Mr. Hicks said U.S. officials scrambling to figure out what was happening began to get information from sources around Benghazi about the attacks.

“We began to hear also that the ambassador’s been taken to a hospital,” he said. “We learn that it is in a hospital which is controlled by Ansar al-Shariah, the group that Twitter feeds had identified as leading the attack on the consulate.”

The information came in as a “response team” was arriving at the Benghazi airport from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Mr. Hicks said.

“At this point, this response team looks like it may be a hostage rescue team,” he said. “We are going to need to send them to try to save the ambassador who is in the hospital that is, as far as we know, under enemy control.”

He added that he and other officials began to worry whether they were being baited into a trap.

Read more at the Washtington Times’ live blog of the hearing.

The latest of such came in a column by Robert Costa for National Review, discussing the potential of a Ted Cruz candidacy with no fewer than six quotes from unnamed sources that Costa claims are close to Cruz as either a “former colleague,” “consultant,” “longtime Cruz associate,” “Cruz donor,” and the more elusive “Republican insider.”

That isn’t to say that the quotes are fabricated, but that the entire article lacks credibility in suggesting that Cruz, the junior senator from Texas is considering–privately or otherwise–a presidential run.

Especially considering the fact that Cruz is Canadian by birth.

According to Costa, this isn’t an issue, however.

“Cruz isn’t worried that his birth certificate will be a problem,” Costa writes. “Though he was born in Canada, he and his advisers are confident that they could win any legal battle over his eligibility. Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born, and he considers himself to be a natural-born citizen.”

In spite of the small faction of the Right who jumped on the birther train during Obama’s candidacy–and well into his presidency for that matter–any Republican candidate who plans on entering the ring is a disaster waiting to happen if that candidates presidency hinged on a constitutional challenge.

But alas, with three years to go, baseless speculation is all the media has.

Ted Cruz is a Tea Party favorite, and though he has only held his Senate seat for a few short months, conservatives have rallied around him since before he was the nominee.

Even setting aside the citizenship issue, throwing caution to the wind in classing Cruz as a presidential contender is premature at best, and only detracts from the discussion about how conservatives can take back government in three years (and potentially the Senate next year.)

Drama teacher-turned politician Justin Trudeau

In a profoundly pathetic attempt to answer a question about the Boston Marathon explosion, Canada’s newly minted Liberal Party leader and Prime Ministerial hopeful Justin Trudeau said, “Over the coming days” it would be necessary to “look at root causes.”

“We don’t know if it was terrorism, or a single crazy, or a domestic issue or a foreign issue — all those questions,” he said in an interview with Peter Mansbridge on CBC. “But there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society.”

Trudeau also urged society to not “marginalize people even further who already feel like they are enemies of society rather than people who have hope for the future.”

What exactly he means by saying blaming the attack on “someone who feels completely excluded” is unclear, but it’s quite ridiculous that he feels society is worthy of any blame for someone choosing to execute an attack on as many innocents as were affected by the bombing in Boston.

If someone is a true enemy of society and insistent on inflicting harm on society, they need handcuffs, not a hug.

Though Harper will have been at the helm of a majority government for two years next month, he has been Prime Minister for over 7, after winning minority governments in 2006 and 2008.According to the Ipsos Reid poll, which was commissioned by Postmedia News, two thirds of Canadians feel that Harper’s government is too secretive, and that half feel he has a hidden agenda.The National Post reports that Harper will “hit the reset button” on his government with a cabinet shuffle and a more campaign-oriented style of governance. The next election is presently slated for 2015.

The poll found that 54 per cent of Canadians believe the country is on the “wrong track,” versus 46 per cent who believe it is headed in the “right direction.”

Fifty-eight per cent of Canadians disapprove of the Conservative government under Harper’s leadership, compared to 42 per cent who approve.

The poll found that 69 per cent of people believe “the Harper Conservatives are too secretive and have not kept their promise to govern according to high ethical standards.” Thirty-one per cent believe the Tories have kept their promise.

Similarly, the poll found that 63 disagreed with the statement the “Harper Conservatives are living up to the promise they made when first elected in 2006 to provide an ethical, open and transparent government.”

Thirty-seven per cent did believe the government has met their commitment.

The question remains: What is Harper hiding?

“It is with great sadness that Mark and Carol Thatcher announced that their mother, Baroness Thatcher, died peacefully following a stroke this morning,” a statement from Lord Bell, Thatcher’s spokesperson, said.

Lady Thatcher was the first and only woman to become Prime Minister of Britain, and still remains a divisive figure in politics to this day. Her crowning achievement was her work towards defeating the Soviet Union, alongside U.S. president Ronald Reagan, as well as rescuing her own country from the bring of economic disaster following 35 years of socialist rule.

When Thatcher was elected Prime Minister in May of 1979, Britain’s economy was heading toward a cliff after being plagued by inflation and numerous budgetary deficits for some time. Her principled, conservative approach to governance rebuilt and strengthened the country’s conservative movement, instilling values of liberty and freedom that still live among Britain’s citizenry today.

Margaret Thatcher’s best quotes

“I’ve got a woman’s ability to stick to a job and get on with it when everyone else walks off and leaves it” – Speech, 1975.

“To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say, you turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning” – Speech, 1980.

“No one would have remembered the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions. He had money as well” – Television interview, 1980.

“We knew what we had to do and we went about it and did it. Great Britain is great again” – Comment at end of Falklands conflict.

“In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman” – Speech, 1982.

“I owe nothing to women’s lib” – Interview, 1982.

“I think, historically, the term ‘Thatcherism’ will be seen as a compliment” – Speech, 1985.

“I don’t mind how much my ministers talk, as long as they do what I say” – Interview, 1987.

“It’s the Labour Government that have brought us record peacetime taxation. They’ve got the usual Socialist disease – they’ve run out of other people’s money.” – Speech, 1975.

“Pennies don’t fall from heaven, they have to be earned here on earth.” – Speech, 1979.

“Socialists cry “Power to the people”, and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.” – Speech, 1986

“I never hugged him, I bombed him.” – On Moamar Qaddafi

Susan Muranishi, the COO of Alameda County, California, is gearing up for retirement soon. At 63, Muranishi has been with the County for 38 years. When she retires, she’ll be taking $423,664 per year from the County coffers. For life.

In addition to an already steep base pay of $301,000, the public pay records reported by the San Francisco Chronicle also include the following goodies:

• Over $24,000 in “equity pay”
• $54,000 a year in “longevity pay” for more than 30 years of service
• $24,000 as an annual performance bonus, even after retirement
• $9,000 for serving on a three-member ad hoc committee, the Surplus Property Authority
• $8,292 as an annual car allowance

According to the County Auditor’s office, her annual pension will be equivalent to her yearly package.

I wasn’t able to find too much information on who is eligible for the “equity pay,” but as for the “longevity pay,” with a compensation package like this one, who would ever leave?

Why?

“They knew all they had to do,” revealed Johnson, “was control these people.”

Since the beginning of his political career, Stephen Harper has tried—quite successfully—to distance himself from and silence the socially conservative contingent in both the base that elected him and within his own caucus. Last week, it would appear that he has finally gone too far.

Desperate to stomp out any discussion around the abortion issue, even a motion as both benign and banal as Langley MP Mark Warawa’s Motion 408, “That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination” was, in an affront to democracy increasingly typical of the allegedly conservative Harper, deemed non-votable. Granted, the motion was spiked by a sub-committee, not by Harper himself, but all the evidence suggests that there has been enormous pressure from the Prime Minister’s Office to dispense with any annoying discussion on abortion—even a verbal condemnation of a practice which 92% of the Canadian public disapproves of.

Mr. Warawa, however, has had enough, and is promising to fight the subcommittee’s decision as far as he needs to—in the process, we hope, embarrassing Mr. Harper far more than any vote could have done. The prime minster wants the social conservatives whose votes he needs to maintain his majority to go away, while showing up every few years to vote his government back into power. It’s time Mr. Harper realized something: We now know what he’s all about. We know he doesn’t like us. And guess what? We don’t much like him, either. And this isn’t his grandfather’s pro-life movement anymore. We’re young, we’re numerous—and our voices aren’t even close to hoarse yet.

I’ve made this point before, but I think it’s really important that everyone—and I mean everyone—who values human life be aware of what Stephen Harper has done and is attempting to do to the pro-life movement. Many of us were holding out for the hidden agenda that never existed, and many of us still cling to the idea that Harper is “biding his time,” being a “smart politician” or is simply (and is there really any such thing?) a “secret pro-lifer.” This is a man who is completely unconcerned with the systematic gutting and decapitation of hundreds of pre-born Canadians per day. He’s just concerned that we keep bringing it up.

Just to ensure that you don’t think I’m engaging in hyperbole, let’s review Harper’s record on abortion:

1. In 2002, Stephen Harper used the abortion issue to attack pro-life candidates in the Canadian Alliance leadership race, while attempting to claim that he was simultaneously somehow “pro-life.” However, he ran against candidates Stockwell Day, Grant Hill, and Diane Ablonczy in part by attacking the social conservatism and specifically their stance on the abortion issue.
2. In 2004 as leader of the newly formed Conservative Party, Stephen Harper begrudgingly said he would allow a “free vote” on the abortion issue (something the federal Liberals do as well), but referred to abortion as “a woman’s right to choose,” clearly highlighting his pro-abortion views on the matter. During the English Election debate on June 15 of the same year, Harper declared that, “I will not have legislation limiting a woman’s right to choose.”
3. At the March 2005 Conservative policy convention, Stephen Harper noted in his speech that “as prime minister, I will not bring forth legislation on the issue of abortion.” According to LifeSiteNews: “This speech…is said to have produced a successful, although narrow passage of the motion that officially shut down abortion debate in the party and which has been used as a club to silence pro-life candidates and members of caucus.”
4. On December 11, 2005, Harper wrote a letter to the Washington Times. He writes toward the end of the letter that, “a new Conservative government will not initiate or support any effort to pass legislation restricting abortion in Canada.”
5. On March 1, 2006, shortly after his election, Harper told Maclean’s Magazine that, “In my entire career, I’ve made it clear that I have no intention of getting into the abortion issue. It has not been my issue in my entire career. And it won’t be in the future.”
6. In 2008, LifeSiteNews reported that, “Harper’s Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson, effectively scuttled a private members bill that sought to protect unborn victims of violence, by pledging to introduce his own gutted version that would merely list pregnancy as an aggravating factor at sentencing. Nicholson alleged that protecting wanted babies would risk ‘instilling fetal rights.’”
7. On December 15, 2010, Harper voted against Roxanne’s Law (Bill C-150), a bill that would ban Canadians from coercing women into an abortion.
8. On April 4, 2011, Harper assured a reporter asking about the abortion issue that, “Our agenda is the same agenda with a majority government or a minority government.”
9. In April of 2012, Harper not only promised to vote against MP Stephen Woodworth’s Motion 312 to examine when life begins, but noted during Question Period that it was “unfortunate” that the motion had even been deemed votable.
10. In response to a letter to the RCMP by three Conservative backbenchers requesting an investigation into the discovery that between 2000 and 2009, 491 babies had been born alive following abortion procedures and left out to die, Harper stated in the House of Commons that; “All members of this House, whether they agree with it or not, understand that abortion is legal in Canada and this government, myself included, have made it very clear that the government does not intend to change the law in this regard.”

There’s more, of course, but I think I’ve made my point. Stephen Harper is in no way a friend of the pro-life movement, and is fond of telling us that he is our enemy. He has given us not the slightest reason to support him. Since he became prime minister in 2006, it’s been all sticks and no carrots. Yet, like a battered wife who feels she has nowhere else to go, social conservatives limp to the voting booth to give Harper his much-abused power back whenever election time rolls around. Now he’s telling members of his own caucus that they can’t present anything that even remotely resembles human rights for the pre-born—even if a massive percentage of the Canadian public is supportive.

Harper has tragically underestimated the size, youth, tenacity, and dedication of the newly emerging pro-life movement. We’re in this full-time, and for the long haul. Even the lowest polling numbers say that nearly ten percent of Canadians are against abortion in all cases, with polling for abortion restrictions being much higher (some polls placing it at over 70%). Harper won his majority government with only 39.6% of the popular vote. He may want to be a bit nicer to a constituency that he has definitively lost control over, and that he depends on for political survival. The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform recently launched a political awareness campaign called “Face the Children.” Mr. Harper can be assured that we do not plan to go away, we do not plan to be quiet, and we plan to inform disenfranchised voters of precisely what he stands for.

Because we don’t particularly care whether or not Mr. Harper keeps his job. We’re far more concerned with ensuring that pre-born Canadians keep their lives.

Re-printed with permission from UnmaskingChoice.ca.

The “Sandwich Artist” making my footlong was a 22-year old by the name of Darren. He graduated last year from the University of Windsor in Canada and just moved to Michigan a few months ago. He is a Canadian citizen. His family lives in Sarnia, a little over 10 miles from where he now calls his home, separated by the United States-Canada border.

What fascinated me about Darren is not that he relocated to another country for a full-time job at Subway, but rather why he did so. Simply put, he felt that Canada would hold him back from his dream of starting a tech company.

With a general B.A., the job market in Canada–or anywhere, for that matter–isn’t in his favor. So Darren decided he would take his development skills and put them to use working for himself. The problem is, he knew from entrepreneur friends and family members that the United States simply breeds growth and opportunity in a way that Canada doesn’t.

When it comes to corporate taxes, Canada and the United States are not too far apart. Under President Obama, business hasn’t exactly been booming in the U.S. In fact, several C.E.O.s of major American corporations have said that they would not be able to recreate their companies’ successes if started today, because of the country’s economy.

However, it is an incredibly powerful statement that someone would leave their country–even if only by traveling 10 miles–to pursue a dream. And that status as the land of opportunity is one that every American needs to ensure the country keeps.

Darren is one person with a dream, and the Bluewater Bridge may not stand in the way of everyone’s dreams. After all, I’ve managed to create a pretty good thing from my pulpit here in Canada.

But what a lot of Americans may not realize is not much of an inspiration they are to non-Americans. Even to their neighbors to the north. Erm…neighbours.

Anti-Semite M.P. George Galloway

British Member of Parliament George Galloway stormed out of an Oxford University debate last night when he found out that one of the speakers was an Israeli Jew.

Galloway, an M.P. for the clearly inappropriately titled Respect Party left the event when a student speaking identified himself as Israeli. Galloway swiftly picked up his coat and said, “I don’t debate with Israelis,” before leaving the room, followed by his wife.

The exchange was filmed by the university’s student newspaper. (Video below)The debate was on the motion that “Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank.” Galloway had already spoken in favor of the motion for 10 minutes.Eylon Aslan-Levy, a third-year student was responding to Galloway’s remarks, when the M.P. interrupted Aslan-Levy over his use of the word ‘we’ when discussing the state of Israel.

GALLOWAY: “You said ‘we.’ Are you an Israeli?”

ASLAN-LEVY: “I am, yes.”

GALLOWAY: “I don’t debate with Israelis. I have been misled. Sorry. I don’t recognize Israel and I don’t debate with Israelis.”

As he left, some students laughed, while others jeered. One even shouted out that Galloway was a racist for refusing to speak to an Israeli Jew.

Galloway posted on Facebook later that evening about the exchange:

I refused this evening at Oxford University to debate with an Israeli, a supporter of the apartheid state of Israel.

The reason is simple: no recognition, no normalisation. Just boycott, divestment and sanctions, until the apartheid state is defeated. I never debate with Israelis nor speak to their media.

According to the event organizer, while communicating with Galloway, at no point was the ethnicity of his debate opponent brought up, disputing the claim that Galloway had somehow been “misled.”