Step by step, we lose our liberty and the Republic formed by our Constitution

Michelle Obama spending as though she were Royalty; Why?

Michelle Obama spending as though she were Royalty

The question is why Michelle Obama spending as though she were Royalty on the backs of the poor tax payers she claims to care about? 

 
Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing China for the White House during the Civil War.

 And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary.
Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by you the taxpayers:
Mamie Eisenhower: One-- paid for personally out of President's salary.
Jackie Kennedy: One
Rosaline Carter: One
Barbara Bush: One
Hilary Clinton: Three
Laura Bush: One
Michele Obama: Twenty-two

How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Michelle Obama.
 
Mrs. Obama are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU, John Q. Public:
 
 Michele Obama's personal staff:

·        One.. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)

·        Two.. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)

·        Three.. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)

·        Four.. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)

·        Five.. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

·        Six.. $90,000 Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

·        Seven.. $84,000 - Lilyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)

·        Eight.. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)

·        Nine.. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Project for the First Lady)

·        Ten.. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)

·        Eleven.. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B.(Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)

·        Twelve.. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)

·        Thirteen.. $60,000 Fitz, Alan O.(Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)

·        Fourteen.. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)

·        Fifteen.. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)

·        Sixteen.. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant f or Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)

·        Seventeen.. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)

·        Eighteen.. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
Nineteen.. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

·        Twenty.. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)

·        Twenty-One. . $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)

·        Twenty-Two. . $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)  

 Total $1,591,200 in annual salaries all for someone we did not vote for, and apparently have no control over.   There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life.
 
 One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense.
 
 Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe ...
   
The Canadian Free Press had to publish this. I wonder why the US media has not brought this to light??? Too scared that they might be considered racist or suffer at the hands of Obama???  

History's Proven Solution to Barbarism

History's Proven Solution to Barbarism

-Dr. Marshall Foster
The “civilized” world is in shock as it is bombarded daily with scenes of kidnapping, burning or beheading of Christians, journalists, aid workers and soldiers.

What hope is there of ever ending such barbarity by Islamic radicals like ISIS? The story of one man who confronted a nation filled with human sacrifice, genocide and sex slavery, can give us lasting encouragement. This man’s name was Patrick. We know him today as St. Patrick, the founder of Ireland. There once was a land so barbaric and backward that even the Roman Empire refused to go there. Early medieval maps designated the unmapped territory of Ireland with the title “Here do be monsters.”

Over 1,000 Irish slave traders attacked a small town on the northwest coast of Britain in 405 A.D. Their goal? - To capture hundreds of Christian youth and sell them into slavery back in Ireland. Sixteen year old Patrick was beaten, bound and thrown into the raider’s ship and quickly transported back to Ireland along with hundreds of other youth. There this Celtic boy, the son of a Christian elder and nobleman, was sold as a slave to a pagan, druid warlord named Miliucc in the frozen north of the Island.

Approaching Miliucc’s fort, Patrick would have seen human skulls hanging from the pointed stakes which formed the palisade, the defensive wall. Druids believed that the human head was the seat of the soul of their enemies. They drank from their skulls and they hung the shrunken heads of rivals on their belts. It was a culture of death, similar to the modern ISIL. They even used the same techniques of sacrifice to their pagan gods as the Islamic radicals of today, such as burning their captives alive in cages.

During Patrick’s ordeal he would have witnessed the Celtic pagan ritual of Beltaine during which a colossal wicker cage in the form of a man was assembled – the Wicker Man. Many rival clansmen, runaway slaves and even innocent children were crammed inside this cage.

Then the Wicker Man was set aflame. In the fiery inferno the screams of the victims could be heard for miles delighting the chief and terrorizing the people. During his captivity, as he barely survived in the open fields tending sheep, Patrick prayed over a hundred times a day. According to his own writings he was radically converted to a sincere faith in Christ.

After six years in captivity Patrick writes that God spoke to him saying, “Your ship is ready” and directed him to escape to the eastern coastline. He boarded the ship and eventually came home to Britain and his family. But not long after, God spoke to Patrick in a dream and he heard Irish voices saying, “Please, holy boy, come and walk among us again.”

Patrick heard the call and after years of preparation he sold his noble title, bought three small sail boats and took twelve friends with him to go back to serve the people that had enslaved him as a boy. Over the next 30 years, beginning in 435, Patrick preached the loving gospel of forgiveness to the Stone Age culture of Ireland, whose people were still enslaved to druid gods of death and human sacrifice.

With no army, facing almost certain death, Patrick proclaimed the true God of loving kindness and forgiveness with such power that the youth, especially, were challenged to abandon their gods of fear and violence and give themselves to the great cause of liberating the hearts of people all over the world.

Author Thomas Cahill explains how he envisioned the Irish pagans of the 5th century responding to Patrick’s message. The Irish must have thought “We can put away our knives and abandon our altars. These are no longer required…He has given us His own Son, and we are washed clean in the blood of this lamb. God does not hate us; He loves us.”

Without an army or support from the Roman church, Patrick went from town to town setting up over 300 churches, schools and monasteries. He trained thousands of ministers who began to translate and preserve the great documents of antiquity in desolate, cold monastic outposts on the edge of civilization. Cahill says, “as the Roman Empire fell, as all through Europe matted, unwashed barbarians descended on the Roman cities looting artifacts and burning books, the Irish … took up the great labor of copying all of Western literature….Without the Mission of the Irish Monks, who single-handedly re-founded European Civilization throughout the continent… the world that came after them would have been an entirely different one – a world without books. And our own world would have never come to be.” Patrick and his disciples also were the first nation to end sex trafficking and slavery.

But how is this “early history” relevant to us today in our current struggle with radical Islam and atheistic Communism? Patrick illustrates history’s only proven strategy that has subdued the blood-lust of lost souls from any pagan ideology to give up their beheading ways. Ireland was no aberration. Its peaceful transformation became an example which has been repeated in nations worldwide. Let us proclaim, with sincere humility, the God-honoring fact that the tyrannical pagan nations of Ireland, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, France, England, America, Australia, New Zealand and dozens of other nations have been peacefully liberated by Jesus, the true Liberator.

Civilization, based on the rule of law, however, stands on the brink of collapse because we have forgotten the source of our civility – the God of the Bible.

The biblical strategy of liberty, although primarily based upon the voluntary conversion and transformation of individuals, does not preclude the necessity in this fallen world of restraining evil by force. It is a self-evident truth, confirmed throughout the Scriptures, that all people have a right and a duty of self-defense against lawless rogues. While rebuilding pagan nations can never be accomplished by force, the military, led by civil magistrates (Romans 13, Gen. 9) has the right and responsibility, as do the people, to defend themselves and their land from attack. See the “Christian Just War Theory” for details.

John Calvin was faced with the extinction of Christianity five centuries ago in Europe at the hands of the Ottoman Turks. The great Biblicist put the major responsibility for the future of Christendom in the right place – right at the steps of the church. Calvin said “Until the Church finds the will and heart to reach the Muslims with the Gospel we shall always be at peril.” So it is today.

The church has the major responsibility, as God’s Ambassadors of reconciliation, to reach the unreachable and disciple the nations, remembering that Christians also were all at one time “dead in our trespasses and sins.”

Race Relations and Law Enforcement

Race Relations and Law Enforcement

Jason L. Riley
Editorial Board Member, Wall Street Journal

Thomas Sowell once said that some books you write for pleasure, and others you write out of a sense of duty, because there are things to be said—and other people have better sense than to say them. My new book, Please Stop Helping Us, falls into that latter category. When I started out as a journalist 20 years ago, I had no expectation of focusing on race-related topics. People like Sowell and Shelby Steele and Walter Williams and a few other independent black thinkers, to my mind at least, had already said what needed to be said, had been saying it for decades, and had been saying it more eloquently than I ever could. But over the years, and with some prodding from those guys, it occurred to me that not enough younger blacks were following in their footsteps. It also occurred to me that many public policies aimed at the black underclass were just as wrongheaded as ever. The fight wasn’t over. A new generation of black thinkers needed to explain what’s working and what isn’t, and why, to a new generation of readers. And the result is this book, which I hope will help to bring more light than heat to the discussion of race.

The book is not an autobiography or a memoir, but I do tell a few stories about growing up black and male in the inner city. And one of the stories involves a trip back home to Buffalo, New York, where I was born and raised. I was visiting my older sister shortly after I had begun working at the Wall Street Journal, and I was chatting with her daughter, my niece, who was maybe in the second grade at the time. I was asking her about school, her favorite subjects, that sort of thing, when she stopped me and said, “Uncle Jason, why you talk white?” Then she turned to her little friend who was there and said, “Don’t my uncle sound white? Why he tryin’ to sound so smart?”

She was just teasing, of course. I smiled and they enjoyed a little chuckle at my expense. But what she said stayed with me. I couldn’t help thinking: Here were two young black girls, seven or eight years old, already linking speech patterns to race and intelligence. They already had a rather sophisticated awareness that, as blacks, white-sounding speech was not only to be avoided in their own speech but mocked in the speech of others.

I shouldn’t have been too surprised by this, and I wasn’t. My siblings, along with countless other black friends and relatives, teased me the same way when I was growing up. And other black professionals have told similar stories. What I had forgotten is just how early these attitudes take hold—how soon this counterproductive thinking and behavior begins.

New York City has the largest school system in America. Eighty percent of black kids in New York public schools are performing below grade level. And a big part of the problem is a black subculture that rejects attitudes and behaviors that are conducive to academic success. Black kids read half as many books and watch twice as much television as their white counterparts, for example. In other words, a big part of the problem is a culture that produces little black girls and boys who are already worried about acting and sounding white by the time they are in second grade.

Another big part of the problem is a reluctance to speak honestly about these cultural shortcomings. Many whites fear being called racists. And many black leaders have a vested interest in blaming black problems primarily on white racism, so that is the narrative they push regardless of the reality. Racism has become an all-purpose explanation for bad black outcomes, be they social or economic. If you disagree and are white, you’re a bigot. If you disagree and are black, you’re a sell-out.

The shooting death of a young black man by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, last year touched off a national discussion about everything except the aberrant behavior of so many young black men that results in such frequent encounters with police. We talked about racial prejudice, poverty, unemployment, profiling, the tensions between law enforcement and poor black communities, and so forth. Rarely did we hear any discussion of black crime rates.

Homicide is the leading cause of death for young black men in the U.S., and around 90 percent of the perpetrators are also black. Yet for months we’ve had protesters nationwide pretending that our morgues are full of young black men because cops are shooting them. Around 98 percent of black shooting deaths do not involve police. In fact, a cop is six times more likely to be shot by someone black than the opposite.

The protestors are pushing a false anti-cop narrative, and everyone from the president on down has played along.

Any candid debate on race and criminal justice in this country would have to start with the fact that blacks commit an astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes. Blacks constitute about 13 percent of the population, yet between 1976 and 2005 they committed more than half of all murders in the U.S. The black arrest rate for most offenses—including robbery, aggravated assault, and property crimes—is typically two to three times their representation in the population. So long as blacks are committing such an outsized amount of crime, young black men will be viewed suspiciously and tensions between police and crime-ridden communities will persist. The U.S. criminal justice system, currently headed by a black attorney general who reports to a black president, is a reflection of this reality, not its cause. If we want to change negative perceptions of young black men, we must change the behavior that is driving those perceptions. But pointing this out has become almost taboo. How can we even begin to address problems if we won’t discuss them honestly?

“High rates of black violence in the late twentieth century are a matter of historical fact, not bigoted imagination,” wrote the late Harvard Law professor William Stuntz. “The trends reached their peak not in the land of Jim Crow but in the more civilized North, and not in the age of segregation but in the decades that saw the rise of civil rights for African Americans—and of African American control of city governments.”

The Left wants to blame these outcomes on racial animus and poverty, but back in the 1940s and ’50s, when racial discrimination was legal and black poverty was much higher than today, the black crime rate was lower. The Left wants to blame these outcomes on “the system,” but blacks have long been part of running that system. Black crime and incarceration rates spiked in the 1970s and ’80s in cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and Philadelphia under black mayors and black police chiefs. Some of the most violent cities in the U.S. today are run by blacks.

Some insist that our jails and prisons are teeming with young black men due primarily to racist drug laws, but the reality is that the drug laws are neither racist nor driving the black incarceration rate. It’s worth remembering that the harsher penalties for crack cocaine offenses that were passed in the 1980s were supported by most of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Rep. Charles Rangel of Harlem, who at the time headed the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. Crack was destroying black communities and many black political leaders wanted dealers to face longer sentences. In other words, black legislators in Washington led the effort to impose tougher drug laws, a fact often forgotten by critics today.

When these laws passed, even their opponents didn’t claim that they were racist. Those charges came later, as the racially disparate impact of the laws became apparent. What’s been lost in the discussion is whether these laws leave law-abiding blacks better off. Do you make life in the ghetto harder or easier by sending thugs home sooner rather than later? Liberal elites would have us deny what black ghetto residents know to be the truth. These communities aren’t dangerous because of racist cops or judges or sentencing guidelines. They’re dangerous mainly due to black criminals preying on black victims.

Nor is the racial disparity in prison inmates explained by the enforcement of drug laws. Blacks are about 37.5 percent of the population in state prisons, which house nearly 90 percent of the nation’s inmates. Remove drug offenders from that population and the percentage of black prisoners only drops to 37 percent. What drives black incarceration rates are violent offenses, not drug offenses. Blacks commit violent crimes at seven to ten times the rate that whites do. The fact that their victims tend to be of the same race suggests that young black men in the ghetto live in danger of being shot by each other, not cops. Nor is this a function of blacks being picked on by cops who are “over-policing” certain neighborhoods. Research has long shown that the rate at which blacks are arrested is nearly identical to the rate at which crime victims identify blacks as their assailants. The police are in these communities because that’s where the 911 calls originate.

If liberals want to help reverse these crime trends, they would do better to focus less on supposed racial animus and more on ghetto attitudes towards school, work, marriage, and child-rearing. As recently as the early 1960s, two out of three black children were raised in two-parent households. Today, more than 70 percent are not, and the number can reach as high as 80 or 90 percent in our inner cities. For decades, studies have shown that the likelihood of teen pregnancy, drug abuse, dropping out of school and other bad social outcomes increases dramatically when fathers aren’t around. One of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken in this regard concluded that black boys without a father are 68 percent more likely to be incarcerated than those with a father—that overall, the most critical factor affecting the prospect of young males encountering the criminal justice system is the presence of a father in the home. All other factors, including family income, are much less important.

As political scientist James Q. Wilson said, if crime is to a significant degree caused by weak character, if weak character is more likely among children of unmarried mothers, if there are no fathers who will help raise their children, acquire jobs, and protect their neighborhoods, if boys become young men with no preparation for work, if school achievement is regarded as a sign of having sold out—if all these things are true, then the chances of reducing the crime rate among low income blacks anytime soon is slim.

Many on the Left sincerely want to help the black underclass. The problem is that liberals believe bigger government is the best way to help. But having looked at the track record of government policies aimed at helping the black underclass, I’m skeptical.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s commencement speech at Howard University. Johnson had signed the Civil Rights Act a year earlier and would sign the Voting Rights Act two months later. And he used the speech to talk about what the government should do next on behalf of blacks. These two laws marked merely the end of the beginning, he said:

That beginning is freedom; and the barriers to that freedom are tumbling down. Freedom is the right to share, share fully and equally, in American society—to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go to school. . . . But freedom is not enough. . . . You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. . . . The next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights [is] . . . not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.

But what if Johnson was mistaken? What if there are limits to what government can do beyond removing barriers to freedom? What if the best that we can hope for from our elected officials are policies that promote equal opportunity? What if public policy makers risk creating more problems and barriers to progress when the goal is equal outcomes?

The civil rights struggles of the mid-20th century exemplified liberalism at its best. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act outlawed racial discrimination in employment and education and ensured the ability of blacks to register and vote. All Americans can be proud of these accomplishments. But what about the social policy and thinking that arose from the ruins of Jim Crow? Good intentions aside, which efforts have facilitated black advancement, and which efforts have impeded it?

In 1988, right around the 25th anniversary of the Great Society, Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer published a book called the The Limits of Social Policy. Glazer analyzed Great Society programs from the perspective of someone who believed that government action was the best way to improve the lot of blacks. But his assessment humbled him. He concluded that in many ways, the Great Society programs were causing just as many problems as they were solving—that good intentions aren’t enough.

Unlike Nathan Glazer, many policy makers today are still riding high on good intentions. They don’t seem particularly interested in reconsidering what has been tried, even though 50 years into the war on poverty the result isn’t pretty. While gains have been made, significant racial disparities remain in some areas and black retrogression has occurred in others. The black-white poverty gap has widened over the past decade and the black poverty rate is no longer falling. The black-white disparity in incarceration rates today is larger than it was in 1960. And the black unemployment rate has, on average, been double the white rate for five decades.

Confronted with these statistics, liberals continue to push for more of the same solutions.

 Last year, President Obama announced yet another federal initiative aimed at helping blacks—an increase in preschool education, even though studies (including those released by his own administration) have shown no significant impacts in education from such programs. He said that he wants to increase reading proficiency and graduation rates for minority students, yet he opposes school voucher programs that are doing both. He continues to call for job-training programs of the sort that study after study has shown to be ineffective.

Fred Siegel, an expert on urban public policy, has written extensively about the liberal flight from evidence and empiricism that began in the 1960s.

 The Left, wracked by guilt over America’s diabolical treatment of blacks, decided to hold them to different standards of behavior. Blacks, Siegel writes, were invited to enter the larger society on their own terms. Schools, which had helped poor whites, ceased incorporating poor blacks from the South into the mainstream culture. Discipline as a prerequisite for adult success was displaced by the authentic self-expression of the ill-educated. Blacks were not culturally deprived but simply differently-abled—more spontaneous and expressive and so forth. Liberals tried to improve conditions for blacks without passing judgment on antisocial black culture. And this sort of thinking continues to this day. Walter Williams once wrote that he’s glad he grew up in the 1940s and ’50s, before it became fashionable for white people to like black people. He received a more honest assessment of his strengths and weaknesses, he says, than black kids today are likely to receive from white teachers and employers who are more interested in being politically correct.

After George Zimmerman was acquitted in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, President Obama explained the black response to the verdict this way. Blacks understand, he said, that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to that history. In other words, Obama was doing exactly what the Left has been conditioning blacks to do since the 1960s, which is to blame black pathology on the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

This is a dodge. That legacy is not holding down blacks half as much as the legacy of efforts to help. Underprivileged blacks have become playthings for intellectuals and politicians who care more about revelling in their good intentions or winning votes than advocating behaviors and attitudes that have allowed other groups to get ahead. Meanwhile, the civil rights movement has become an industry that does little more than monetize white guilt. Martin Luther King and his contemporaries demanded black self-improvement despite the abundant and overt racism of their day. King’s self-styled successors, living in an era when public policy bends over backwards to accommodate blacks, insist that blacks cannot be held responsible for their plight so long as someone, somewhere in white America, is still prejudiced.

The more fundamental problem with these well-meaning liberal efforts is that they have succeeded, tragically, in convincing blacks to see themselves first and foremost as victims. Today there is no greater impediment to black advancement than the self-pitying mindset that permeates black culture. White liberals think they are helping blacks by romanticizing bad behavior. And black liberals are all too happy to hustle guilty whites.

Blacks ultimately must help themselves. They must develop the same attitudes and behaviors and habits that other groups had to develop to rise in America. And to the extent that a social policy, however well-intentioned, interferes with this self-development, it does more harm than good.

This concept of self-help and self-development is something that black leaders once understood quite well, and at a time when blacks faced infinitely more obstacles than they face today. Asked by whites in 1865 what to do for freed blacks, Frederick Douglass responded:

“I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! . . . If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength . . . let them fall! . . . And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!” Douglass was essentially saying, give blacks equal opportunity and then leave them alone.

Booker T. Washington, another late 19th century black leader who had been born a slave, once said that it is important and right that all privileges of the law be granted to blacks, but it is vastly more important that they be prepared for the exercise of these privileges.

Douglass and Washington didn’t play down the need for the government to secure equal rights for blacks, and both were optimistic that blacks would get equal rights eventually, although neither man lived to see that day. But both men also understood the limits of government benevolence. Blacks would have to ready themselves to meet the challenge of being in a position to take advantage of opportunities once equal rights had been secured. The history of 1960s liberal social policies is largely a history of ignoring this wisdom.

Hillary Lied, Four Americans Died

Hillary Lied, Four Americans Died

Judicial Watch confirmed Thursday what many Americans already knew: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's attempt to blame the attacks in Benghazi on an "offensive video" was a bald-faced lie. As the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, Judicial Watch obtained a series of critical emails that not only reveal State Department officials knew immediately the American compound in Benghazi was under attack but that the attack was perpetrated by assailants tied to a terrorist group. And despite the infamous exasperated question from the Democrats' likely presidential nominee, the truth does make a big difference at this point.

The first email was sent Sept. 11, 2012, at 4:07 p.m. It was forwarded by former Clinton Special Assistant Maria Sand to Clinton's former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jacob Sullivan, former Executive Assistant Joseph McManus, and a host of other Special Assistants in Clinton's office. It read as follows:

"The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."

Another email arrived at 4:38 p.m. It was sent by the former director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Scott Bultrowicz, who was fired following the report issued by the Advisory Review Board (ARB) citing

"systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department" responsible for security in Benghazi. That would be the same ARB that refused to interview Hillary Clinton as part of its investigation. State Department Foreign Officer Lawrence Randolph forwarded Mills, Sullivan and McManus the email from Bultrowicz with the subject line "Attack on Benghazi 90112012":

"DSCC received a phone call from [REDACTED] in Benghazi, Libya initially stating that 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire."

At 12:04 a.m. Randolph updated Mills, Sullivan and McManus with another email with the subject line "FW: Update 3: Benghazi Shelter Location Also Under Attack":

"I just called Ops and they said the DS command center is reporting that the compound is under attack again. I am about to reach out to the DS Command Center."

Contained in that email is a series of equally damning updates:

4:54 p.m.: "Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site to locate COM personnel."

6:06 p.m.: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): (SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

11:57 p.m.: "(SBU) DS Command reports the current shelter location for COM personnel in Benghazi is under mortar fire. There are reports of injuries to COM staff."

And finally, at 3:22 a.m., Sept. 12, Senior Watch Officer Andrew Veprek forwarded an email to numerous State Department officials, later forwarded to Mills and McManus. The subject line? "Death of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi":

"Embassy Tripoli confirms the death of Ambassador John C. (Chris) Stevens in Benghazi. His body has been recovered and is at the airport in Benghazi."

Two hours later, McManus forwarded the news of Stevens' death to the State Department Legislative Affairs office -- with instructions not to "forward to anyone at this point."

Hillary Clinton's response? An official statement calling the attack "a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

As for her other, earlier response, blatantly ignored by the mainstream media? A 10 p.m. phone call between Clinton and Obama, completely contradicting the previous assertion by the White House that Obama made no phone calls the night of the attack. As National Review's Andrew McCarthy sarcastically asked, "Gee, what do you suppose Obama and Clinton talked about in that 10 p.m. call?"

The rest of the orchestrated disinformation campaign -- sending former UN ambassador, current National Security Advisor and reliable propagandist Susan Rice on network news shows to maintain the despicable lie, Obama's assertion of same on the David Letterman Show and at the UN, the spending of $70,000 for a Pakistani ad campaign showing Obama and Clinton denouncing the anti-Islamic video, and a host of other insults to the public's intelligence -- can no longer be obscured.

America twice elected an inveterate liar as commander in chief. And the very same corrupt media that ran interference for Obama's lies are gearing up to do the same thing for an equally inveterate liar. And make no mistake: All of Clinton's critics will be characterized as perpetrating a war on women whenever the subject of her horrendous track record of prevarication arises -- one that included another blatant lie about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.

And that's if those questions arise at all. Here are two separate Google Searches related to the revelations presented by Judicial Watch. Note that not a single mainstream media source has even filed a report, much less made this the kind of headline story, followed by a relentless series of updates, that would have attended any Republican caught doing exactly the same thing. An equal amount of calculated disinterest attends the scandalous conflict of interest surrounding the Clinton Foundation, which received millions of dollars from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state. Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to a U.S. political candidate. Funneling those contributions through the Clinton Foundation allows Hillary to skirt such restrictions.

On Benghazi, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton gets it exactly right: "These emails leave no doubt that Hillary Clinton's closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened. And it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about 'inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.' 

The contempt for the public's right to know is evidenced not only in these documents but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them. The Obama gang's cover-up continues to unravel, despite its unlawful secrecy and continued slow-rolling of information. Congress, if it ever decides to do its job, cannot act soon enough to put Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and every other official in these emails under oath."

Whether Congress is up to the job or not, one thing is crystal clear: Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to lead this nation. Her election to the Oval Office would be a continuation of the lawlessness and lying this nation has endured for the past six years. Judicial Watch has produced the smoking gun. The voting public ignores it at the nation's peril.

At heart of multiculturalism is attack on Christianity

At heart of multiculturalism is attack on Christianity

By Walter E. Williams

President Barack Obama surprised many at the National Prayer Breakfast when he lectured us, “Lest we get on our high horse and think this (barbarity) is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” Obama went on to explain, “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often (were) justified in the name of Christ.” In Obama’s mind, Western outrage at Islamic barbarism should be tempered by the remembrance of what Christians did a thousand years ago in the name of Christ. Plus, that outrage should be chastened by our own history of slavery and Jim Crow.

Obama’s vision is that of a man brainwashed through an academic vision of multiculturalism, in which American exceptionalism has no place. It’s a vision that has been shaped by a longtime association with people who hate our country, people such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Weather Underground leader and Pentagon bomber William Ayers and Ayers’ onetime fugitive wife, Bernardine Dohrn. A vision that sees a moral equivalency between what Christians did centuries ago and today’s Islamic savagery is quite prevalent in academia. It’s part of what’s worshipped on most college campuses as diversity and multiculturalism.

College campus idiots – and that includes faculty members and administrators – call for the celebration of and respect for all cultures. In their eyes, it’s racist Eurocentrism to think that Western values and culture are superior to others. But that’s the height of stupidity. Ask your campus multiculturalist who believes in cultural equivalency:

·       Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value?

·       Slavery is practiced in Sudan and Niger; is that a cultural equivalent?

·       In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limits on women – such as prohibitions on driving, employment, voting and education.

·       Under Islamic law, in some countries, female adulterers face death by stoning, and thieves face the punishment of having their hand severed.

·       Some multiculturalists are members of campus LGBT groups. Ask them to what extent the Muslim culture would tolerate their lifestyle.

At the very heart of multiculturalism is an attack on Christianity.

Much of that attack has its roots among hypocrites in the intellectual elite. For example, Duke University sponsored Muslim calls to prayer in the name of promoting “religious pluralism,” until external pressures forced it to cancel the practice. Earlier, Duke administrators removed Chick-fil-A as a campus vendor because of CEO Dan Cathy’s comments regarding his religious opposition to homosexual marriage. So much for religious pluralism, tolerance and free speech.

Some public school boards have attempted to ban songs containing references to Santa Claus, Jesus or religious Christmas symbols. One school district banned a teacher from using excerpts from historical documents in his classroom because they contained references to God and Christianity. The documents in question were the Declaration of Independence and “The Rights of the Colonists,” by Samuel Adams.

Western values are by no means secure.

They’re under ruthless attack by the academic elite on college campuses across America. These people want to replace personal liberty with government control; they want to replace equality with entitlement; they want to halt progress in order to worship Mother Earth. As such, they pose a far greater threat to our way of life than any Islamic terrorist or group. Visions of multiculturalism and diversity are a cancer on our society. We stupidly fund them with our tax dollars and generous charitable donations.

Islamists and leftists attack not only Christianity but also free market capitalism. They do so because Christian nations, which have a great measure of economic liberty, have been at the forefront of the struggle for personal liberty and private property rights for centuries.

Personal liberty and private property are anathemas to people who want to control our lives. That is part and parcel of the multicultural and diversity movements infecting the Western world.

Pork and Islam

Pork and Islam

Let's hear it for a Quebec mayor...WAY TO GO QUEBEC.......

MAYOR REFUSES TO REMOVE PORK FROM SCHOOL CANTEEN MENU... EXPLAINS WHY

Muslim parents demanded the abolition of pork in all the school canteens of a Montreal suburb. The mayor of the Montreal suburb of Dorval,has refused, and the town clerk sent a note to all parents to explain why...

Muslims must understand that they have to adapt to Canada and Quebec, its customs, its traditions, its way of life, because that's where they chose to immigrate. They must understand that they have to integrate and learn to live in Quebec. They must understand that it is for them to change their lifestyle, not the Canadians who so generously welcomed them. They must understand that Canadians are neither racist nor xenophobic, they accepted many immigrants before Muslims (whereas the reverse is not true, in that Muslim states do not accept non-Muslim immigrants).

That no more than other nations, Canadians are not willing to give up their identity, their culture.

And if Canada is a land of welcome, it's not the Mayor of Dorval who welcomes foreigners, but the Canadian-Quebec is people as a whole.

Finally, they must understand that in Canada (Quebec) with its Judeo-Christian roots, Christmas trees, churches and religious festivals, religion must remain in the private domain. The municipality of Dorval was right to refuse any concessions to Islam and Sharia.

For Muslims who disagree with secularism and do not feel comfortable in Canada, there are 57 beautiful Muslim countries in the world, most of them under-populated and ready to receive them with open halal arms in accordance with Shariah.

If you left your country for Canada, and not for other Muslim countries, it is because you have considered that life is better in Canada than elsewhere.

Ask yourself the question, just once,  Why is it better here in Canada than where you come from?

Does anyone know or care that Jews do not eat pork?  That and they love this country!

Our law makers should take a lesson from this and not give in to Islamic extremist groups.

If you feel the same like or share!