The State Department’s 2014 budget includes a much-needed $4 billion allocation for security programs, including security staff, construction and infrastructure upgrades. The money will allow a 5% increase in diplomatic security staff and upgrades at “critical locations that face heightened threats in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2012,” according to the funding highlights released by the White House.

Security lapses quickly became an issue when, on the 11^th anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history, heavily armed Islamist militia members ambushed our diplomatic compound in Benghazi. Christopher Stevens became the first U.S. Ambassador to be murdered in the line of duty since1988.Three other Americans working at the U.S. mission were also killed in the hours-long attack.

The Obama administration immediately came up with a ridiculous cover-up story, telling the American people that the deadly attack was provoked by a homemade anti-Islam internet video that supposedly sparked riots around the Arab world. The reality is that repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi were shunned by top officials in the Obama State Department, which at the time was run by none other than Hillary Clinton.

A Judicial Watch investigation on Benghazi conducted by a former State Department security specialist reveals that internal problems within the agency for years have left overseas diplomats without adequate security. Here’s the report. As part of an ongoing Benghazi probe, JW has also sued the State Department for records involving a $400,000 contract with a foreign firm that provided security guards and patrol services at the U.S. compound in Benghazi prior to the attack.

The State Department’s own investigation, conducted by a specially created Benghazi Accountability Review Board, concluded that “systematic failures” left the U.S. mission inadequately protected. The board also identified “leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus.” It’s unfortunate that it had to come to this before the administration decided to fund adequate protection for our foreign ambassadors while they represent their government in the world’s most dangerous regions.

Also of interesting note in the State Department’s new budget request is $580 million for a “Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Incentive Fund” to advance long-term political, economic and trade reforms in the region post “Arab Spring.” The money is the administration’s response to “continuing challenges to stability in the Middle East and North Africa.”

How embarrassing for the administration that, up until a few hours ago, it was set to bestow a special award upon Egyptian “democracy activist” Samira Ibrahim for all her work on behalf of women’s rights. First Lady Michelle Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were going to present Ibrahim with the International Women of Courage award at a State Department ceremony this afternoon.

The event will go on and “9 extraordinary women” will still be commended, according to a State Department announcement, but Ibrahim was abruptly removed from the original list of 10. The annual International Women of Courage Award is supposed to recognize “women around the globe who have shown exceptional courage and leadership in advocating for women’s rights and empowerment, often at great personal risk.” Since its inception the U.S. has honored 66 women from 44 different countries.

It’s baffling that Ibrahim made the list in the first place, considering her history. Even her country’s English-language news website questioned the nomination earlier this week, pointing out that it was expected to fuel controversy after some foreign media outlets dug up some of Ibrahim’s anti-Semitic and anti-US statements. Also published in Arabic, the Egyptian news site offers some of the outrageous comments Ibrahim has posted on her social media sites.

On the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as a mob attacked the American embassy in Cairo and murdered the U.S. ambassador, Ibrahim posted this on her Twitter account: “Today is the anniversary of 9/11. May [we] every year see the US burning.” On July 18, 2012, after five Israeli tourists were murdered by a Hezbollah suicide bomber, Ibrahim tweeted: “An explosion on a bus carrying Israelis in Burgas airport in Bulgaria on the Black Sea. Today is such a lovely day with a lot of lovely news.”

In separate August 2012 posts, Ibrahim described Saudi Arabia’s ruling family as “dirtier than the Jews” and she seemed to compliment Adolf Hitler: “I have discovered with the passage of days, that no act contrary to morality, no crime against society, takes place, except with the Jews having a hand in it. Hitler.”

With that said, why on earth would the United States even consider honoring this woman? Why didn’t someone in the Obama Administration—an intern or part-time aide, even—vet Ibrahim? Here is what a State Department spokeswoman told reporters this week as the agency scrambled to minimize the damage: “We, as a department, became aware very late in the process about Samira Ibrahim’s alleged public comments.”

It appears to be part of the administration’s Muslim outreach effort, which includes a variety of controversial moves. Among them Homeland Security meetings with extremist Islamic organizations, sending an America-bashing mosque leader (Feisal Abdul Rauf) who blames U.S. foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks on a Middle Eastern outreach mission and revamping the way federal agents are trained to combat terrorism by eliminating all materials that shed a negative light on Muslims.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even signed a special order to allow the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties long banned them from the U.S.

Now comes news of a secretive State Department campaign, discovered in the course of a Judicial Watch investigation, to add Muslims to its roster. Presumably, the new recruits will be deployed around the globe to help the agency fulfill its mission of promoting the country’s international relations. The campaign seems to be headed by Mark Ward, the Deputy Special Coordinator in the State Department’s Office of Middle East Transition.

Ward held a 90-minute seminar at a recent convention sponsored by two groups—Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)—with known ties to radical Islam. Both nonprofits are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is known as the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda. In fact, the Investigative Project on Terrorism reports that MAS was founded as the U.S. chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood which strives to indoctrinate the world with Islamic Sharia law.      

Yet there was a U.S. State Department official, side by side at a radical Islamic powwow in Chicago with a number of speakers who advocate violent jihad. Among them was Kifah Mustapha, a fundraiser at terrorist organization (Holy Land Foundation) convicted of funneling millions to Hamas and Jamal Badawi, a MAS founder who praised the jihad of Gaza terrorists during a speech titled “Understanding Jihad and Martyrdom.”

The conference that Ward conducted focused on career opportunities for Muslim youth. Here is how the event was billed: “Besides being a citizenship duty, there are benefits that Muslims can add to the American Muslim community and the global Muslim world by joining the US Foreign Services. This session will shed light on the different career opportunities for Muslim youth in the US Foreign Services Department. It will also clear any concerns that many people have feared about   pursuing in this career.”

Joining Ward at the podium in the recruitment seminar were Ayman Hammous and Oussama Jammal.  Hammous is the Executive Director of the New York chapter of MAS and Jammal is the president of the Mosque Foundation, a conservative mosque in Bridgeview, Illinois that gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Holy Land Foundation and other Islamic charities accused of financing terrorism.

News of the controversial allocation could not come at a worse time, on the heels of the brutal assassination of an American ambassador and his staff by al-Qaeda terrorists in Benghazi. It marked the first time in three and a half decades that a foreign ambassador got murdered abroad while representing the U.S. government.

The State Department deploys foreign diplomats and is responsible for their safety. In Libya the agency cut corners by hiring an unknown and inexperienced British firm rather than the larger, more reputable companies that are customarily used in overseas danger zones infested with hostile, anti-American Islamists. As a result, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on the mission are dead.  

While the State Department saved money on security in Libya, it somehow managed to find $5.6 million in 2011 to support “pressing cultural preservation needs” in dozens of foreign countries. Here are some of the dire projects funded by U.S. tax dollars that perhaps could be better spent on securing U.S. embassies in hostile Arab countries.

Uncle Sam doled out $750,000 to restore a 16^th-century tomb complex in India, $700,000 to conserve ruins in Tanzania, $600,000 for the “temple of the winged lions” in Jordan and $450,000 for the conservation of a 10^th century temple in Cambodia. Those were just the big ticket projects. Hundreds of thousands more went to smaller causes throughout the world.

For instance, the restoration of a 16^th century convent in Guatemala got $119,052 and an aqueduct in Mexico received $115,000 and the following three projects each got $100,000 from the State Department; a program to document endangered musical traditions in Mali, the restoration of a railroad station in Paraguay and a 19^th-century log house museum in Russia. Here is the list of all the allocations for 2011.

This is all part of the administration’s international diplomacy efforts, a cornerstone of the Obama presidency. Just last month the State Department launched a first-of-its-kind Diplomatic Culinary Partnership to “elevate the role of culinary engagement in America’s formal and public diplomacy efforts.” A new American Chef Corps has been created because Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claims that “culinary engagement” can “further intercultural dialogue and strengthen bilateral relationship.”

The new State Department initiative “will elevate the role of culinary engagement in America’s formal and public diplomacy efforts,” according to an agency announcement. This is taking international diplomacy efforts, a cornerstone of the Obama presidency, where they have never gone before; the kitchen.

In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged this week that food isn’t traditionally thought of as a diplomatic tool, though she pointed out that “sharing a meal can help people transcend boundaries and build bridges in a way that nothing else can.”  Then Clinton said that “culinary engagement” can “further intercultural dialogue and strengthen bilateral relationship.”

That’s why her agency created this innovative new tool. Chefs from across the country will be selected to participate in public diplomacy programs that engage foreign audiences abroad as well as those visiting the U.S. To accomplish this mission the State Department has created a new American Chef Corps that will compile a roster of cooks who will contribute their time and unique talents, not to mention their culturally diverse dishes.

This may seem like a bit much, even for a president who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Who could forget when Obama proudly presented the United Nations with his new international diplomacy model for the 21^st century?  

Then again, the president and his wife also seem to be obsessed with food. In 2010 Obama named the family’s personal Chicago cook, Sam Kass, “Senior Policy Adviser for Healthy Food Initiatives.” That means Kass, an expert in healthy cuisine, is the White House food czar. First Lady Michelle Obama refers to Kass as a “partner in crime.”

The president has also spent record amounts of taxpayer dollars to eradicate “food insecure households” by promoting food stamps and getting a record number of people—46 million and growing—to depend on them. The commander-in-chief also signed his wife’s $4.5 billion signature law to control the American diet under the auspice of ending childhood hunger in low-income neighborhoods.

This increases their “vulnerability to many climate impacts,” according to a State Department assessment posted on a web site dedicated to releasing all sorts of interesting government documents. In this case the information is outlined in a Gender and Climate Change Fact Sheet complied by USAID, the government agency that provides economic and humanitarian assistance worldwide.

The fact sheet mostly focuses on women in developing countries such as Africa, Bangladesh, Mexico, Peru and Ecuador. “Development experts,” presumably working for the U.S. government agency found, for instance, that in Africa men have greater access to radios. This puts women at a disadvantage because they’re more likely to hear forecasts and early warnings when delivered through extension workers. This is deep stuff.

Here is another example of how global warming hurts poor women more than any other demographic; in many societies women have the primary responsibility for collecting water and firewood and climate change exacerbates resource scarcity, forcing women and girls to travel farther to collect the supplies. This increases threats to their safety and negatively impacts other areas such as farming productivity and child care.

Uncle Sam’s gender disparity assessment also found this; because women are already vulnerable to “under nutrition” and have less access to medical services, they will suffer more because “changing temperatures alter vectors for diseases like malaria, higher sea-surface temperatures are correlated with cholera epidemics and more frequent droughts and floods will worsen sanitation and hygiene.”

Among the recommendations to help remedy this crisis is to “involve women in vulnerability assessments” and “incorporate gender considerations into national climate change strategies and regulations.” The government fact sheet doesn’t elaborate on what exactly this means or, more importantly, how much this will cost U.S. taxpayers.

This is simply the latest of many government alerts on the ills of global warming since Barack Obama became president. In the last few years the administration has released alarming reports saying that global warming could lead to a worldwide increase in mental illness, cancer and even sexual dysfunction and that it will make food “dangerous.” This, of course, will add to the malnourishment of millions worldwide.

Just a few months ago the taxpayer-funded National Science Foundation revealed that global warming is much worse than previously imagined because the ocean actually masks the true rate of damage for periods as long as a decade. Under this theory, the crisis is way more severe than what it appears because the sea is storing the heat that damages the earth, making it appear as if there is a sort of hiatus in climate change when there really isn’t.