record, the reason given for Russell's naked outburst was that he was exhausted and dehydrated but not on any medication. If we accept that premise, can you think of a better reason for someone to do what Russell is pictured doing above?

One day later (after Russell pounded pavement and Clooney met with Obama), the Hollywood celebrity - along with several far left Democratic congressmen and Ben Jealous, the head of the NAACP - stormed the Sudanese embassy in Washington, D.C. to protest Bashir (pictured at bottom left). The photo of Clooney above was taken shortly after his arrest for the incident. Though he denied discussing the incident with Obama beforehand, the timing of all of this is mighty coincidental.

Bashir is the Muslim Brotherhood's guy in the Sudan so why would Obama be supporting Clooney's efforts to protest a Muslim Brotherhood guy? The Obama administration has been Muslim Brotherhood-friendly in practically every respect since the president spoke in Cairo back in 2009.

The answer may be found in the name Hasan al-Turabi. He is much more radical than Bashir (if that's possible). He is also more of a Muslim Brotherhood loyalist than is Bashir, who is more of a tea leaf-reading political animal; he formed a very serviceable alliance of understanding with Egypt's Mubarak while jailing Turabi. Mubarak isn't in power anymore and the Brotherhood very well may prefer Turabi to Bashir.

If Obama really wanted to please the Muslim Brotherhood, he might be interested in seeing Bashir replaced by Turabi; that would make Russell and Clooney both useful idiots.

There you have it.

George Clooney's arrest, Kony 2012, and the Muslim Brotherhood

Note: though this is a "stand alone" post, it's also a bit of a continuation from this March 10th post about the fervor surrounding Kony 2012 being somewhat misplaced. While calling attention to Joseph Kony was a good thing, it ignored the source of his funding - Northern Sudan's Omar al-Bashir.

-----
On Thursday, March 15th, Hollywood actor George Clooney met with President Barack Obama. On Friday, March 16th, Clooney was arrested after storming the Sudanese embassy in Washington, D.C. to protest Bashir. While speaking to reporters outside the White House following his meeting with Obama one day before his arrest, Clooney spoke about it being important to keep public attention focused on Sudan:

“It doesn't mean that this has to fall completely off of the chart,” he said. “And so, our job is to find periods of time when it is most crucial to talk about it, when there's something that we may be able to do to bring attention at a crucial moment and try to keep that in the public eye. You can't have it be there all the time.”

One day later, Clooney - an avowed Obama supporter - did just that, along with multiple far left wing Democrats, to include Rep. James Moran (D-VA) and NAACP President Ben Jealous. The Daily Caller's Nicholas Ballasy interviewed Clooney as he was being led away in handcuffs. Note Clooney's response when the DC reporter asked him if this issue had come up one day earlier when the actor met with Obama. Clooney denies any correlation and promptly says he has to move on.


Do you believe Clooney and Obama didn't discuss this one day prior to taking a pack of Democratic Congressmen with him? That strains credulity at best.

That aside, my initial reaction was that this was great news; it didn't matter who was protesting Omar al-Bashir because he is so evil. Bashir is a far better target for public opposition than is Kony; the former has been the guy responsible for funding the latter's genocide. He's also backed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Something was conspicuously absent in the media frenzy surrounding Clooney's arrest, however. Where was the reporting on Bashir's Brotherhood ties?

Perhaps it would make sense to go back one year and take a look at an article penned by Andrew S. Natsios, former U.S. Envoy to Sudan and current Georgetown University professor who has written a comprehensive book on the region. As the Mubarak regime was in its final throes last year, Natsios identified a Muslim Brotherhood figure that would be - if you can believe it - far worse than Bashir.

Via NPR / TNR:

...within the Islamist and Arab nationalist camp, there is a further split: between the National Congress Party, led by current President Omar Al Bashir; and the more strident Islamists, who follow Hasan Al Turabi, one of the founders of the country's Muslim Brotherhood. Originally, Bashir and Turabi were allies. They came to power together in a 1989 coup. Bashir became the head of government, though Turabi had been the coup's mastermind. Together, the two men established the first Sunni Islamist state; extended Sharia law (first imposed by the former Sudanese dictator Numayri) through a new Islamist court system; Islamized the financial and banking systems; and prosecuted a brutal war in the Christian, non-Arab south in which more than two million people died.

If the name Hasan Al Turabi sounds familiar, there is a reason:

Six months after taking power, Turabi orchestrated a long-term alliance between Iran and Sudan; they remain among each other's closest allies. It was Turabi who invited Osama bin Laden to live and work in Sudan during the 1990s. Bin Laden married Turabi's niece, and went into business with Turabi's son, trading in Arabian horses.

If I may digress slightly, any alliance between Sudan and Iran formed at a time when bin Laden was running terrorist training camps in Sudan further bolsters the ruling of a federal judge that said Iran was behind the September 11th attacks.

While the Muslim Brotherhood has supported Bashir, Natsios provides sufficient evidence that it supports Turabi more. Despite his genocidal ways, prior to the Arab Spring, Bashir was able to read the tea leaves and play ball with establishment power structures better than Turabi:

Bashir and his party, the National Congress Party (NCP), moved away from Turabi's radicalism. While Turabi was a true militant, it soon became clear that the only thing the NCP is militant about is their own survival. In 1995, an offshoot of the Muslim Brothers, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, attempted to assassinate Egyptian President Mubarak at an Organization for African Unity conference in Addis Ababa. Egyptian intelligence believed the plot was orchestrated by Turabi. Sudan and Egypt nearly went to war over the incident, but ultimately Bashir decided to de-escalate tensions with Mubarak and distance himself from Turabi. A year later, bin Laden was expelled from Sudan because of pressure from the United States and Saudi Arabia, and Turabi was forced to find a home for his friend in Afghanistan.

This all begs a very important question: Now that Mubarak is out and the Muslim Brotherhood is in relative to Egypt (heck, all of North Africa for that matter), which of these two leaders does the Brotherhood likely prefer at this time? My money is on Turabi.

Again, from Natsios:

By 1999, Sudan's two major political figures were locked in a raw power struggle: Turabi, as speaker of the National Assembly, attempted to reduce Bashir's constitutional powers and increase his own, causing a bitter rift between the two men, which led to Turabi's ouster. Since 2000, Turabi has been repeatedly imprisoned whenever he threatened or attacked the Bashir government. Turabi's purge healed the breach between Sudan and Egypt, and Mubarak's government vowed that it would never allow Turabi to rule Sudan again.

It's quite obvious that there has been a power struggle between Bashir and Turabi for years. As long as Mubarak was in charge of Egypt, Bashir was safe and Turabi was at a serious disadvantage. That has changed completely. As we now know, Mubarak's government is no longer calling the shots when it comes to Sudan; the Muslim Brotherhood is.

There are significant signs that Brotherhood leadership is not happy with Bashir. He presided over an agreement that granted South Sudan's independence last year. Further salt in the wound is the fact that South Sudan almost unanimously elected a devout Christian to lead them.

If there's one thing we've learned, it's that the Brotherhood doesn't like Christian lands in general and rich Christian lands in particular. Making matters even worse for Bashir's relations with the fundamentalists is the fact that South Sudan contains 80% of the region's oil reserves. Natsios wrote a piece recently that the North and the South are engaged in a bout of political brinksmanship over it. Bashir's government won't allow the South to ship its oil through the North to the Port of Sudan without gouging to get its cut. As a consequence, the South is working with Kenya to construct a pipeline southward to the Port of Mombasa.

An unintended consequence of this brinksmanship is that China is not getting its Sudanese oil, which makes it very unhappy.

Something else at play here could be for the Brotherhood to put so much pressure on Bashir that he is forced to do its bidding. Again, from Natsios:

Both Khartoum and Juba have a history of brinkmanship. And Bashir is once again edging up to a precipice -- he seems to think invading the South would settle the impasse. Last week, along with his minister of defense, Abdel Rahim Muhammed Hussein, Bashir told 700 army officers to prepare for war.

This brings us back to George Clooney. By employing the same strategy against Bashir that was used against Kony - demonization via the Alinsky-style spotlight - who is Clooney helping? Is he not helping the Muslim Brotherhood to become more fundamentalist? In fact, contrary to his intentions, Clooney's actions may help Bashir to decide to go to war with the South.

Again, I keep coming back to one very simple fact. In nearly every instance, the policies of the Obama administration have benefited the Muslim Brotherhood. Why wouldn't its policy toward Sudan do the same?

What is the alternative to Bashir? What's going to fill the vacuum if / when he is arrested?

In virtually all of the conflicts across the Middle East today, the Muslim Brotherhood's fingerprints are all found. Yet, it somehow manages to remain the name that is rarely mentioned except in terms of the countless elections it seems to be winning.

The Saul Alinsky-friendly Obama administration has come out in support of Kony 2012 and quite possibly egged Clooney on when it came to storming the Sudanese embassy to protest Bashir. If both premises are correct, it's near perfect implementation of two of Alinsky's rules - Rules 6 and 11:

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

Going after Kony and Bashir gives both the producers of Kony 2012 and George Clooney a tactic they enjoy. Singling out Kony and Bashir also fulfills rule number 11 if the endgame involves empowering the Muslim Brotherhood in the Sudan.

Kony 2012 producer Jason Russell and George Clooney may be well-intentioned but they're also quite likely being used.

Machine Gun Preacher on Kony 2012 (Muslim Brotherhood angle)

Earlier this week, I wrote about the Kony 2012 video and that while it espouses the noble goal of removing Joseph Kony from the Uganda region, there is also a uniquely surreal aspect to it. The man known as the Machine Gun Preacher, Sam Childers knows more about the region than anyone. He has been on the ground there for fourteen years. He builds orphanages for children and protects them with actual weaponry. In short, he's not your typical missionary.

Childers has issued a response to Invisible Children's Kony 2012 video and while he congratulates the charitable organization for drawing attention to Joseph Kony, he stresses that Kony is just a "small part" of the  problem. The larger part? Northern Sudan's president Omar al-Bashir, who according to Childers, has been the source of Kony's funding for years. Any guesses as to what group Bashir has the support of?

The Muslim Brotherhood.



The success of the Kony 2012 video was no accident. Obama signed an order back in October that sent approximately 100 U.S. Military personnel to Uganda. Six months later, Kony 2012 is made. Yet, there is no mention of Bashir or the group to which he is beholden and has benefited most from the Arab Spring - the Muslim Brotherhood.

Also, did you catch what Childers said beginning at the 3:00 mark?

Take note:

"If all eyes are not focused on South Sudan, what Bashir is doing there, within the next two months, we could have another genocide in South Sudan. It needs to be stopped NOW."

Why is this important? Because just last summer - three months before Obama signed the order that sent 100 military personnel to arrest Kony - South Sudan gained its independence from North Sudan and Bashir.

Via the New York Times:

"The eyes of the world are now on us," said South Sudan President Salva Kiir, who was inaugurated during a scorching midday ceremony. Kiir stressed that the people of South Sudan must advance their country together, and unite as countrymen first, casting aside allegiances to the dozens of tribes that reside here.

Saturday meant that South Sudan and its black tribesmen would for the first time be linked politically with sub-Saharan Africa. Kenya and Uganda are already laying strong economic ties with their northern neighbor, an oil-rich country that may one day ship its oil to a Kenyan port, instead of through the pipelines controlled by Khartoum.

"From today our identity is southern and African, not Arabic and Muslim," read a hand-painted sign that one man carried as he walked through the crowds.

Again, back to the quote from Childers in response to the Kony 2012 video:

"If all eyes are not focused on South Sudan, what Bashir is doing there, within the next two months, we could have another genocide in South Sudan. It needs to be stopped NOW."

Incidentally, the Jerusalem Center identifies South Sudan's new president, Salva Kiir as a "devout Christian."

"Kiir is a devout Christian and attends services regularly at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in the Southern Sudanese capital, Juba.

Kiir understands the difficulties facing Southern Sudan — Muslim states of the region (Chad, Libya, Egypt and Saudi Arabia) are obviously not excited to accept the appearance of a new Christian state that ostensibly has ties with Israel and enjoys the support of the American Jewish lobby.

Ok, according to Childers, if attention is directed away from Bashir, then South Sudan is in grave danger. Kony 2012 is a video that has quite mysteriously garnered tens of thousands of views in just a few days. That is not typical of organic YouTube hits. In fact, its length (30 minutes) actually makes viral viewing even more difficult. Perhaps the volume of leftist Hollywood celebrities and staunch Obama supporters like Oprah and P. Diddy have assisted in the video's success.

If there is one thing we've learned about the Obama administration, it's that when it wants to ignore something that doesn't fit its agenda, it's very, very good at doing so. Obama has endorsed the video. White House spokesman Jay Carney jumped on the Kony 2012 bandwagon just days after it was posted to YouTube.



Ok, again, if Childers is right about South Sudan needing to be protected by being a central area of focus, why does Kony 2012 seek to make an adjacent region that central area of focus?

Practically every policy of the Obama administration has benefited the Muslim Brotherhood-inspired Arab Spring. Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, and now Syrian rebels are all the beneficiaries of Obama's policies. In every instance, those policies have worked toward giving rise to the Muslim Brotherhood. So does all of this attention on Kony actually serve to help the Brotherhood's leader in North Sudan less than a year after the oil-rich South Sudan gained its independence and elected a devout Christian leader?

If so, it would be consistent with the administration's Middle Eastern policies to date.

For the record, Childers has far more credibility than the producers of Kony 2012. Yet, in the words of Winston Churchill, "A lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on."

I've posted the Kony 2012 video in question below. Note its left wing slant (Peace logo, raised fists, etc.). That is also another sign that the Obama administration doesn't just endorse it but is likely involved.

As of this writing, the video has 65 million views in under one week.



***UPDATE***According to the Sudan Tribune just last month, the Muslim Brotherhood is demanding that Bashir become even more extremist. Why? In response to South Sudan's independence and the rise of Christianity there:

A coalition of radical Islamic groups in Sudan has threatened to unseat the country’s President Omer Al-Bashir if he fails to heed demands for a constitution based on Shariah laws.

Sudan’s far-right and Islamist groups have been lobbying to have the country’s 2005 Transitional Constitution replaced with an Islamic one after the mainly Christian South Sudan gained independence in July last year.

To that end, they formed the Islamic Constitution Front (ICF) and proposed the Draft Constitution of Sudan, which is based entirely on Shariah law and according to a report earlier this month, prohibits the appointment of women in the judiciary.

If you listen to Childers, Bashir is more evil than Kony. If the Muslim Brotherhood is more evil than Bashir, shouldn't that be a bit of a clue about what we're dealing with in the Middle East?

God help us.

***UPDATE #2: 3/11/12***According to Kuzleem, there is no information on when Machine Gun Preacher will be released on DVD. The film was released in theaters back in September of 2011. Note the screen shot says DVD release dates for movies are usually issued 45-80 days after opening in theaters. Here we are 170 days after that opening and not only hasn't a DVD release date been given but the estimate for that release was January of 2012 and has come and gone.

There is an interesting dynamic at work here. Kony 2012 has generated a lot of interest in apprehending Joseph Kony but as in all Community Organizing strategies, organizers cannot be allowed to get bored or move on. Whenever this film (MGP) is released on DVD, it very well may keep interest in Kony from dying out. However, interest in Sam Childers may rise as well and his take doesn't seem to be in lock step with those behind Kony 2012.

Top 25 Richest Celebrities who Support OWS

There's hypocrisy and then hypocrisy on steroids, laced with a level of self-loathing that involves aligning with those who hate you. Enter the segment of the richest 1% of Americans who happen to be both liberal and on the side of the 99% who wants to steal their wealth.

First, there's the laughable hypocrisy of the likes of Alec Baldwin, who makes the list of the top 25 richest celebrities who hate capitalism in general, banks in particular. Baldwin does commercials for Capital One.

Or how about Miley Cyrus and Jay Z? Both of them have capitalized on OWS while not sharing their wealth. In the case of Jay Z, his 'Occupy All Streets' t-Shirts have made him a pretty capitalist penny. Ditto for Miley's OWS song.

Via NewsBusters:

Here is a list of the 25 richest celebrities supporting the Occupy Movement (Source: Celebrity Net Worth)

1. Yoko Ono - $500 million

2. Jay-Z - $450 million

3. David Letterman - $400 million

(tie) Stephen King - $400 million

5. Russell Simmons - $325 million

6. Sean Lennon - $200 million

7. Mike Myers - $175 million

8. George Clooney - $160 million

9. Brad Pitt - $150 million

(tie) Don King - $150 million

11. Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) - $145 million

12. Jane Fonda - $120 million

(tie) Miley Cyrus - 120 million

14. Al Gore - $100 million

15. Roseanne Barr - $80 million

(tie) Deepak Chopra - $80 million

17. Kanye West - $70 million

(tie) Dan Rather - $70 million

19. Alec Baldwin - $65 million

(tie) Matt Damon - $65 million

21. Tom Morello - $60 million

(tie) Mia Farrow - $60 million

23. Katy Perry - $55 million

24. Michael Moore - $50 million

(tie) Susan Sarandon - $50 million

Total: $4.1 billion

No wonder liberals are so angry. They have defective wiring.

Video: Hollywood Actor sees what China is Really Like

Hollywood actor Christian Bale was in Beijing recently to promote his latest film about the Japanese invasion in the 20th century. Instead of getting on the plane to head home, however, he decided to take a 8 hour car ride outside the city to visit a blind, anti-abortion activist named Chen Guangcheng, who has been sentenced to home confinement after serving his four-year prison sentence. It's pretty safe to say that Chinese secret police, who were stationed near Chen's home, did not welcome Bale with the open arms he received in Beijing.

Check out this video from CNN via Verum Serum of Bale's attempt to visit Chen Guangcheng. In it, Bale admits it's not in his nature to insert himself into such situations but that in this case, he simply could not look the other way. I must admit, I was surprised to hear in this report, that Hillary Clinton has raised this issue of Chen's plight as well.



That is what we call an eye-opening experience and Bale deserves heaps of credit for putting himself in the position of having it. The actor is known for having a temper and once went off on the photography director who interrupted him during a movie scene. It would really be nice to see Bale channel that energy into fighting for a cause like the one he was exposed to 8 hours outside of Beijing.

In fact, it'd be nice to see someone like Chen get the treatment Nelson Mandela got from the left but the former is an anti-abortion activist, which is a big strike against him.

VS has another video, shot from inside the home of Chen. He is constantly monitored by non-uniformed security guards outside his home. As you watch, keep in mind how many people on the left in America revere China.

Video: Miley Cyrus Releases Pro-OWS Song

Have you ever felt so much sympathy for someone so wealthy? I'm not talking about Miley, I'm talking about her father, Billy Ray. His daughter appears to be doubling down on his Achey Breaky Heart. It will be quite interesting to see if Miley Cyrus takes her cue from Jay-Z, who's been selling 'Occupy All Streets' t-shirts for $22 and giving none of the proceeds to the movement or if she at least chooses the less hypocritical path.

The list of 1% ers who embrace the movement that is supposedly disgusted by them officially just grew by one.

In either case, this one is an eye-roller and Billy Ray Cyrus has got to be doing a face-palm right now.

Via MediaIte:

Video Trailer: Navy SEALs Film to be a Blockbuster

Sorry for the second movie post in a row but they are both important and at least tangentially related. Keep your eyes open this coming February for a war movie that, based on the trailer, is one that is long overdue; it's one that celebrates America's military heroes instead of deriding them. This film is not only about Navy SEALs but features actual ones, which makes it a virtual lock to be better than the one that featured Charlie Sheen (see previous post) as a SEAL in Lebanon. Just based on the trailer alone, Act of Valor success at the box office is certain to be a full-throated rebuke of the trash Hollywood puts out.

See for yourself:

Compare that with the Charlie Sheen trailer from 1990 if you dare:



h/t Hot Air

Audio: Emilio Estevez the Anti-Charlie Sheen?

Charlie Sheen's brother - Emilio Estevez - is the lesser known of the two but has had a better-than-normal run when it comes to roles in Hollywood movies; The Breakfast Club is one that comes to mind. As Charlie seems to be on a trajectory taking him further out to space, Emilio strangely seems to be far more grounded. While appearing on Laura Ingraham's radio show, Emilio said he was embarrassed by what's coming out of Hollywood lately (Sex, violence, vulgarity, etc). His reason for appearing with Ingraham was the release of his new film, The Way, which stars his father Martin Sheen.

It's very, very difficult to find this kind of talk coming out of Hollywood, which is the reason for the post. It's also very refreshing to see. Though it'd be interesting to know if watching Charlie's descent had a positive effect on both Martin and Emilio, the story here is that this is a good story. Via NewsBusters:

Christian South Sudan Quietly Becomes New Nation

This is an oasis of great news in a world seemingly awash with nothing but bad news lately. The war-ravaged nation of Sudan has now been officially split. For decades, the Janjaweed, has done much of the dirty work of the nation's Arab Muslim tyrannical dictator, Omar Hassan al-Bashir by committing war atrocities on the South. Based in Khartoum, Bashir had to watch The birth of the Republic of South Sudan take place on July 9, 2011. It is South Sudan's Fourth of July. Much of the credit for this day, goes to George W. Bush and even the New York Times had to admit it.

Via NYT, h/t GWP:

Christian groups had been championing the southern Sudanese since the 19th century. And their efforts paid off in 2000 when George W. Bush was elected president of the United States. He elevated Sudan to near the top of his foreign policy agenda, and in 2005, the American government pushed the southern rebels and the central government — both war weary and locked in a military stalemate — to sign a comprehensive peace agreement that guaranteed the southerners the right to secede.

On Saturday, one man held up a sign that said “Thank You George Bush.”

The American-backed treaty set the stage for a referendum this January in which southerners voted by 98.8 percent for independence.

At 1:20 p.m. on Saturday, the southerners officially proclaimed their freedom.

“Recalling the long and heroic struggle of our people,” began the legislative speaker, James Wani Igga.

A few minutes later, the flag of Sudan was lowered and the new South Sudan flag (actually quite similar, plus a star) was raised. The masses exploded in one loud roar.

“Mabrook Janoob Sudan!” they yelled. “Congratulations South Sudan!”

South Sudan’s president, Salva Kiir, wearing his signature black cowboy hat given to him by Mr. Bush, signed the interim Constitution. Then the speeches began.

Even Bashir himself was in attendance, along with leaders of other African nations.

There is another rare, feel-good aspect to this story as well. The contributions of a Hollywood celebrity in the name of George Clooney have been very welcome as well. Clooney, to his credit, has been calling attention to the crisis in Sudan for years.

For more on how bad Bashir is, click HERE.

Read the NYT piece HERE.

Kate Walsh: Another Hollywood Genius

This one has been on the internet for a few days but it's got staying power because of its sheer lunacy. While on Capitol Hill to observe the first anniversary of the BP Gulf oil spill, actress Kate Walsh was polite yet indignant over the fact that drilling is still taking place in the Gulf. She actually wants Obama to repeal all drilling permits. Walsh supported Obama's election in 2008 and defended his performance to this point by saying, 'he's been lowered into a pit of a mess.'

Liberals, in general, do not know where money comes from. This brilliant Hollywood celebrity doesn't know where energy comes from. She obviously has no clue how much oil she's personally responsible for consuming. I'm sure all the petroleum that's used in all of the shoes she's purchased would make quite a puddle.

Via CNS News:

Video: Chevy Chase Crashes and Burns during Interview

This is really quite the sight to behold. While attending an eco-wacko event, Chevy Chase was asked a few questions about Obama, his environmental policies, and their success. Shockingly and unwittingly, throws the anti-apocalyptic cause of the eco-wacko movement under the bus by saying it has dropped down on the list of priorities because there are so many things that have become more important. Uh, Chevy, if the climate change movement is so important to mankind's existence, why would it EVER drop on the priority list? The answer is that it's been exposed as a fraud.

Perhaps that might help explain Chevy's excruciatingly long brain shutdown beginning at the 1:48 mark. I almost felt sorry for him. Then, he makes up for it by extolling the virtue of his own wisdom by saying he understands the 'nature of man.'

Via CNS News:



Perhaps THIS is where Chevy's downfall started.

h/t Sharp Elbows

Audio: Hollywood Actor Alec Baldwin says Obama 'Hampered' by not being Able to Spend

This is certainly not the hard-driving Alec Baldwin that appeared in the 1992 film, 'Glengarry Glennross.' There, he was a regional sales manager who demanded performance from the field reps or they'd be fired. Here, the real Alec Baldwin demonstrates that he doesn't know where money comes from. In light of the fact that the Barack Obama administration has added $5 Trillion in new debt since being elected in 2008, the notion that Obama has been 'crippled' by not being able to spend is laughable. Click below to watch Baldwin in his new role: Ruler of Bizarro World.

Via CNS News: