Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Rescuing Citizenship and Civic Virtue

As we celebrate our nation's 237th birthday, a crucial facet of American life has all but vanished. We have forsaken, in a systematic and deliberate public manner, one of our most fundamental duties: fostering civic virtue in each and every one of our citizens.

What does it mean to be an American? Politicians in both parties keep pushing to create a new "path to citizenship" for millions of illegal aliens. But if sovereignty and self-preservation still matter in Washington, citizenship must be guarded ferociously against those who would exploit and devalue it at every electoral whim.

The pavers of the amnesty pathway think illusory requirements of paying piddling "fines" and back taxes will inculcate an adequate sense of responsibility and ownership in the American way. Other fair-weather friends of patriotism satisfy themselves with shallow holiday pop quizzes on American history to fulfill the "well-informed" part of the "well-informed citizenry" mandate of our Founding Fathers.

But Thomas Jefferson said it well: "No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and ... their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice... These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government."

John Adams said it better: "Liberty can no more exist without virtue ... than the body can live and move without a soul."

And Thomas Paine said it best: "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary."

Civic virtue cannot be purchased with token gestures or passed down in perfect form like a complete set of family china. A life of honor, honesty, integrity, self-improvement and self-discipline is something you strive ever to attain. Being American is a habit of mind, but also a habit of heart and soul. Abraham Lincoln spoke of the "electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world."

Calvin Coolidge, profiled in "Why Coolidge Matters," a terrific new book by Charles C. Johnson, echoed the Founding Fathers' emphasis on virtue, restraint and work ethic. "If people can't support themselves," he concluded, "we'll have to give up self-government."

The failure of public schools to impart even rudimentary knowledge of self-government principles, natural rights theory and the rule of law is compounded by the suicidal abandonment of civic education. As Stanford University education professor William Damon notes: "Our disregard of civic and moral virtue as an educational priority is having a tangible effect on the attitudes, understanding and behavior of large portions of the youth population in the United States today."

Add militant identity politics, a cancerous welfare state, entitled dependence and tens of millions of unassimilated immigrants to the heap, and you have a toxic recipe for what Damon calls "societal decadence -- literally, a 'falling away,' from the Latin decadere." Civilizations that disdain virtue die.

Independence Day sparklers will light the skies overhead this July 4th, but George Washington's "sacred fire of liberty" belongs in the breasts of Americans every day of the year.

How to rescue citizenship and civic virtue?

Let's start by sending a message to politicians in the nation's capital who imperil our sovereignty.

Citizenship -- good citizenship -- is not just a piece of government-issued paper. It is not merely a bureaucratic "status." It's a lifelong practice and propagation of founding principles. A nation of low information is just half the problem. A nation of low character cannot long remain a free nation.

ObamaCare Employer Mandate Delayed to 2015 - After Democrats Have to Run for Relection

The Obama Administration announced on Tuesday, July 2 that implementation of the highly contentious employer mandate provision of ObamaCare will be delayed until 2015.  You can bet that the timing of this announcement is not at all coincidental - while Congress is out of town for the 4th of July holiday and it is a particularly slow news week.

The delay undoubtedly is a political decision, as most everything out of the Obama White House is.

With the 2014 elections already in clear sight, the last thing the Democrats are looking forward to is defending their vote for the massive piece of legislation that growing numbers of voters hate.

A June 5,2013 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49 percent opposed to the legislation and only 37 percent support it.  That is the highest percentage of opposition since NBC/WSJ began polling about ObamaCare in 2009.  The poll also found that by a 2-to-1 margin Americans "believe the law makes them worse off, the highest figure the survey has found since President Barack Obama signed the law."

Following is the FoxNews coverage posted shortly after the Obama Administration announced the delay.

Administration delays key ObamaCare insurance mandate

The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it is delaying a major provision in the health care overhaul, putting off until 2015 a requirement that many employers offer health insurance. 
The announcement was made late Tuesday by the Treasury Department, at the beginning of the holiday week while Congress was on recess. It comes amid reports that the administration is running into roadblocks as it prepares to implement ObamaCare. 
The change in the employer mandate is arguably the most significant concession the administration has made to date.
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., a critic of the law, seized on the delay as a "clear admission" that the law is "unaffordable, unworkable and unpopular." 
"It's also a cynical political ploy to delay the coming train wreck associated with ObamaCare until after the 2014 elections," he said. 
The law requires companies that employ 50 or more workers to offer coverage or face fines. The Treasury Department and the White House said that, based on complaints by employers that the system for reporting the coverage was too onerous, they would simplify that system and give employers an additional year to comply.
"We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively," Mark J. Mazur, the assistant secretary for tax policy at the Treasury Department, said in a statement posted online. "We have listened to your feedback.  And we are taking action." 
The mandate was originally set to kick in for 2014, but will now start in 2015. 
The decision effectively means that penalties that would have been assessed against non-compliant businesses will be delayed until 2015. The administration encouraged employers to provide insurance anyway. 
While the employer mandate is being delayed, the so-called individual mandate -- the requirement that individuals obtain health insurance -- presumably remains on schedule for 2014. 
The administration also still plans to open up a new marketplace for government-regulated insurance plans on Oct. 1, to take effect on Jan. 1. And a sprawling set of subsidies would also remain in place. 
The delay of the employer mandate, though, raises questions about whether more elements of the law might be delayed in the coming months. 
White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett explained that, on the employer mandate issue, the administration was making two changes. 
"First, we are cutting red tape and simplifying the reporting process," she wrote on the White House blog. She cited concerns that the law would have required companies to set up new data collection systems on employee access to health care.
She said: "Some of this detailed reporting may be unnecessary for businesses that more than meet the minimum standards in the law." So, she said, the administration plans to figure out a "smarter system." 
Second, she said, the administration would delay the roll-out and penalties since they were overhauling the reporting system. 
"This allows employers the time to test the new reporting systems and make any necessary adaptations to their health benefits while staying the course toward making health coverage more affordable and accessible for their workers," she said. 
Randy Johnson, senior vice president of Labor, Immigration, and Employee Benefits at the Chamber of Commerce, told Fox News that with its decision, the administration has "finally recognized the obvious." 
"Employers need more time and clarification of the rules of the road before implementing the employer mandate," he said. "We will continue to work to alleviate this and other problems with ObamaCare."
Fox News' Jim Angle contributed to this report. 

Obama Condemns Slavery, Then Celebrates The Life Of Terrorist Nelson Mandela

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Obama Condemns Slavery, Then Celebrates The Life Of Terrorist Nelson Mandela

President Barack Obama toured the Maison des Esclaves with the first lady.
“I saw the inconceivable mystery of a soul that knew no restraint, no faith, and no fear…” ― Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness

As his popularity plunged in the United States, President Barack Obama and the first lady went on an African excursion that included a somber visit to South Africa. There, Obama spoke emotionally about the man who so inspired him, fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner and former South African President Nelson Mandela.

Obama has always said that he is walking in the footsteps of greatness, in the footsteps of men like Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi. But the truth is that Mandela is far more like Obama’s other mentor, Bill Ayers, than he is like Gandhi.

Then again, the truth is not something Obama seems to focus on. He mostly concerns himself with three things:
  • The promotion of his African-American agenda.
  • The shifting of America to the far left.
  • His future legacy.


The ‘Door of No Return’

Part of that legacy for the President and the first lady begins with America’s collective guilt over slavery. Little wonder the first stop on the Obama African Express was Senegal.

The New York Daily News captured the story in its headline: “President Obama pays emotional visit to slavery museum.”

Never one to miss a photo opportunity, the President and first lady stood grim-faced at the “Door of No Return” as they visited the Maison des Ecslaves, the point where African slaves were shipped west until the mid-19th century.

No sooner did we learn about the President’s pilgrimage to the African slave house than we learned something new about the President. Yes, folks, he too has slave forefathers.

International Business Times reported:
Until recently, it was thought that Obama did not have any slavery roots — unlike most African-Americans — as his father was born in Kenya and his Caucasian mother was a Kansas native.
Last year, however, website revealed the existence of a blood line connecting the President’s mother to the first African documented slave in the U.S., John Punch.
The President’s mother! This white lady has roots to slavery. The truth is that if we go back far enough in time, Obama’s father had roots to slave selling. (More blacks are culpable for selling African slaves, but that is an “inconvenient truth” and something liberals will not discuss.)

If we go back far enough, we all have roots to slavery. Each of us has ancestors back to the dawn of time. No doubt some of your and my ancestors were owned, perhaps by those damned Romans. Of course, that is all ancient history — nothing at all like what ended in the 1860s.

Boehner's Dilemma

Published on

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is very likely to pass an immigration reform bill, but its content is unknown.

The Speaker's desire to act on reform is based on a vocal consensus of the national Republican Party leadership that's correctly advised him that the GOP cannot be the impediment that blocks reform. Stung by the overwhelming Latino vote for President Obama in 2012, all the Republican leaders grasp that the bill must pass in some form. It is important that Boehner remove the issue from the national stage by passing the bill and ending an irritant that keeps Latinos voting Democratic.

The perfect solution for Republicans is the approach charted by Texas Sen. John Cornyn: border security before immigration reform. Cornyn's approach demands that the border be sealed before any legalization begins. He articulates conservative fears that amnesty will trigger its own flow of new illegal immigrants into the U.S. unless they are physically barred from entering. We do not need millions more in the purgatory of limbo waiting for Congress to act. Sealing the border needs to come first.

But, while Boehner can probably get the centrists in the GOP House caucus to fall in line behind the Cornyn approach, he could be undone by defections on the right. As far right as the Cornyn amendment is, it still allows for legalization once the border is secured. There is an irreconcilable block among House Republicans that rejects any form of amnesty or legalization now and forever, whether the border is sealed or not. Their defections over even the Cornyn amendment would force Boehner to seek Democratic votes to pass immigration reform in any form.

But here, Boehner runs into a vicious circle: The more Democratic votes he needs, the more he will have to move the legislation to the left. And the more he does that, the fewer Republican votes he will attract. Eventually, he might be left with the Senate version of immigration reform, which makes a mockery of border security by throwing resources at the problem but requiring no solution before legalization begins.

Boehner's reassurance that he will not bring a bill to the floor without a majority of his own caucus behind it offers no consolation. A majority of the House Republicans would likely support such a compromise, leaving more than a third of the party behind. A Senate-like bill would sail through the conference committee and get Obama's signature in a heartbeat. It just won't solve the immigration problem.

If the president wanted to seal the border, he has adequate resources to do so now. He just doesn't want to do so. He would like the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. to continue, secure in the expectation that each new shipment assures liberal Democratic victories as far as the eye can see.

Only legislation that requires border security before Obama can deliver legalization to his Latino constituency will impel the reluctant president to act. But defections from the extreme right of the Republican caucus may make it impossible to pass such a bill in the House.

Will the new Latino citizens be Democrats? Who knows right now? They will not be voting until 2026 at the earliest. So that's the wrong question.

Will the GOP get credit for the passage of immigration reform? Again, that's the wrong question.

The passage of immigration reform will clear the way for Latinos to move to the Republican Party. Attracted by its social policies, repelled by Democratic fiscal views, and entrepreneurial to the core, the current Latino citizens and voters will once again be in play if immigration reform passes.

I wonder if Obama will start sleeping with one eye open...LOL

             Egypt celebrates...kudos to the Egyptian people...
                                          job well done! 


President Obama chooses to side with the Muslim Brotherhood as the 48 hour deadline approaches near for Egypt’s President Morsi – Civil War draws Near

By: Julia Sieben /

President Obama chooses to side with the Muslim BrotherhoodUpdate:  just off of Breaking News of DEBKAfile, just confirmed: Military coup underway in Cairo: Morsi and MB leaders arrested  DEBKAfile July 3, 2013, 7:17 PM (GMT+02:00)

President Mohamed Morsi has been removed from his palace and taken to a military base as the deadline passed. Muslim Brotherhood leaders are also believed under arrest. Security travel bans have been issued against Brotherhood leaders. Sources in Cairo report that they will be tried for “crimes” committed during their year in office. A formal announcement is awaited by the military council. A senior Muslim brotherhood politician said earlier: ” The people will not remain calm in face of ‘military rebellion.’” DEBKAfile: This was the Brotherhood’s first direct threat to the army that attempts to oust President Morsi would encounter the armed resistance of its followers.

In light of millions who have taken to the streets to protest the Islamic leadership of President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, President Obama has reaffirmed his support for the oppressive government.  Demands for Morsi to step down have reached a high pitch from the masses protesting the implementation of Sharia Law, persecutions of Christians.

Egypt presents a dilemma for the Obama.  In Choosing between the will of the people, and the results of the 2012 election, the White House has decided to respect the later. Obama has supported Morsi, even as his presidency became “increasingly authoritarian”.  This obvious support of the tyrannical leader has has infuriated Morsi’s opponents who have taken to the streets with pictures of the US president defaced with a large cross on the streets of Cairo

President Morsi’s defiant speech Tuesday makes military intervention inevitable after today’s 3pm ultimatum.  Morsi vowed to give up his life rather than step down in the face of a military deadline and intervention. His defiance triggered more violence overnight that claimed the lives of 23 people, injured hundreds more and raised fears the country is heading for civil war. Here are five key questions about a country on the brink.

Chances that Morsi will step down are almost nonexistent, especially in light of backing by President Obama promising to cut off the Egyptian Military who are acting as the equalizing and enforcing factor for the people.   In Tuesdays 45 minute speech on state television he remained defiant, saying that constitutional order was the only guarantee against further bloodshed.  Pointing out that he had been elected in a free election, he would give his life to defend this constitutional legitimacy (the Constitution that he and the Muslim Brotherhood drafted and adopted).  Morsi’s speech prompted an immediate uprising and violence which ushered in a warning from the military. A statement from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces said: “We swear to God that we will sacrifice even our blood for Egypt and its people, to defend them against any terrorist, radical or fool.” An opposition spokesman called Morsi’s defiance “an open call for civil war”.

The United States has poured Billions in financial aid into Egypt which has been poorly managed by Morsi and his administration and the country despite its rich resources is broke.  While the government officials and Muslim Brotherhood has been enveloped in wealth, the populations are starving on the streets.  The billions of dollars, the citizens are unaware of, and the United States is seen by the populous and a contributory factor to the totalitarian authority of the state.

On Monday Obama made the public statement that the White House is “concerned” about the outbreak of violence in Egypt and is monitoring the situation closely. But the president said Morsi’s election was “legitimate” and called on all parties in Egypt to return to the negotiating table.

“Our position has always been, it’s not our job to choose who Egypt’s leaders are,” Obama told reporters in Tanzania. “When I took a position that it was time for Egypt to transition [Mubarak, 2011], it was based on the fact that Egypt had not had democratic government for decades, if ever. And that’s what the people were calling for.”

Obama did not tell Mubarak that he had to run in a democratic election, he simply told him that he had to step down.  Obama was the one who made sure that the Muslim Brotherhood, a group who had been banned from the country, was invited to his speech in Cairo.  Obama himself ushered in the Muslim Brotherhood into Egypt, and gave them controlling political power with rewards of billions of financial aid and weapons.

In Obama’s apologetic speech in Cairo, he stated the America was hated because it backed tyrants yet Obama; himself is backing an Islamic Tyrant.

President Obama contacted Morsi, despite his statements to the U.S. that he and his administration were neutral in the outcome of the situation in Egypt.  Obama pressed on Morsi to consider negotiations to appease the public, but was more firm with the Egypt Military and stated that all aid and arms would be immediately cut off if they proceeded to remove Morsi.  This does not sound too neutral to me.

President Mohamed Morsi has used the power of his presidency to target his political opponents, close Egypt observers argue that the Obama administration’s treatment of Morsi has been in line with the longstanding U.S. policy of turning a blind eye to the human-rights abuses of the previous leader in the Egypt.

Since the 2011 revolution in Egypt, Congress has sought restrictions proposed by legislators on the nearly $1.6 billion in annual U.S. aid to Egypt. Twice in two years, the White House and the State Department fought hard against any conditions applied to the aid that Obama claims credit for.

In addition to the funding, Obama has sent tanks, F-16 fighter jets, and billions in military aid to Egypt without any preconditions to that funding.

Now, the Obama Administration is only threatening to cut off that funding if Egypt’s military takes action, action the military claims is necessary to protect the people of Egypt from the Muslim Brotherhood.

One young Egyptian leader stated, “We are very critical of the Obama administration because they have been supporting the Brotherhood like no one has ever supported them,” calling the Obama Administration “the main supporter of the Brotherhood.”

The protesters on the streets of Egypt carry numerous signs condemning the United States interference and backing the Muslim Brotherhood.  Some such signs actually state that Obama supports terrorism through the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

The Egyptian people voted for change they could believe in.  Sounds somewhat familiar doesn’t it?  How’s that Change doing for you now?

Op-ed: Benghazi...the only 'scandal' that can really take Obama down

By: Diane Sori

Benghazi...the ghosts of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and ex-Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty haunt me at times...haunt me because I know they CANNOT Rest in Peace while their killers roam free to continue to NOT only dishonor their memory but also to dishonor the soul of 'We the People'.

While I am NO investigative reporter I can connect the dots, and I can through deductive reasoning see truth hiding in a pile of nonsense...and 'We the People' are being fed just the Obama administration. And the worst part is that Barack HUSSEIN Obama and those who orbit around him know we know and simply don't care.

Over this almost year since that fateful night I have written many opinion pieces on the happenings at the consulate and given my supposition of why Benghazi happened in the first place...supposition first based on nothing but a gut feeling immediately after it happened but now being given credence by a chain of events that just CANNOT be ignored. I will now link them altogether and you tell me if what is my truth...(that Ambassador Stevens found out Obama was running guns and weapons to the al-Qaeda supported Syrian rebels under-the-table and was going to expose him, and so had to be silenced before he could) not 'THE' truth.

In the days and weeks leading up to September 11, 2012 Ambassador Stevens sent numerous e-mails to Washington, specifically to Hillary Clinton's State Department and to Hillary herself, begging for help for he was nervous after the thankfully failed attempt on the British Ambassador's life, but that these e-mails were ignored or deemed NOT relevant.

Now for the Obama version and time frame with my 'truth' in red italic.

According to the Obama bunch, the American consulate at Benghazi was attacked on September 11, 2012 by a spontaneous group of protesters (in reality it was attacked by a heavily armed muslim terrorist group comprised of between 125 and 150 gunmen using rocket-propelled grenades, RPGs, hand grenades, AK-47s, FNFT2000 NATO assault rifles, diesel canisters, mortars, heavy machine guns, and artillery mounted on gun trucks). The attack began during the night at the compound built to protect the main diplomatic buildingA second attack early the morning of the next day targeted a nearby CIA annex in a different compound, and that's where the four Americans died...but in reality where three Americans died (for Ambassador Stevens did NOT die there as claimed, he died after being taken very much ALIVE from the consulate and at the direct hands of the enemy for the bloody hand prints on the consulate walls are from someone who is being carried trying to hold on to whatever they could for dear witnessed by the finger streaks pointing into the consulate...and in pictures showing a 'supposedly' dead Stevens having his left arm shielding his eyes or wiping tears from them, and dead men do NOT shield or wipe tears from their eyes).

Washington was informed about the attack just as it was beginning at about 9:40 local time (3:40PM Eastern Time). By 4:30 Eastern, Pentagon officials informed Defense Secretary Leon Penetta and Obama about the attack. The Pentagon then ordered an unmanned drone to fly over Benghazi. The drone arrived at 11:10 pm local time (5:10 pm Eastern Time) and began a video feed to Washington. At 5:41 pm Eastern Time, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned CIA Director David Patreaus to decide on a course of action...a course of action that amounted to NO help whatsoever (and here is where it starts to get dicey for Penetta, Clinton, and Obama all insisted that military forces were too far away to get to Benghazi in time to help. These three spoke an hour or so after the start of the attack yet Panetta told the Senate, under oath, that at that time the decision was made that help would NOT get to Benghazi in time...and to that I say how could they know that NO help would get there in time because how could they know how long the attack would be going on).

Telling his staff to handle the 'incident' occurring at Benghazi, Obama went to bed (or so he claimed) while the attack was still ongoing saying he had to leave early the next morning for a fund raising trip to Las Vegas. (Now here is what I find odd...what were Obama's whereabouts in the 8 or so hours he claimed to be sleeping and why knowing there was a phone in his bedroom did he, the president of the United States NOT ask keep him abreast of the deteriorating situation at the consulate knowing Americans were in danger. Did he really go to his bedroom NOT to sleep but to contact someone in Libya to make sure Stevens was dead...remember my supposition previously stated...and if so who did he contact during those hours, because his total lack of concern for his diplomatic staff is quite unnerving leading one to believe his actions heralded the start of a cover-up.).

Could Obama always have known that an attack would happen and what the outcome of the attack would be (because he knew what had to be done to Stevens) and the time frame it would occur in, thus allowing him to leave when he did, so he could say, 'I had nothing to do with whatever went wrong and you can't prove I did because I was in bed sleeping'. From Obama's track record we know where his loyalties truly lie I would NOT doubt for a minute that his actions or lack thereof speak volumes for remember, the following morning, even after finding out the tragic outcome of the night's events, off to Las Vegas he went.

Between September 11th and 17th, eight other diplomatic missions in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe were subjected to violent attacks (supposedly) in response to that poorly done YouTube video that criticized mohammad. And remember when on September 16, 2012, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice went on five Sunday morning talk show circuit peddling the Obama approved 'talking points' that the Benghazi attack occurred because of said video (which she knew very well was NOT the case as those 'talking points' were changed at least 12 times to correspond with Obama's movements on that fateful night.).

And after it was proven that NO video of any kind had anything to do with what happened at Benghazi the blame game started, but instead of putting the blame where it on Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Hillary Clinton...we were treated to Hillary's testimony before the House Committee investigating the Benghazi attacks. Remember when she said (after recovering from her 'boo-boo') the words that stunned the nation, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”

Remember how the Obama bunch then tried to shift the Benghazi blame onto our military for their lack of response, but thankfully along came the whistleblowers to set things right when it was revealed that orders to 'stand down' were given so that our military could NOT respond to the attacks...and orders to 'stand down' could only come from the White House.

Remember when whistleblower Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in Libya, told congressional investigators that there were two possible courses of action that could have saved American lives that night...allowing US special forces to enter Benghazi and flying a fast-moving U.S. military aircraft over the scene of the attacks...and remember that a team of US special forces in Tripoli was blocked from flying in to attempt a rescue of the embassy personnel...remember when we found out that that a Marine anti-terrorist team based in Rota, Spain, was ready to go assist in Benghazi, but reports claimed that it would have taken them 23 hours to get there when the truth is it would have only taken 3 hours and 5 minutes to get there.

Remember all that and now remember all the diversions to keep our attention off of Benghazi...the scandals...scandals ranging from the AP scandal to the IRS scandal to NSA scandal...each and every one used and manipulated to keep us away from the fact that only Benghazi is a true arrestable offense...that only Benghazi is grounds for treason being leveled against both Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Hillary Clinton...that only Benghazi is treason for aiding and abetting the enemy as in my supposition of Obama secretly running guns and weapons to the al-Qaeda supported Syrian rebels...and that supposition has now become an in-our-face reality that we taxpayers are footing the bill for.

So it's NOT Hillary's job to figure out what happened the night of September 11,'s 'We the People's' job to make sure that those who were indeed complicit in Benghazi are brought to justice...and that really boils down to Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Hillary Clinton...and only when that becomes reality can the ghosts of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and ex-Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty finally Rest in Peace.