Thread: Why are administration allies calling Bergdahl's comrades liars?

NWLN Interview: General Paul Vallely


Published on Jun 5, 2014 "Mosques are Trojan Horses..."

June 12, 2014

Bergdahl Revisited

By Elise Cooper


Although the Obama Administration would like the American people to think otherwise, this is not a story from the Homeland TV show where a U.S. POW comes home to a hero’s welcome. President Obama took a victory lap with Bowe Bergdahl’s parents at the White House while Susan Rice, the National Security advisor, said he served with “honor and distinction.” American Thinker interviewed three soldiers, an exclusive with the Battalion Commander Sergeant Major Kenneth Wolfe, retired specialist Cody Full, and a soldier currently fighting in Afghanistan. All served with Bergdahl and want to discuss the issues surrounding the returned POW.

After the Obama Administration tried to paint Bergdahl as a hero returning home, soldiers who served with him erupted in outrage, accusing him of desertion and suppressing the truth. Then the spin started: a State Department spokesperson suggested that those who came forward were not “credible witnesses;” an administration official called the troops who served with Bergdahl “psychopaths;” and just a few days ago an article in the New York Times referred to them as “raggedy misfits.” To set the story straight, those interviewed wanted Americans to know that they all disagree with these comments.

Sergeant Major Wolfe found it “incredibly distasteful that the outspoken soldiers were attacked. There were only two bad leaders in the whole platoon. Did we take action to remove those bad leaders? Yes. Was it a bad platoon. No. Were the six outspoken bad soldiers? Definitely not.”

Both Wolfe and Cody Full refer to a picture taken of the platoon by a British journalist. It shows some, including Bergdahl, dressed up as Lawrence of Arabia. The Sergeant Major felt that “the picture showed that the men in the 501st did not completely think through their decision. This picture showed them being cool instead of being smart.” Full disagrees, noting that they wanted to be literally “cool,” but only to avoid sunstoke. The picture itself was used in an effort to create an agenda, since none were taken of the soldiers working hard building bunkers and securing the perimeter.

What everyone interviewed can agree on is that Bergdahl is a deserter, and they are glad he was brought home so he could be tried for his actions. Full told American Thinker that they were stationed in a small observation outpost. It was not hard for Bergdahl to walk off since he would have known the weak spots in the perimeter, the guard rotations, and the limits of visibility. Wolfe pointed out that security is meant to keep people out, not in, and no one dreamed that anyone would want to walk away considering the dangerous territory.

Full would love to have a face to face with Bergdahl considering that, “He betrayed us. My fellow soldiers came from different backgrounds, religions, regions, and ethnicities but the one common bond we have is that we are all Americans wearing the American flag on our shoulder. We are brothers. What ever happens I should have their back and they should have mine. For him to abandon us really hurt, and he should be held responsible for his actions.” Wolfe finds it very interesting that not one person who served with Bergdahl has come forward to defend him or his actions and told American Thinker, “Bergdahl was a f---ing soldier for not doing his duty.” An active soldier who went on some missions and operations to find him agrees that he is glad Bergdahl is back home because, “we are trained not to leave anyone behind. But it does turn my stomach upside down that people have called him a hero.”

There is a discrepancy between those interviewed as to whether soldiers lost their lives in searching for this deserter. The active duty soldier and Full say that some were killed or injured in the line of duty while the Sergeant Major denies that fact. He claims that anyone killed in that region during that time period was on a different mission. None of those directly involved in the search mission were killed, although he is not sure if anyone was injured. He does acknowledge that a part of every mission included a search for Bergdahl. However, he emphasizes that he wants the families to understand they were not misled, that their sons did not die in a direct search for the deserter.

Full responded, “everything is circumstantial and unless you are there you don’t know the whole story, including any mitigating circumstances.” He relayed how the unit was told by the platoon sergeant that they were transferring out of the outpost just before Bergdahl deserted. “We were to turn the operation over to the Afghan Army. Since he abandoned us we had to stay in that area looking for him. It is cause and effect; had he not walked away we would not have been in that location and those missions where people died would not have happened. He indirectly had a hand in their deaths. There are others who support me.”

Wolfe differs, noting that nobody knew when control of that outpost would have been relinquished to the Afghan National Security Forces. The decision would have been made when the tactical situation on the ground dictated it, considering this area was crucial because the insurgents coming from Pakistan went right through the village of Mest. What he will concede is that for 37 days there were search teams looking for “this guy. They had to do it in the middle of summer, wearing all their gear. Besides the hardship to these soldiers the search distracted from the original assigned mission. It threw our campaign plan off and that sucked.” Full says he must agree to disagree with Wolfe since he knows what was told to him by his sergeant and that his platoon sergeant had to get his orders from somebody.

Even though there were different perspectives and perceptions regarding some of the facts surrounding this issue, one fact that is absolute is that no one believes Bergdahl is an honorable soldier. They consider him a deserter who must be punished. Sergeant Major Wolfe summarized it best, “748 people deployed and 747 did their job and supported their fellow soldiers. I love these boys.”

The author writes for American Thinker. She has done book reviews, author interviews, and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/...revisited.html

White House Deliberately Broke Law on Bergdahl Deal

By Onan Coca / 12 June 2014

In a recent (and classified) briefing to the House of Representatives on Monday, officials from the White House said that about 90 people had knowledge of the Bergdahl deal before it happened. However, the administration couldn’t know for sure who those 80-90 people were!

It’s a completely startling and terrifying turn of events, because it illustrates just how incompetent the White House really is. They claim to have been worried about leaks, which is why they didn’t inform ANYONE in Congress (though Harry Reid still says they told him)… but somehow they let 80 to 90 administration officials know… but they aren’t sure who those people are?

Does that make any sense at all?

How could they keep this thing secret if they don’t even know who actually knows about it? How could they keep this thing secret when they told 90 different people? How could they use the “possibility of leaks” as a reason to keep Congress in the dark, but they were willing to tell 80-90 bureaucratic pencil pushers? UNBELIEVEABLE.

Some in Congress can’t wrap their heads around it either.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon called that news "disturbing," partly because of the high number who knew and partly because the White House has been saying it didn't inform Congress until after the swap was made because it feared Bergdahl's life might be in danger if there had been a leak.

"My question to them was, if you don't know who knew, then how could you – if a leak had happened and the sergeant had been killed – how could you go back and find out who leaked?" McKeon said.

"It strikes me as unfortunate that they could have 80 to 90 people in the administration aware of what was happening and not be able to trust a single Republican or Democrat in the House or the Senate," Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, a member of the House of Representatives Republican leadership, told reporters after leaving a briefing on the exchange.

It wasn’t just Republicans who are upset about the entire fiasco. Many Democrats seem to be as well.

Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, declined to offer a defense of the administration when offered the chance by CNN's Ashleigh Banfield.
"It didn't sit very well with those of us who were listening at the briefing," Schiff said of the news that so many administration staffers knew of the decision ahead of time.

"And the fact that there were so many people within the know in the administration doesn't help their case," Schiff added.

He also pointed out that more leaks have come from the administration than from Congress.

Schiff echoed a growing number of Democrats unhappy with Obama. The National Journal's Ron Fournier says he has been receiving a number of emails from Democrats saying they don't like the way Obama is handling things. The controversial Bergdahl release is just the latest issue to set them off.

Sadly, it seems that the American public may be growing desensitized to the continuous flow of scandal from the White House. (Maybe that’s their plan – inundate us with so many scandals we can’t even see the scandals anymore?) Recent polls seem to suggest that Obama is plateauing and that his poll numbers have stabilized to a new, very bad, normal. (Or Maybe they’re about to drop some more?)

I guess Democrats will continue to support him, even if they think he’s terrible too.

Read more at http://eaglerising.com/6725/white-ho...XKkW3jgXYGr.99

BREAKING: Twins Say Bergdahl’s ‘Mr. Holy Muslim Dad’ Is A Peeping Tom Freak Boy

By Clash Daily / 13 June 2014



According to the Daily Mail, police reports have been obtained revealing that Bob Bergdahl, Bowe Bergdahl’s father, was ‘stalking’ two twin sisters, which included some strange behavior like stealing a lawn gnome and watching them while they were showering. See below:

The father of embattled POW Bowe Bergdahl, who landed on US soil today, waged a sinister campaign of stalking and harassment against pretty twin sisters – even stealing a gnome from their garden and peaking at them in the shower, the sisters claim in shocking police reports.

Bearded Robert ‘Bob’ Bergdahl drove by the home of Lacey and Allie Hillman ‘several times a day’ over a period of months and left ‘creepy’ notes for them, the sisters allege in police documents, obtained exclusively by MailOnline.

Once Bergdahl banged on Allie’s door and accused her of ‘two-timing’ him – despite the fact that the pair never dated or were even friends, Allie told police.
…
The newly obtained police documents reveal the Hillman sisters’ claims that Sgt Bergdahl’s father regularly ‘harassed’ the Hillman them for four-and-a-half months until they plucked up the courage to report him to police.
…

Bergdahl, whose bearded appearance and apparent sympathy for his son’s captors have earned him criticism from some quarters, allegedly began stalking the twins in June 2011 – two years after his son Bowe was captured by the Taliban, the police records show.

Blond Allie, who was then aged 28, told police that her sister Lacey saw the 51-year-old in their home town of Hailey, Idaho, when he asked her ‘if something was missing’ from her yard.

She ignored him and walked away – but Allie later noticed that a small gnome was indeed missing from the garden.
Read more: Daily Mail

Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/06/breaking-twins-say-bergdahls-mr-holy-muslim-dad-peeping-tom-freak-boy/#IHeIkylmq6gppDme.99

Monday, 16 June 2014 13:00 Bergdahl’s Captors Armed and Funded by U.S. Taxpayers

Written by Alex Newman






While many questions remain unanswered surrounding the reported kidnapping of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, one crucial fact overlooked by the establishment media is not debatable: The Taliban-aligned Haqqani network that held him is closely linked with the Pakistani government’s intelligence agency, which in turn has been a close ally of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Indeed, the Islamist terror group has at various points been openly supported by the CIA and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) since it was founded with U.S. government backing in the mid-1970s — and top American officials know it.

Based on news reports, it appears that Bergdahl was first seized by the Afghan Taliban in the summer of 2009. Those jihadists then reportedly passed him off to the Haqqani network, which operates in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal areas. Bergdahl was held for about five years before negotiations between the Obama administration and the terror group ended with a prisoner swap that has stirred a firestorm of controversy. Five Taliban officials held in Guantanamo were exchanged for Bergdahl. Some reports, based on comments by officials, suggest money may have been involved as well.
Numerous unresolved questions remain: Did Bergdahl abandon his post? Did he convert to Islam and declare jihad? Was he on drugs when he allegedly walked off his base in Afghanistan? According to an e-mail he allegedly sent to his parents before disappearing, reported by the late journalist Michael Hastings, Bergdahl had become extremely disillusioned with the U.S. military and the mission in Afghanistan in particular. “The horror that is america is disgusting,” he reportedly wrote in the message to his parents.


Lost amid all the outrage over whether the Obama administration negotiating with terrorists was unlawful or even treasonous, however, have been the known facts about the Haqqani network and the bigger picture. The Islamist outfit was founded by the Haqqani family in the mid-1970s in Afghanistan. Under the guise of countering the Soviet occupation of that nation, the Haqqani network received strong support from the CIA via Pakistan’s ISI. Among other assistance, the U.S. government delivered funding, weapons, and training to the Islamists — supposedly to help them defeat the Soviet Union’s invasion and attempted enslavement of Afghanistan.
Of course, Haqqani was not the only group of radical Islamists in the region developed in conjunction with the CIA and the Pakistani government at the expense of other, more reasonable anti-communist forces. Other beneficiaries of U.S. largesse included the Taliban and al Qaeda, both allied with the Haqqani network. It is now common knowledge — admitted openly even by establishment figures such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — that the U.S. government and its allies largely built the Mujahedin in the region. From providing advanced military training and radical Islamic “education” to stinger missiles and heavy weaponry, the globalist establishment in Washington, D.C., with help from Islamabad, was literally responsible for creating the alleged Islamist threat facing the world today.
In recent years, senior U.S. officials have been openly lambasting the ISI’s ongoing support for Haqqani, which has thousands of fighters and was formally declared to be a terrorist group by the U.S. government in 2012. During 2011 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, for example, then-U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen dropped several bombshells shortly before retiring. “The Haqqani network ... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency,” he told lawmakers, adding that the operatives who had recently conducted several high-profile attacks on U.S. troops and the American embassy in Kabul did so “with ISI support.”
Ironically, though, while refusing to mention it directly, Mullen then hinted at something that, if explained, would undoubtedly leave Americans outraged. “In choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy the government of Pakistan, and most especially the Pakistani army and ISI, jeopardizes … the prospect of our strategic partnership,” Mullen continued. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta echoed those comments, calling for the U.S. government to apply “pressure” on Islamabad over the issue of financing and supporting Haqqani and other radical Islamists.
In other words, because the ISI and the Pakistani military are backing a group that is attacking and killing U.S. troops and personnel, America “might” have to reconsider its extensive support for the Pakistani government. Already one of the U.S. government’s top recipients of foreign aid — including billions in military aid — critics, officials, lawmakers, and analysts said Islamabad has essentially been using American taxpayer funds to attack U.S. interests. The year before Mullen’s testimony, for example, the Pakistani government received almost $5 billion in U.S. aid. Even after the ongoing support for Haqqani was openly exposed, Obama was lobbying to increase the aid budget for Islamabad. By 2013, after a brief hiatus, billions were again flowing.
Aside from funding Haqqani indirectly via the ISI and Islamabad, the U.S. government has also been funneling taxpayer funds to its supposed Islamist enemies in Afghanistan more directly. Last summer, for instance, a report by the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) exposed the fact that dozens of “supporters of the Taliban, the Haqqani network, and al Qaeda” were on the U.S. military’s payroll for various “government contracts.” The report recommended immediately severing all ties with the forces battling U.S. troops, but the military refused, citing, ironically, “due process rights.”
“I am deeply troubled that the U.S. military can pursue, attack, and even kill terrorists and their supporters, but that some in the U.S. government believe we cannot prevent these same people from receiving a government contract,” observed SIGAR lead inspector John Sopko. “I feel such a position is not only legally wrong, it is contrary to good public policy and contrary to our national security goals in Afghanistan.... I continue to urge you to change this faulty policy and enforce the rule of common sense in the Army’s suspension and debarment program.”
Indeed, brazen U.S. government funding for its supposed enemies in Afghanistan has been an ongoing problem. A 2011 U.S. military report into American taxpayer funding for the Taliban, led by then-U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, revealed at least $360 million in U.S. funds flowing to insurgents in the war. In all, hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars supposedly allocated for “reconstruction” and other government contracts — maybe more — have ended up funding the insurgency in Afghanistan; the same insurgency that the U.S. government has ordered American troops to fight and die against.
After almost a decade of fighting the Taliban and other forces in Afghanistan, though, the Obama administration shocked the world in late 2010 by announcing that the Taliban were no longer enemies. Instead, Obama said, they would be welcome in the Afghan government provided they rejected al-Qaeda — another U.S. government creation, along with its purported mastermind, Osama bin Laden, who was funded, armed, and trained by Western governments throughout the 1980s.
More recently, the Obama administration has, according to analysts, “switched sides” in the terror war. In Libya, for example, under the purported authority of the United Nations, NATO and the U.S. government became allies with multiple known al-Qaeda organizations such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. The supposed goal was to oust former U.S. terror-war ally Muammar Gadhafi from power. After succeeding, Islamic radicals armed and trained by the Obama administration — including many of the same individuals and organizations that had been fighting U.S. forces for a decade — seized power in Tripoli. Now, what remains of the nation is again engulfed in civil war.
In Syria, meanwhile, Obama has also been backing an al-Qaeda-linked insurgency to depose another former U.S. terror-war ally, the Assad regime. Over the last week, many of those same jihadists benefiting from Western and Arab aid have been flooding into Iraq, seizing control of multiple cities and towns and still pushing toward Baghdad. In the Iraqi capital, the new regime installed after the U.S. invasion and occupation is now closely allied with the Islamic regime in Tehran — another supposed U.S. government enemy that the establishment apparently wants to obliterate.
If all of that sounds insane and even criminal, it should. Rather than admitting “error” and begging for forgiveness, however, the Obama administration and the establishment have continued to shower weapons and taxpayer funding on radical Islamists across the Middle East — all while purporting to fight them at the same time. The solution, however, is not picking a different faction, terror group, or dictator to support or overthrow. Instead, Congress should cut off all foreign aid, restrain the Obama administration, obey the Constitution, and pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention as recommended by the Founding Fathers.

^{Video image at top, obtained via AP from Voice Of Jihad Website, shows Taliban guarding Bergdahl in vehicle: AP Images}

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.
Related articles:
Bergdahl, Gitmo Detainees, and the Rule of Law
U.S. Funding Attacks on Americans via Pakistan
In Iraq, U.S. Foreign Policy and Obama’s “Rebels” Strike Again
Bin Laden & Al-Qaeda: U.S. Govt. Creations
Mainstream Media Finally Reports on U.S. Funding of Terror
Military Report: 360 Million Funded U.S. Enemies, Including Taliban
Obama: U.S. Waged Afghan War Incorrectly for Years, Taliban Now Welcome
Christian Massacres: A Result of U.S. Foreign Policy
Libya: Now What?
Under “Democracy,” Iraqi Christians Face Potential Extinction
After Obama/UN “Liberation,” Libya Collapsing Into Civil War

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...44cc-287785873

U.S. public erupts over Obama's Bergdahl swap

'There is evidence that president has put the country at risk'

Published: 18 hours ago



Editor’s note: This is another in a series of “WND/WENZEL POLLS” conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.


Fifty-four percent of Americans say Barack Obama’s deal to swap five Taliban leaders for a detained U.S. soldier in the Middle East amounts to providing aid to terrorists – a violation of federal law – according to a new poll
.
That result is just one of the factors that reveals a deep outrage across America over the deal through which Obama freed five terrorists who had been confined at Guantanamo Bay as too dangerous to release in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, whose platoon-mates say he actually deserted his Army post before being taken by the Taliban.

The results are from a national survey of registered voters by Wenzel Strategies. It was conducted June 12-14 and has a margin of error of 3.95 percentage points.

“The country’s disapproval of the Obama prisoner exchange likely stems from the fact that they feel the national security of the U.S. should always trump the health and safety of one soldier,” said Fritz Wenzel, of Wenzel Strategies.

He continued, “And there is evidence in the survey data that Obama has put the country at risk with this trade.

“We offered respondents two chances to answer this question with a slight change in nuance. In one question, we posed it as Sgt. Bergdahl simply being held as a hostage, and in the second instance, we added language that highlighted his walking away from his post prior to his being taken captive, but respondents didn’t seem to care. In both instances, they said the security of the nation should take preeminence over the life of one soldier.”

The results had 78 percent of respondents stating that the security of the nation was more important than Bergdahl’s security, with not even 22 percent taking the opposite stance. Even 65 percent of Democrats held that majority position.

Wenzel also noted a powerful sentiment against Obama’s decision to take the action without notifying Congress, which also is required by the law.

“There is considerably anger over the flouting of U.S. law in Obama’s not notifying Congress about this deal-making before the trade took place,” he said. “Nearly two-thirds – 64 percent – said they disagree with the White House’s decision to go it alone on making the deal.

“Disagreement with Obama on this point is intense, as 54 percent said they ‘strongly disagree’ with the White House’s decision to keep Congress in the dark. This after almost two weeks in which the White House has executed a campaign to discredit the trustworthiness of Congress on such sensitive matters, a factor that leads one to conclude that Americans are not buying what the White House is selling,” he said.

“What is more is that a majority of Americans – 54 percent – said they think the Obama hostage deal amounts to Obama’s providing aid to a terrorist organization – the Taliban – by making the exchange. And on this point, even a majority of Democrats agree, as 50 percent said they agreed the trade did aid the Taliban, compared to 40 percent of Democrats who disagreed with that sentiment,” Wenzel said.

“Among Republicans, 62 percent said they agreed Obama had provided aid to terrorists. Gender differences are interesting on this question, as 57 percent of men said Obama had aided terrorists, while just 50 percent of women said the same thing. More blacks agreed (44 percent) with the sentiment than disagreed with it (35 percent), with the balance undecided on the question.”

He explained that the White House undoubtedly “expected this Bergdahl exchange to get the VA scandal off the front pages, and it has certainly done that, but not in the way the White House probably expected. Instead of being a bright and shining example of Obama’s skill on the world stage, the WND/Wenzel poll shows it is seen by a majority of Americans as a significant mistake – 60 percent of all registered voters nationally disagreed with Obama’s five-to-one trade to get the soldier back.

“As has been the case since the start of his second term, independent voters are strongly against the trade, as 65 percent said they oppose it. It is not surprising that just 14 percent of Republicans supported the exchange. Among Democrats, 64 percent said they agreed with the White House deal with the Taliban.”

The public has come to see the situation as an “ill-advised capitulation to a terrorist group,” he said.

“What the White House failed to do here, based on these poll findings, is to control this story from the outset. There is no way that, once having launched this story into the mainstream consciousness with its own Rose Garden ceremony, they could have stopped the media from covering the subsequent fallout,” he said.

There’s not a good outcome for the Obama administration, he suggested.

“The die has largely been cast on this as a serious foreign policy blunder, reinforced by the thought that these five Taliban leaders may well come back to haunt the U.S. much the way Obama’s walkaway from Iraq is also now blooming into a disaster of epic proportions.
“For a man who came into office promising to unite the world and heal old wounds, the meltdown in the Middle East must be disturbing to even Obama’s staunchest supporters. This survey shows the American public has lost all confidence in his leadership abroad, and that they are growing less and less likely to trust his judgment – if not his version of the facts.”

See detailed results of survey questions:
The return of U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for the release and return to the Middle East of five high-level leaders of the Taliban has triggered a great deal of controversy across the country. How familiar are you with this news story that has developed over the past week or so?

Do you agree or disagree with President Obama’s decision to release the five high-level Taliban leaders in exchange for Army Sergeant Bergdahl?

If you HAD TO CHOOSE, which do you think is more important for the president to be concerned about – the health and safety of one U.S. soldier held as a hostage in Afghanistan, or the national security of the country?

If you HAD TO CHOOSE, which do you think is more important for the president to be concerned about – the health and safety of one U.S. soldier who walked away from his post and was subsequently kidnapped in Afghanistan, or the national security of the country?

President Obama did not consult with Congress before ordering the release of the Taliban leaders – as required by U.S. law – because, the president said, he was fearful for the health and safety of Sergeant Bergdahl. Knowing this about why Obama took the action he did, do you agree or disagree that Obama was justified in ignoring the law and bypassing Congress in releasing the Taliban leaders?

There is another federal law that prohibits any U.S. citizen from providing aid to a terrorist organization. The U.S. government has classified the Taliban as a terrorist organization. Knowing this, do you agree or disagree that Obama’s action to return five high-level Taliban leaders to the Middle East amounts to his providing aid to a terrorist organization?

Members of his own unit say Sergeant Bergdahl had expressed disgust for the United States mission in Afghanistan, had written of wanting to renounce his U.S. citizenship, and had walked away from his post in Afghanistan before he was captured by enemy forces and held for five years. Knowing this, are you more or less likely to support Obama’s decision to release the five high-level Taliban leaders in exchange for Army Sergeant Bergdahl?

Do you believe that President Obama knew about the allegations from his own unit members that Sergeant Bergdahl walked away from his post and of his desire to renounce his U.S. citizenship BEFORE he decided to release five high-level Taliban leaders in exchange for Bergdahl’s freedom?

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/u-s-publi...AGXvuuXUhPu.99

US District Court Put on Notice of Obama’s Treason Following Bergdahl Trade

Tim Brown June 16, 2014

On Friday, California Attorney Orly Taitz put US District Court Judge Ellen L. Hollander on notice of Barack Hussein Obama's treason following the release of five top Taliban jihadists in an illegal prisoner trade for an American deserter, Bowe Bergdahl.

Attorney Taitz has been involved with Judge Hollander in a case to expose the fraudulent use of a Social Security number by Barack Obama. Many question whether Judge Hollander will pursue this matter seriously, considering that she was appointed by Obama in 2010.
On Friday, Taitz not only filed the notice (civil docket #: 1:13-cv-01878-ELH) in the District of Maryland, but also talked about the issue on KABC radio, explaining how Social Security number 042-68-4425, which is from Connecticut and belongs to Harry Bounel, but has been used by Obama to file his tax returns. This, in conjunction with the use of fraudulent ID's and the appeasement of America's enemies, indicates that there is a usurper in the White House and that his actions are not in the interests of the United States.

In her emergency motion, Orly Taitz stated:

NOTICE OF TREASON COMMITTED BY THE HOLDER OF THE STOLEN CONNECTICUT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER xxx-xx-4425 OF HARRY BOUNEL, RISK TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

MOTION TO EXPEDITE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, EXPEDITE RELASE OF THE SS-5 TO SSN XXX-XX-4425 OF HARRY BOUNEL FRAUDULENTLY ASSUMED BY BARRY

SOETORO, AKA BARRY SOEBARKAH, AKA BARACK OBAMA.

MOTION TO EXPEDIENTLY FORWARD TO THE FEDERAL GRAND JURY UNDER 18 USC 3332 OR ORDER BY THE COURT TO THE US ATTORNEY TO FORWARD TO THE FEDERAL

GRAND JURY EVIDENCE OF OBAMA'S USE OF A STOLEN CT SSN XX-XX-4425 AND BOGUS IDS, AS WELL AS RECENT ACT OF TREASON BY OBAMA, AKA SOETORO, AKA SOEBARKAH.

Taitz defined treason as 18 U.S. Code § 2381 does:

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

I have previously defined treason, using merely the US Constitution and provided the evidence as to Obama's treason on the basis of his aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood jihadist organization.

In her motion, Taitz provided the background of Khairulla Khairkhwa as a top Taliban leader, who was transferred to the control of Qatar along with five others earlier this month. She then wrote in her notice, "So, if the US District Court Senior Judge, Royce C. Lambeth, who was overseeing the case after resignation of Judge Urbina, wanted to stay this release due to prior finding of threat to national security, this could not have been done, since Obama notified the court four days after he sent the detainee to sunbathe in Qatar. Similarly, Obama did not provide 30 day notification to the US Congress, which was required under 2014 NDAA, so the two co-equal branches of the US government were not able to stop this egregious act of treason and this transfer which greatly endangered US National security. Consequently, Taliban commanders made statements that this release was equal to gaining 10,000 Taliban fighters."

"It is further noteworthy that Obama did not title the document as a release from GITMO, but titled is as a transfer," Taitz continued. "Further, the name of the detainee was written differently from the name in the caption in the case, which made it difficult to find the document. In the caption the first name of the detainee is Khairulla. In the release, titled as transfer, the first name was divided into two names: 'KHAI ULLA.' Moreover, two middle names, which were not in the original caption were inserted: 'SAID WALI.' So the original name from the caption in the case 'Khairulla Khairkhwa' looked completely different 'KHAIR ULLA SAID WALI KHAIRKHWA.' Plaintiff believes that it was done to obfuscate the record."

Mrs. Taitz also informed the court that the actions of Obama, "greatly encouraged and invigorated jihadists and Taliban fighters took over the airport in Karachi and murdered 12. Five US soldiers were killed reportedly with stinger missile, jihadists groups went into offensive and took over the whole area between central Syria to central Iraq and took over Mosul and Tiqrit. This caused fleeing by 500,000 refuges and the jihadist army is now rapidly closing in on the capital of Iraq, Bagdad. Based on all of the above over 4,000 lives of the US soldiers lost in operation 'Iraqi Freedom,' were lost in vain, not mentioning 68,000 soldiers, who were severely wounded, paralyzed, lost limbs and became disabled for life."

Therefore, Taitz has requested that the court expedite a motion for reconsideration and release of the information pertinent to the Social Security number of Harry Bounel that has been assumed by Obama, and to forward to the federal grand jury, under 18 USC 3332 the evidence of Obama's use of a stolen Connecticut Social Security number, as well as bogus IDs.

Acting Director of the Social Security Administration Carolyn Colvin, is the defendant in the case and apparently is unwilling to deal with the apparent fraud in her federal agency, with regard to the occupant of the White House.

Mrs. Taitz's case has been so compelling, it has led California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher to question why Obama doesn't have valid IDs and Social Security number. Meanwhile, Taitz also joined others on Saturday in protesting Obama during his commencement speech at Anaheim stadium for University of California at Irvine students.

While Taitz works the legal angle, most of the members of Congress have failed to do their do their duty, and in some cases quite arrogantly. There are even claims that have surfaced by members of the media that claim conservatives even kept a lid on Obama's ineligibility out of fear of their government and some politicians who wouldn't pursue the matter because of "future political aspirations."

UPDATE: A Reader provided the court's ruling in the matter, which I did not previously have. Here is Judge Hollander's ruling.
In it, she writes:

"Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion” and the various forms of relief requested therein will be denied. It has literally no relation to plaintiff’s case in this Court. Instead, plaintiff uses the motion to attack President Obama for recent actions he has taken in his capacity as President of the United States. Needless to say, plaintiff’s disagreement with President Obama’s presidential decision-making does not provide support for her allegation that the SSA’s response to her FOIA request was inadequate."

She then concludes, "For the reasons stated previously, and for the reasons expressed here, the Court will grant the Motion to Expedite, will deny the “Emergency Motion” in all other respects, and will deny the Motion for Reconsideration. A separate Order follows."

Hollander seems to show some prejudice in the matter as she claims Taitz took the time to attack Obama in his capacity as President. However, everyone knows, including those in his own party that the transfer of top Taliban leaders, apart from notifying Congress, is not "in his capacity as President," but is a violation of law. What does that have to do with the case of the Social Security number? To be fair they are two different things. However, consider that if Obama is willing to break the law in aiding and abetting the enemies of America, does anyone seriously think he would have an issue with falsifying documents in order to obtain the highest office in the land? I think not.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/or...MvB4dO3fIwQ.99

Saturday, May 31, 2014

UPDATE 6/2 - Questions Arise About Sgt. Bergdahl Release; Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is Free

By Chris Good
@c_good
Follow on Twitter

Good news for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who I have previously posted about in this blog. After 5 years, the United States has obtained his release from the Taliban in Afghanistan. We released 5 GITMO prisoners to obtain his freedom.

(Note Update: I corrected his rank from Pfc to Sgt. The previous articles listed him as Pfc.)


Via: ABC News

In Prisoner Exchange, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl Released After Nearly 5 Years in Taliban Captivity

May 31, 2014 12:56pm



(Credit: U.S. Army/AP Photo)

WASHINGTON — Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has been released after nearly five years of Taliban captivity, President Obama announced today.
“On behalf of the American people, I was honored to call his parents to express our joy that they can expect his safe return, mindful of their courage and sacrifice throughout this ordeal,” Obama said in a written statement released this afternoon.
Bergdahl was discovered missing from his unit in Afghanistan in June 2009. He was declared to have been captured by the Taliban soon after.
His freedom was secured in exchange for the release of five prisoners from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, according to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who said on Saturday that Bergdahl is now under the care of the U.S. military.
Read More...


UPDATE 6/2/14:


Since the release of Sgt. Bergdahl, stories are being released bringing into doubt his allegiance to America. There are more questions as to whether or not Mr. Obama had the right to release 5 dangerous GITMO detainees for Sgt. Beregdahl's release without notifying Congress. I've linked to all the stories from The Drudge Report that I could find.

This is very disturbing.

Bergdahl: 'I am ashamed to be an American'...

'The title of US soldier is just the lie of fools'

'The horror that is America is disgusting'...

Resentment lingers among POW's peers...

CHARGE: Soldiers died searching for 'deserter'...

RICE: Bergdahl Served With 'Honor and Distinction'...


DID O BREAK THE LAW?

Five of Most Dangerous Taliban Commanders in U.S. Custody Exchanged for American Captive...

Terror suspects were labeled 'high risk'...

Deal Could Be First Step to Emptying Gitmo...

Taliban Hails 'Great Victory'...

Soldier allegedly abandoned his post after growing disillusioned with war...

The bizarre tale of America’s last known POW

http://tclblogger.blogspot.com/






FaceBook Bans Conservative Lady For ET Williams Video




Posted on 19 June, 2014 by AmyElizabeth

Thank you E.T. Williams!! We love you here!! Rock On!!

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/06/1...illiams-video/

The Illegal Bergdahl Swap and Incoherent Foreign Policy

Aug. 22, 2014


Bergdahl

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a damning report Thursday regarding Barack Obama’s infamous prisoner swap – five Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl. As we argued at the time, the swap was a political charade that was detrimental to national security by setting a dangerous precedent, and it was pure dereliction of duty by the commander in chief. GAO now says it was illegal.
Obama violated the legal requirement that the Executive Branch give Congress 30 days' notice on any negotiated release of a Gitmo prisoner. But he claimed his executive prerogative superseded the requirement and that his “signing statement” accompanying the 2013 Defense Authorization Act served as his bypass authority.
GAO disagrees with the president’s claim. Additionally, GAO said, “[B]ecause DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation.” The mission to complete the deal reportedly cost $988,400.
Naturally, the Obama administration still insists its actions were lawful. But this administration cares nothing for Rule of Law, opting instead to do whatever is politically expedient.
As an example of the bad precedent, take the case of James Foley. In addition to a $132 million ransom, ISIL reportedly sought a prisoner swap in that case as well, and they are collecting hostages for such deals with us and other countries.
Incredibly, the National Security Council responded to such a proposal, saying, “[The U.S.] does not grant concessions to hostage takers. … Doing so would only put more Americans at risk of being taken captive.” Yet the administration deviated from that common sense notion with the Bergdahl swap. Was Bergdahl’s life more valuable than Foley’s? If so, why?
Speaking of Foley’s murder by ISIL, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Thursday the Justice Department would investigate. “Those who would perpetrate such acts need to understand something,” Holder said. “This Department of Justice, this Department of Defense, this nation – we have long memories and our reach is very wide. We will not forget what happened and people will be held accountable one way or the other.”
Evidently, Holder and his cohorts remember only what life was like before 9/11, when terrorism was treated solely as a criminal concern and not an act of war. But Holder is just taking a cue from his boss, who repeatedly boasted he “decimated” al-Qaida when all he did was quit fighting, allowing al-Qaida to regroup as ISIL. Now ISIL is stronger than ever.
In fact, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned Thursday that ISIL is “beyond just a terrorist group” and “beyond anything that we’ve seen.” Why, then, is the Justice Department taking such a prominent role in responding to ISIL’s barbarous murders? Maybe it’s because the president still views them as the “JV team.”
Meanwhile, ISIL says it’s at war with the U.S., but State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf insisted Thursday that we’re not at war with ISIL. “This is not about ISIL versus the United States,” she said. “They are killing anyone who gets in their way: Sunnis, Shia Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, Iraqis, Syrians – anyone who gets in their way – and now an American. … They are at war with everybody they come into contact with.” So they’re not at war with the U.S. because they’re at war with everybody?
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said ISIL “will eventually have to be defeated,” which will almost certainly entail countering them in Syria as well as Iraq – “both sides of what is essentially at this point a nonexistent border.” Our own nonexistent border is also a problem, Dempsey warned – “because of open borders and immigration issues, [ISIL is] an immediate threat.”
But Obama asserted that ISIL will “ultimately fail” because it “has no place in the 21st century,” as if time itself will end the threat.
To summarize the positions of the Justice, Defense and State Departments, ISIL is a criminal enterprise posing a serious military threat that we must counter, though ISIL will fail because of history and we’re not at war with them anyway. And all that was said just Thursday.
Such baffling incoherence in White House policy is itself a clear threat to our national security. And that’s not to mention the erratic and detached behavior of the golfer in chief. The bottom line is that Obama’s foreign policy malfeasance is going to cost us dearly.
Finally, on a related note, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan did their first joint interview since 2012 Thursday critiquing Obama’s foreign policy. “I believe the president has made extraordinary errors with regards to the Middle East that contribute to the growth of ISIS and the danger that it represents to us and to the world,” Romney said. “And one of those things was not putting in place a status of forces agreement that would allow us to have troops in Iraq. The president has a foreign policy which has failed. … He underestimated the extent of the threat of terror in the world and specifically ISIS. And as a result now we find ourselves facing a very severe and horrific series of scenes on the world stage.”
The sight of the two together certainly drove home what our nation is sorely missing right now – presidential leadership.



http://patriotpost.us/articles/28455

Army Will Release Findings of Bergdahl Investigation After 'Lengthy' Review Process



by Edwin Mora 13 Oct 2014

The U.S. Army will make public the results of its investigation into Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s alleged desertion of a base in Afghanistan and subsequent capture by Taliban militants in 2009.

A Pentagon spokesperson clarified that, contrary to various media reports, the U.S. Army will release a report by Brig. Gen. Kenneth Dahl, the investigating officer, but only after a review process that will assess the accuracy of the findings is completed. It is uncertain when that will be.

Gen. Dahl has completed and submitted what an Army statement referred to as “the initial report” of the branch's review of the Bergdahl disappearance from his post and later capture by the Taliban.
In that statement, the Army acknowledged receiving Gen. Dahl's report, adding that it is being reviewed by commanders, the San Antonio Express-News reported on October 9.
Breitbart News obtained the statement in its entirety from Wayne Hall, an Army spokesman in the Pentagon.
Nowhere in the statement does the Army specifically say it will not make the findings of the investigation public.
The Army did mention, however, that the process will be “lengthy” and that it is premature to “speculate on the potential results or the amount of time the review process will take to complete."
“The Army is in receipt of the initial report and reviewing it. As we stressed at on the onset, this will be a lengthy process conducted in accordance with applicable laws, regulation and policy,” said the Army in the statement.
“We recognize the importance of the media and the public understanding of our investigative process, and look forward to future discussions on this issue,” it continued. “However, the Army's priority is ensuring that our process is thorough, factually accurate, impartial, and legally correct. Consequently, at this time, it would be inappropriate to speculate on the potential results or the amount of time the review process will take to complete.”
The Army is investigating assertions that Bergdahl deserted his post in Afghanistan before falling into the hands of the Taliban, which kept him captive for five years. Men who served in Sgt. Bergdahl's unit have said he deserted his post.
If Bergdahl is found to have deserted or gone AWOL (Absent Without Leave) prior to being captured than he could be punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The Obama administration orchestrated and executed Bergdahl’s release in exchange for five senior Taliban commanders that at the time were being detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba.
The swap ignited criticism by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
Some defense officials have admitted that the Taliban commanders, commonly known as the Taliban five, would return to the battle and fight against the United States.
In August, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’ watchdog arm, reported that Obama’s Pentagon violated the law by swapping the Taliban detainees for Sgt. Bergdahl.
The GAO concluded that Obama’s Pentagon violated the law “because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer” as mandated and for using “appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose.”
The White House cited Bergdahl’s dire physical condition in defending its decision not to notify Congress.
In justifying the swap, the Obama administration also said that Bergdahl’s life would have been in danger if information of the exchange was leaked.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...&utm_term=More