Bergdahl: Barack Obama Ended Up Wrong About This One Too

By Steve Bowers
Does it seem to you that everything Obama does is 1) wrong-headed, 2) illegal, 3) ineffectual, 4) amateurish, 5) ill-informed, 6) self-promoting, 7) un-American, 8) harmful, 9) incomprehensible, 10) unconstitutional, 11) lame, 12) dumb, 13) really dumb, 14) all of the above?
Good. So it isn’t just me.
Just when I thought he might be showing some initiative and maybe doing something (albeit illegal) to assist an American serviceman in captivity…and before I heard the details of his actions, he almost looked like that “stopped clock, which is right twice a day.”
Swapping one serviceman for five of the worst terrorists in Gitmo is a bad idea, bad math and not in the best tradition of hard-nosed negotiating.
The swap is illegal and a bad idea.
The swap breaks the lawful policy of never negotiating with terrorists, which is a bad idea.

The swap tells terrorists America is weak and willing to go to any length to retrieve Americans the terrorists have grabbed off the street, shoved into a van at the local mall or lured off a playground with candy or a new I-pod phone (you notice the “grabbing” doesn’t happen to Marines or soldiers in combat), which is a very bad idea.
In spite of the foregoing dumb and weak aspects of Obama’s 1/5 Swap, I was at least willing to admit his heart might be in the right place in desiring to procure the release of an American soldier held in captivity by terrorists. But then I learned the American soldier had deserted his post to go over to the terrorist warlords. He was also probably drunk at the time. He had made statements critical of America. (OK, America isn’t perfect. This is not an earth-shattering revelation, but to keep things in perspective for the “low-info” folks among us, would you rather be imprisoned in our “worst” prison (arguendo; Gitmo) or in some squalid hell-hole wondering every day if this is the day when some semi-literate, un-soaped, bearded miscreant decides he will display his macho side by beheading you on camera with a big dull knife. Which is better?) (If you hesitated even for a moment trying to decide the correct answer posed in the previous parenthetical, you are too stupid to be reading this. In fact, I’m surprised you can read.)
Next, I learned other American soldiers had been killed during attempts to locate and free the drunken traitorous soldier and my brain returned to the correct default setting for Obama…number 14) all of the above.

Bergdahl And The Talibanimals

Bad advice from a worse source. Harry Reid sings a familiar tune. And, the worst trade since the ’80s. All this, plus, pumping “iron.” Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest^™! 

The Magical World Of Political Speech

by Bob Livingston 
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” – George Orwell
I keep the above George Orwell quote near me at all times. It serves as a reminder to me to decipher political speech whenever I see or hear it.
Political speech contains magical properties. It mesmerizes the masses because it is more illusory than a David Copperfield grand finale.
But political speech is dangerous. While it sounds innocuous, it is as deadly as a bear trap hidden beneath the leaves or a siren singing her song. It can grab you suddenly, or it can ensnare you subtly. Either way, you learn too late that you have been conned and there is no escape.
The magic of political speech is not happenstance. There are change agents at work in the inner sanctums of power whose job it is to create special words and phrases that are used in political speech. Those words and phrases are repeated over and over by the elites in order to dumb us down and create a conditioned response.

The process of dumbing down and the conditioning of the mind to create a nation of good, obedient subjects loyal and subservient to political authority and to the legitimacy of the political order begins early on. We are now several generations into the plan by the elites to create a Nation of state-worshiping ignoramuses taught pseudo-history and inculcated with a loyalty to and dependence upon big government. For many — if not most — of the Nation’s young people below the age of 25, government provided them with most of their meals while the majority of their days were spent submitting to government authority figures (teachers/principals/school officers) in rigid, structured environments that dissuade original thought.
Also aiding the elites and politicians in this effort is an army of “journalists” who never stray far from the official line of the State apparatus. They are eager to spread their lies and half-truths because that ensures them their seats near (or even inside, in the case of the Barack Obama Administration) the halls of power. On that rare occasion one of them strays too far from the party line, retribution is swift and harsh (see Helen Thomas and Sharyl Attkisson). This discourages dissent.
Politicians have learned that the more lies they tell, the more lies we believe. And the more lies we believe, the more dependent we become. Conversely, the fewer myths, lies and deceptions we succumb to, the less dependent we are and, therefore, the more liberty we enjoy.

I long ago learned the power of propaganda. I have watched as otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people have had their minds so manipulated by political speech that they acted contrary to their own best interests without a second thought. It seems that organized and sophisticated propaganda is able to operate outside the threshold of intelligence. In other words, without some imperative to trigger inquiry, very intelligent people buy into lies and myths the same as the general population. The lies and myths then become conventional wisdom. The human mind rarely accepts a challenge to conventional wisdom.
When confronted with a challenge to the established belief system, the mind closes off. When this happens, the individual employs avoidance behavior, writes off the new knowledge as conspiracy theory and labels it as kooky, insane or stupid. The information is then dismissed, never to be considered again, even when the facts support the new knowledge. Psychologists call this quirk of human nature cognitive dissonance. It means the rejection of information not in harmony with previous beliefs.
The esoteric purpose of propaganda is to extract wealth and labor illegally as concealed involuntary servitude or to steal the people’s liberty right out from under them, and even have the populace to thank the thieves for doing so, especially if it is done under the guise of keeping the people “safe” or to “save the children” from some danger, real or imagined. Those who use propaganda to persuade the populace against their best interests create myths and sell them as benefits.

The elites also use distractions for this purpose. These distractions serve to draw the people’s attention away from the important issues and focus it on the mundane and the trivial, much as the illusionist uses sleight of hand. These distractions can be events that occur naturally or by chance, which are then seized upon by the elites. But sometimes the distractions are artificial creations — also called “false flag events” — designed and triggered for the specific purpose of refocusing the attention of the populace. (Bill Clinton’s bombing of a Sudanese aspirin factory at the time of his deposition in the Paula Jones case and at the peak of the Monica Lewinsky scandal is a prime example.)
Often, these distractions serve a dual purpose. For instance, the callous and senseless murder of six people by the mentally depraved Elliot Rodger on May 23 has mesmerized the populace. It has created some distraction away from the burgeoning Veterans Affairs scandal, the Internal Revenue Service scandal, the Benghazi scandal and the ongoing collapse of the economy and Obamacare. But more sinister is its use by the gun controllers and hoplophobes to once again attempt to advance their assault on the 2^nd Amendment.
Congressman Steny Hoyer employed classic political speech (or doublethink) in announcing that Democrats will try to steal more 2^nd Amendment liberties by expanding background checks on weapons purchases through an amendment to an upcoming bill. While acknowledging that expanded background checks would have made no difference in the Rodger case, Hoyer said Congress must do something. (By the way, half of Rodger’s victims were killed with knives and five of the 13 injured were struck with his car. Curiously, Hoyer did not call for background checks on knife and car purchases.)

There is nothing lawmakers love more than making laws, even when they know their laws won’t accomplish their stated purpose. This is particularly true of those laws that take more authority for the state, or if they enrich the fascist system. For lawmakers, the “unintended consequences” of their laws are just like gravy, because then they get to pass more laws to correct the unintended consequences. This, of course, leads to more “unintended consequences” and the passage of more laws.
Obama is a master of classic political speech. In a political fundraiser in Chicago last week, he moved from blaming George W. Bush for his problems and put the onus on the Founding Fathers.
According to Obama, he is unable to move his agenda forward because the Constitution requires each State be represented by two Senators. “Obviously, the nature of the Senate means that California has the same number of seats as Wyoming. That puts us at a disadvantage.”
This, of course, is nonsensical on its face and is pure argle-bargle. Democrats control the Senate 53-45 with one socialist and one independent, both of whom vote with Democrats. However, it reveals something of Obama’s true nature. That is, he wishes to be a dictator and he detests the republican system of government our Founders gave us, but which we have almost totally lost to fascism.
But of course, in the world of political speech, such tommyrot as this is accepted as great political philosophy and applauded by the sychophants and toadies.
Certainly, the current regime has not cornered the market on magical political speech and propaganda; but it has more weapons in its arsenal than any before it.

Talking To The Taliban: A Crisis Of Leadership

by Ben Crystal 
All things being equal, the safe return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from his more than five years of captivity in the hands of the Taliban would be cause for pure joy. After all, an American serviceman is returning to the heart of liberty from the depths of islamofascist hell. Unfortunately, as is seemingly always the case with President Barack Obama’s pigeon-toed stumble through his tenure, all things are not equal. In fact, with every new detail that comes to light regarding Bergdahl’s release, the situation seems all the more unbalanced — and not in America’s favor.
Granted, Obama has never demonstrated any hesitation when it comes to acting unilaterally, regardless of legal and/or Constitutional constraints. But his decision to release five of the worst people on the planet without notifying Congress is as much a violation of the law as robbing a bank. And negotiating with islamofascists who believe lying is divinely acceptable defies every tenet of basic leadership skills at the geopolitical level.

Look, I’m willing to accept the idea that Bergdahl was worth five Taliban. Hell, all things being equal, one of our guys is worth a thousand of theirs. But it looks increasingly likely that Bergdahl wasn’t so much one of our guys as he was one of his own. According to multiple reports, Bergdahl deserted his unit in Afghanistan, leaving behind words like “I’m ashamed to even be American.” Look, I’d rather have Bergdahl home and facing a court martial than leave him to rot in the clutches of captors who make Charles Manson look like Mother Teresa.
And these are the guys we’re going to trust not to go back to killing every non-islamofascist they can get inside the blast radius of a suicide vest? These are the guys to whom Obama traded five top performers in return for a guy who should at least have known the risks of walking outside the wire at a forward operating base in Afghanistan? And these are the guys whose whereabouts we’re going to entrust to the Qataris? Not that I bear the boys of Doha any particular animus (they were willing to buy Al Gore’s weird knockoff of MSNBC), but how long will they be able to keep their peepers on five scurvy rats? It’s not like the CIA can do it, since Obama keeps outing their top field agents.

With Obama already sporting the worst foreign-relations record since President Jimmy Carter face-planted in the Iranian desert, the idea that he would celebrate getting played by lunatics like the Taliban seems a bit counterintuitive. Let’s be honest: President Peace Prize hasn’t exactly been tearing it up of late. If it gets much worse, they’re going to be throwing press conferences in the Rose Garden every time Obama saves par on that tricky dogleg at Windermere. If I were Obama, I’d be looking for more flash than “we just traded five serial killers for a guy who’s on the fence about America.”
More than a few people have suggested that Obama swapped the “Taliban 5” for Bergdahl in an effort to distract public attention from the latest scandal to ensnare his Administration. Ironically, it’s a scandal involving his treatment — or the lack thereof — of the same people the Taliban 5 have sworn their minions’ lives to kill and with whom Bergdahl was ashamed to share citizenship.
Whatever his reasons, Obama has once again snatched embarrassment from the jaws of pride. What might have been a small victory in a very large war has become yet another question mark on Obama’s already-spotty record. Obama’s decision to illegally trade five Taliban Neanderthals with artillery for one alleged deserter is an epic failure of leadership. It’s a direct threat to the men and women who wear our uniform without being “ashamed.” Worst of all — and mark my words — Obama will face little more than rhetorical condemnations like this one.

Top intelligence official claims: Obama admin. funded terror network ‘for the next ten years’

by: Lachlan Markay
Reported details of the high-profile prisoner swap that freed Bowe Bergdahl over the weekend are not telling the full story, according to a high-level intelligence official involved in efforts to find and rescue the Army sergeant.
The Haqqani Network, a terrorist group operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan, freed Bergdahl on Saturday after holding him captive for five years in exchange for the release of five Guantanamo Bay prison inmates.

---

SEE ALSO: Obama admin. told wary military officials to ‘suck it up and salute’ on Taliban release: Time

---

A senior intelligence official with intimate knowledge of the years-long effort to locate and rescue Bergdahl told the Washington Free Beacon that the details of that exchange do not add up.
The official, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, speculated that a cash ransom was paid to the Haqqani Network to get the group to free the prisoner.
The Obama administration taliban-bergdahl-trade-officials-say/” target=”_blank”>reportedly considered offering cash for his release as late as December 2013. The State Department has repeatedly refused to say whether the deal that released Bergdahl involved any cash payment.
The ransom plan was reportedly abandoned, but the intelligence official insisted that there is reason to believe that cash changed hands as part of the deal.
“The Haqqanis could give a rat’s ass about prisoners,” the official said, referring to the Haqqani Network, a designated terrorist group in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the five Guantanamo Bay prisoners who were freed in exchange for Bergdahl’s release.

“The people that are holding Bergdahl want[ed] cash and someone paid it to them,” he said.

---

SEE ALSO: Obama defends deal with Taliban to free only American POW in Afghanistan

---

The theory relies in large measure on a distinction that has been lost in much of the press coverage of the Berdahl deal. A number of news reports on the circumstances surrounding the prisoner exchange have used “Haqqani” and “Taliban” interchangeably.
Experts say that obscures very real differences between the two groups that are key to understanding the deal that freed Bergdahl.
The Taliban is an ideologically committed group, they say, while the Haqqani Network is better understood as a tribal crime syndicate using unrest in the region not to advance an Islamist agenda but to further own financial and political interests.

“When Westerners talk [about the] Taliban, we tend to use it as a generic term,” said American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin, a former Middle East advisor to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “Afghans are more likely to talk about the Haqqani Network versus the Quetta Shura [also known as the Afghan Taliban] versus the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan.”
Four of the five prisoners released from Guantanamo were top Taliban commanders. One western diplomat taliban-say-they-won-big-with-bergdahl-swap.html” target=”_blank”>said their release was “like moving the whole Quetta Shura to Qatar.”
Only one of the freed terrorists, Nabi Omari, was part of the Haqqani Network. But the presence of other more senior Haqqani prisoners at Guantanamo has observers wondering whether the network’s goal in the exchange was actually the release of Gitmo prisoners.
“One of these things doesn’t belong,” the intelligence official said. “If you were to put one of these [freed Taliban prisoners] with Haqqani in a room together, they’d beat the shit out of each other.”
He compared the relationship between the two groups to two sports teams. “You’ve got two teams that both do the same thing but their players are different in how they function,” he explained. “Why would the Redskins pay for a draft pick that goes to the Miami Dolphins? They wouldn’t.”

The official cited his work over the course of a decade dealing with hostage situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Haqqani, he said, “benefits zero from the prisoner exchange. … Based on 10 years of working with those guys, the only thing that would make them move Bergdahl is money.”
The official is not the first to suggest that a ransom was likely paid. Oliver North, who was involved in the Iran-Contra scandal that freed American hostages in Tehran in exchange for the sale of American weapons to Iran, insisted on Wednesday that cash changed hands.
“Whether the Qataris paid it, or some big oil sheik, or somebody used our petrodollars, there was a ransom paid in cash for each one of them, my guess somewhere in the round numbers of $5 or 6 million to get Bergdahl freed,” North Bergdahl” target=”_blank”>told Newsmax.
Rubin agreed with the assessment, again citing the distinction between the Taliban and the Haqqani Network.
“The groups do have links, but if Bergdahl was held by Haqqani and we released Quetta Shura, it seems Bergdahl’s captors were seeking something other than the Taliban prisoners, got paid off, and Obama simply used the trade as an excuse to release master terrorists from Gitmo,” Rubin said.

The theory has not been confirmed—though State has yet to deny it either—but the senior intelligence official expressed concern that the United States may have “enriched a terrorist network.”
“We just funded them for the next 10 years is my guess,” he said.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/6/top-intelligence-official-claims-obama-admin-just-/#ixzz33xFf5T34
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Iranian Journalist Denounced as 'Whore' Amid Women's Rights Campaign

[Masih Alinejad. "My spirit and thoughts are in Iran"]
By Freda Kahen-Kashi 

Mere weeks after sparking the "Stealthy Freedoms" social movement, creator and London-based Iranian journalist Masih Alinejad is finding herself in the center of the story, and in the eye of the storm.

As ABC News previously reported, " Stealthy Freedoms of Iranian Women" is a social platform inviting Iranian women to share photos of themselves without the mandatory hijab. Though Alinejad, who has her own segment on Voice of America's "OnTen" program, does not endorse banning the hijab, she does advocate a woman's right to the most basic of freedoms - the freedom to choose, and the freedom to blow your hair in the breeze.

Alinejad is now facing steep criticism from Iranian state television in an attempt to temper her movement. Vahid Yaminpour, a conservative Iranian commentator and TV personality, is alleging that Alinejad was raped on the streets of London by three men as her son was made to stand by as a witness. 

"Masih Alinejad is a whore, and not a heretic as some people claim her to be," Yaminpour wrote on his Facebook page. "We shouldn't elevate her to the level of a heretic. She's just trying to compensate her psychological (and probably financial) needs by recruiting young women and sharing her notoriety with younger women who are still not prostitutes."

Alinejad denied all allegations in an interview with ABC News, citing the comments as a weak attempt by Iranian officials to smear her reputation and quell the explosive activity around her Facebook page, which has now gained more than 450,000 likes.

"They want to keep journalists silent," she said. "I've been attacked several times, but this was the most fabricated, most disgusting news about me." 

Other Facebook pages have also cropped up mocking the "Stealthy Freedoms" movement. Most feature photos of men wearing a hijab, a sign of their opposition to the movement, though in one post, the word "rape" was stamped across the photos of three female Iranian journalists who work abroad and choose to go without a hijab in their broadcasts.

Alinejad said she has mixed feelings about the smear campaign and what it signals.

"In one way, I'm happy because they couldn't attack those women so they started to attack me. And I'm happy those women are safe," she said. "But it's a tragedy when you sit in your own home and see on the news that people are saying you've been raped."

She added, "It's hurtful. They see I haven't done anything wrong, I haven't even asked them to take off the scarf, I'm just reporting about what exists, and I got attacked by the government. Why? Because I didn't ignore these women." 

As an Iranian journalist, Alinejad is no stranger to controversy and this is not the first time she's been faced with this form of criticism. She described the limitations she and her fellow exiled colleagues feel, the inability to do something as simple as express love for a family member over social media, for fear that someone they care about will be attacked in retaliation for an article or a statement.

"In Iran, being an Iranian journalist means that if you always break censorship, break the barrier, you're going to get attacked," she said. "It means you have to live in danger all the time."

Though the reports are inescapable in Iran - seen by Alinejad's own parents in a village where few other outlets are available - she is still receiving an outpouring of photos and an outcry of support. A separate Facebook page called " We Are All Masih" was created earlier this week and already has more than 2,000 likes. Its patrons are lobbying for an apology from Iranian state TV. 

The backlash against her campaign has taken away any hope Alinejad had of returning to Iran, because "if they can rape you in their imagination, they can rape you when they are close to you."

Still, the choice between going home and reuniting with her family or giving the women she considers to be her sisters a platform weighs heavily on the journalist.

"Do I go back to my country and keep silent, or stay abroad and be louder and louder, to be the voice of those mothers who lost a loved one and do not have any voice inside, and to be the voice of those women who do not believe in a mandatory hijab who need a voice, who need a platform?" she asked.

For Alinejad, there is only one answer.

"If you look at my inbox and read the messages that women send to me," she said, "they knew the dangers and the risks, but they wanted to send their own message. 

"I can't leave them."

See More: http://www.rferl.org/content/iranian-media-smears-champion-of-unveiled-women/25408626.html

Did Obama Really Blow Jay Carney A Kiss?

by Personal Liberty News Desk 
When White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced his resignation at the end of May, a video of an awkward farewell hug between him and President Barack Obama started making its rounds around the Internet. Carney went in for a handshake and Obama pulled him in for a hug. As awkward as it looked, it wasn’t that big of a deal.

But somehow we missed this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1yyQig1puk 

Did the President of the United States blow a kiss to his outgoing employee?

Here’s an official version of the video (awkward hug at around 4:18): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLrpemfJ0R8 

 

Now, this isn’t that big of a deal. But it’s Friday—and man-to-man kiss blowing is a little strange in a professional context.
It’s also worth noting that, for a President who has gone to such great lengths to control his image by limiting press access to his candid moments, Americans get more than their fair share of Obama awkwardness.

Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agiY1j7Ijg0 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eEoIStETNE 

 

Mostly, we’re just wondering what our readers’ take is. And where is the liberal media that ruthlessly mocked President George W. Bush every time he did or said something unusual?

A President On The Payroll–But Whose?

by Dave Merrick 

I was naive enough to believe that people would have generally been a lot more apprehensive at the mic slip when our president was accidentally caught sending obvious assurances (‘pending his reelection’) of collaboration to Premier Putin. Had George W Bush or ANY other conservative executive leader been caught doing that, he would have immediately been investigated and asked to take a sabbatical pending the results of that discovery.
It doesn’t take a real observant person to call into question the safety of the presence of this sort of compromising leadership from a man who’s effectively done everything he can to express contempt for what his favorite religion has labeled as ‘The Great Satan.’

He sends money to aid and abet our terrorist enemies. He allows our Benghazi diplomat and staff to be butchered by more haters of America and then makes excuses for their assassins’ behavior. He installs the guaranteed ruin of any hope for a sound economic future for this nation (fulfilling the avowed goal and vision of Osama bin Laden) – just because he can.
His official acts of VIOLENCE against our country are innumerable and will take years to fully comprehend. And now he – impromptu – cuts his own deal with more rats, to free five of their top guys in exchange for the return of our contemporary Benedict Arnold, Bowe Bergdahl. The message he is sending out, wholesale to a hostile world, is – “Grab any American and we will open Guantanamo for you!”

Is it just me – or does Barack not behave like a man who is upside-down ’50 large’ in the horse game and ‘Big Louie’ is now calling in some markers? Barry is obviously ‘beholden’ to somebody – and it’s high time OUR WORKING CONGRESS finds out who.
IMPEACH AND PROSECUTE BARACK OBAMA FOR THE LAWBREAKING FRAUD THAT HE IS.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Who Is The New Secret Buyer Of U.S. Debt?

via:OathKeepers : http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/05/23/who-is-the-new-secret-buyer-of-u-s-debt/

This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Alt-Market.com
On the surface, the economic atmosphere of the U.S. has appeared rather calm and uneventful. Stocks are up, employment isn’t great but jobs aren’t collapsing into the void (at least not openly), and the U.S. dollar seems to be going strong. Peel away the thin veneer, however, and a different financial horror show is revealed.
U.S. stocks have enjoyed unprecedented crash protection due to a steady infusion of fiat money from the Federal Reserve known as quantitative easing. With the advent of the “taper”, QE is now swiftly coming to a close (as is evident in the overall reduction in treasury market purchases), and is slated to end by this fall, if not sooner.
Employment has been boosted only in statistical presentation, and not in reality. The Labor Department’s creative accounting of job numbers omits numerous factors, the most important being the issue of long term unemployed. Millions of people who have been jobless for so long they no longer qualify for benefits are being removed from the rolls. This quiet catastrophe has the side bonus of making it appear as though unemployment is going down.
U.S. Treasury bonds, and by extension the dollar, have also stayed afloat due to the river of stimulus being introduced by the Federal Reserve. That same river, through QE, is now drying up.

In my article The Final Swindle Of Private American Wealth Has Begun, I outline the data which leads me to believe that the Fed taper is a deliberate action in preparation for an impending market collapse. The effectiveness of QE stimulus has a shelf-life, and that shelf life has come to an end. With debt monetization no longer a useful tool in propping up the ailing U.S. economy, central bankers are publicly stepping back. Why? If a collapse occurs while stimulus is in full swing, the Fed immediately takes full blame for the calamity, while being forced to admit that central banking as a concept serves absolutely no meaningful purpose.
My research over many years has led me to conclude that a collapse of the American system is not only expected by international financiers, but is in fact being engineered by them. The Fed is an entity created by globalists for globalists. These people have no loyalties to any one country or culture. Their only loyalties are to themselves and their private organizations.
While many people assume that the stimulus measures of the Fed are driven by a desire to save our economy and currency, I see instead a concerted program of destabilization which is meant to bring about the eventual demise of our nation’s fiscal infrastructure. What some might call “kicking the can down the road,” I call deliberately stretching the country thin over time, so that any indirect crisis can be used as a trigger event to bring the ceiling crashing down.

In the past several months, the Fed taper of QE and subsequently U.S. bond buying has coincided with steep declines in purchases by China, a dump of one-fifth of holdings by Russia, and an overall decline in new purchases of U.S. dollars for FOREX reserves.
With the Ukraine crisis now escalating to fever pitch, BRIC nations are openly discussing the probability of “de-dollarization” in international summits, and the ultimate dumping of the dollar as the world reserve currency.
The U.S. is in desperate need of a benefactor to purchase its ever rising debt and keep the system running. Strangely, a buyer with apparently bottomless pockets has arrived to pick up the slack that the Fed and the BRICS are leaving behind. But, who is this buyer?
At first glance, it appears to be the tiny nation of Belgium.
While foreign investment in the U.S. has sharply declined since March, Belgium has quickly become the third largest buyer of Treasury bonds, just behind China and Japan, purchasing more than $200 billion in securities in the past five months, adding to a total stash of around $340 billion. This development is rather bewildering, primarily because Belgium’s GDP as of 2012 was a miniscule $483 billion, meaning, Belgium has spent nearly the entirety of its yearly GDP on our debt.
Clearly, this is impossible, and someone, somewhere, is using Belgium as a proxy in order to prop up the U.S. But who?

Recently, a company based in Belgium called Euroclear has come forward claiming to be the culprit behind the massive purchases of American debt. Euroclear, though, is not a direct buyer. Instead, the bank is a facilitator, using what it calls a “collateral highway” to allow central banks and international banks to move vast amounts of securities around the world faster than ever before.
Euroclear claims to be an administrator for more than $24 trillion in worldwide assets and transactions, but these transactions are not initiated by the company itself. Euroclear is a middleman used by our secret buyer to quickly move U.S. Treasuries into various accounts without ever being identified. So the question remains, who is the true buyer?
My investigation into Euroclear found some interesting facts. Euroclear has financial relationships with more than 90 percent of the world’s central banks and was once partly owned and run by 120 of the largest financial institutions back when it was called the “Euroclear System”. The organization was consolidated and operated by none other than JP Morgan Bank in 1972. In 2000, Euroclear was officially incorporated and became its own entity. However, one must remember, once a JP Morgan bank, always a JP Morgan bank.
Another interesting fact – Euroclear also has a strong relationship with the Russian government and is a primary broker for Russian debt to foreign investors. This once again proves my ongoing point that Russia is tied to the global banking cabal as much as the United States. The East vs. West paradigm is a sham of the highest order.

Euroclear’s ties to the banking elite are obvious; however, we are still no closer to discovering the specific groups or institution responsible for buying up U.S. debt. I think that the use of Euroclear and Belgium may be a key in understanding this mystery.
Belgium is the political center of the EU, with more politicians, diplomats and lobbyists than Washington D.C. It is also, despite its size and economic weakness, a member of an exclusive economic club called the “Group Of Ten” (G10).
The G10 nations have all agreed to participate in a “General Arrangement to Borrow” (GAB) launched in 1962 by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The GAB is designed as an ever cycling fund which members pay into. In times of emergency, members can ask the IMF’s permission for a release of funds. If the IMF agrees, it then injects capital through Treasury purchases and SDR allocations. Essentially, the IMF takes our money, then gives it back to us in times of desperation (with strings attached).  A similar program called ‘New Arrangements To Borrow’ (NAB) involves 38 member countries.  This fund was boosted to approximately 370 billion SDR (or $575 billion dollars U.S.) as the derivatives crisis struck markets in 2008-2009.  Without a full and independent audit of the IMF, however, it is impossible to know the exact funds it has at its disposal, or how many SDR’s it has created.
It should be noted the Bank of International Settlements is also an overseer of the G10. If you want to learn more about the darker nature of globalist groups like the IMF and the BIS, read my articles, Russia Is Dominated By Global Banks, Too, and False East/West Paradigm Hides The Rise Of Global Currency.

The following article from Harpers titled “Ruling The World Of Money,” was published in 1983 and boasts about the secrecy and “ingenuity” of the Bank Of International Settlements, an unaccountable body of financiers that dominates the very course of economic life around the world.
It is my belief that Belgium, as a member of the G10 and the GAB/NAB agreements, is being used as a proxy by the BIS and the IMF to purchase U.S. debt, but at a high price. I believe that the banking elite are hiding behind their middleman, Euroclear, because they do not want their purchases of Treasuries revealed too soon. I believe that the IMF in particular is accumulating U.S. debt to be used later as leverage to absorb the dollar and finalize the rise of their SDR currency basket as the world reserve standard.
Imagine what would happen if all foreign creditors abandoned U.S. debt purchases because the dollar was no longer seen as viable as a world reserve currency.  Imagine that the Fed’s efforts to stimulate through fiat printing became useless in propping up Treasuries, serving only to devalue the domestic buying power of our currency.  Imagine that the IMF swoops in as the lender of last resort; the only entity willing to service our debt and keep the system running.  Imagine what kind of concessions America would have to make to a global loan shark like the IMF.
Keep in mind, the plan to replace the dollar is not mere “theory”.  In fact, IMF head Christine Lagarde has openly called for a “global financial system” to take over in the place of the current dollar based system.

The Bretton Woods System, established in 1944, was used by the United Nations and participating governments to form international rules of economic conduct, including fixed rates for currencies and establishing the dollar as the monetary backbone. The IMF was created during this shift towards globalization as the BIS slithered into the background after its business dealings with the Nazis were exposed. It was the G10, backed by the IMF, that then signed the Smithsonian Agreement in 1971 which ended the Bretton Woods system of fixed currencies, as well as any remnants of the gold standard. This led to the floated currency system we have today, as well as the slow poison of monetary inflation which has now destroyed more than 98 percent of the dollar’s purchasing power.
I believe the next and final step in the banker program is to reestablish a new Bretton Woods style system in the wake of an engineered catastrophe. That is to say, we are about to go full circle. Perhaps Ukraine will be the cover event, or tensions in the South China Sea. Just as Bretton Woods was unveiled during World War II, Bretton Woods redux may be unveiled during World War III. In either case, the false East/West paradigm is the most useful ploy the elites have to bring about a controlled decline of the dollar.
The new system will reintroduce the concept of fixed currencies, but this time, all currencies will be fixed or “pegged” to the value of the SDR global basket. The IMF holds a global SDR summit every five years, and the next meeting is set for the beginning of 2015.

If the Chinese yuan is brought into the SDR basket next year, if the BRICS enter into a conjured economic war with the West, and if the dollar is toppled as the world reserve, there will be nothing left in terms of fiscal structure in the way of a global currency system. If the public does not remove the globalist edifice by force, the IMF and the BIS will then achieve their dream – the complete dissolution of economic sovereignty, and the acceptance by the masses of global financial governance. The elites don’t want to hide behind the curtain anymore. They want recognition. They want to be worshiped. And, it all begins with the secret buyout of America, the implosion of our debt markets, and the annihilation of our way of life.

Obama Has Given Up ?

Doubt it. I think Obama is seeing how far he can go. Nothing has stopped him yet.

The Obama post-presidency has already begun 
BY: Matthew Continetti 

One evening in March, during a visit to Italy, President Obama asked the U.S. ambassador to round up a bunch of—and I quote—“interesting Italians” for a dinner at the ambassadorial residence. The history of the property, the Villa Taverna, goes as far back as the tenth century. Its art collection includes Roman sarcophagi and centuries-old imperial busts. The menu that evening included a variety of pastas, and wines from Tuscany and the regions around Venice. Dinner lasted four hours.

In this sumptuous and Baroque setting, amid these beautiful artifacts of long-gone civilizations, enjoying the finest foods and most delicate wines, President Obama was at home. The interesting Italians surrounding him included a particle physicist, two heirs to the Fiat auto fortune, and the postmodern architect Renzo Piano. The dinner conversation, according to Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown and Jennifer Epstein, touched on architecture, on art, on science, and on urban planning. Protocol demands that the president be the first guest to leave such an event. But Obama would not shut up. It was “a quite long dinner,” Piano told Politico.
Piano said that he and Obama compared and contrasted the work of architectural design with the work of drafting a political speech—and in these particular cases, it should be noted, the quality of the results is the same. This was but one digression in a long and meandering colloquy, however. “It took a certain time to end,” Piano said. “It wasn’t like, ‘I have to go.’ We kept going, talking, talking, talking. … You don’t stand up. You stay at the table.”

The next morning, during a briefing, the president—whose office holds a burden of responsibility matched only by its power—regretted that his job involved duties other than pretentious conversation with extremely wealthy famous people. “One aide paraphrased Obama’s response: ‘Just last night I was talking about life and art, big interesting things, and now we’re back to the minuscule things of politics.” You know, minuscule things like the maskirovka invasion of Ukraine, the implementation of Obamacare, scandals at the IRS and Department of Veterans Affairs, negotiations with Syria and Iran, withdrawal from Afghanistan. These subjects are far too small and mundane for our president. He prefers contemplative and thoughtful and nuanced symposia on philosophy, quantum mechanics, and how best to spend inheritances—all accompanied by Tuscan wine.
According to Politico, Obama’s Italian dinner party illustrates the paradox of his second term. “Stymied at home and abroad, Obama recognizes that he is less in control of the Washington agenda than ever in his presidency,” write Budoff Brown and Epstein. “Yet his newfound realism has also given him a palpable sense of liberation.” I find nothing paradoxical about Obama’s recent pattern of behavior, nothing mysterious about the golfing, partying, traveling. It is quite obvious: Obama has given up. 


He knows that his agenda is now limited to executive orders and bureaucratic regulation, and that even these measures are likely to be in the courts for years. He knows that his foreign policy agenda of engagement with the enemies of America will prove controversial and unpopular. He knows his staff has been ducking-and-covering ever since Lois Lerner announced the IRS had targeted Tea Party groups, and that they have been playing defense through Edward Snowden and Syria and Healthcare.gov and Crimea and the VA and now Bowe Bergdahl. He knows there is a chance that the Republicans will control Congress next January, and he has said, according to Politico, that this “would make his last two years in office unbearable.”
Obama, Politico says, is “giving more thought to his post-presidency than his aides like to suggest.” But there is nothing really for Obama to think about. His ambitions in this office, just like his ambitions at Harvard, in New York, in Chicago, and in the Senate, are now exhausted. America has disappointed him, and it is time to look to the next challenge worthy of Barack Obama. His post-presidency has already begun.

Continue Reading: http://freebeacon.com/politics/dialing-it-in/

Welcome To The “No Pee” Section Of The Swimming Pool, America

by Marita Noon 

America is poised to become the “no pee” section of the global swimming pool, and the useless actions will cost us a bundle—raising energy costs, adding new taxes, and further crippling the economy.
On June 2, the EPA released its new rules for CO2 emissions from existing electricity-generating plants—which the New York Times (NYT) states “could eventually shut down hundreds of coal-fueled power plants across the country.”
When the plan was released, there were two key aberrations. Much can be gleaned from what didn’t happen.
It was widely believed that President Obama would make the announcement himself. On May 10, regarding the proposed rule release, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said: “The president has indicated his intent to announce himself.” The Hill reported: “McCarthy called the move by Obama to announce the proposal ‘a strong indication of how important he sees this.’” But when it came right down to it, McCarthy made the announcement while Obama, according to the NYT, played “a supporting role by making a telephone call to the American Lung Association.”

The White House’s own website, in November 2009, announced Obama’s plans: “In light of the President’s goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42% reduction below 2005 in 2030.” Many media outlets, including the left-leaning Daily Beast, have indicated that “The EPA rules issued Monday are largely modeled on a March 2013 blueprint from the NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council].” The NRDC plan projects 35-40 percent cuts in CO2 emissions over 2012 levels by 2025. As a result, it was reasonable to expect reductions in the 40 percent range.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce did an extensive analysis of the impacts of carbon cuts of 42 percent—and the results aren’t pretty. But when the draft regulations came out, the goal was 30 percent, not 42, or even 35-40.
Bloomberg calls the new rule “politically painful” for Democrats from coal-producing regions “as it forces power-plant closures and threatens to increase electricity rates for consumers.”
It is clear that the administration has received pushback over the reported economic impacts of the regulations—which tells us why Obama didn’t make the announcement himself and why the required reduction was lower than expected. (It is important to note that within the proposed rule is an acknowledgement that the final number could be much higher—likely, closer to the expected 40-42 percent range.)
The Chamber reported that global emissions are expected to rise by 31 percent between 2011 and 2030; yet all the pain—economic and political—the new regulations, based on the reductions in the 40 percent range, would inflict “would only reduce overall emissions levels by just 1.8 percentage points.” Now, with the 30 percent reduction number, the global impact will be much smaller.

Bloomberg states: “The administration and its Democratic allies are bracing for a political fight over the rule, which is critical to Obama’s legacy on climate and his efforts to coax other nations to agree.”
Australia has already walked away from its previous administration’s stringent climate policies due to economic pain and public backlash. Germany is becoming more dependent on coal-fueled electricity. Wood is the number one renewable fuel in Europe. China and India have repeatedly refused to stop their economic growth by cutting back on their fossil fuel-based energy usage.
All the regulations the administration may impose will not “coax” the rest of the world to follow. Just because we declare that we won’t pee in the pool won’t stop the others.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

What Obama And Holder Are Secretly Doing Could Be A Death Blow To The Second Amendment

by Kris Zane 

Using an obscure section of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, the Department of Justice is forcing banks to cease doing business with so-called “high risk” gun and ammunition dealers under a program called Operation Choke Point—in some cases seizing their accounts!
Operation Choke Point is absolutely illegal according to a House of Representatives report issued by Darrell Issa—but that doesn’t seem to be stopping the rogue Obama administration.
Left without access to banking services, thousands of gun and ammunition dealers across America are on verge of bankruptcy. Credit cards cannot be processed. Cash deposits cannot be made. Checks cannot be written. A business simply cannot function without banking services—exactly what the Obama administration planned on.
Obama and right-hand man Eric Holder couldn’t ban guns and ammunition outright—so they’re doing the next best thing: “choking off” the supply of guns.

When Obama has seized all the guns from Americans, what can we expect to happen? Well, when Hitler seized all the guns in Germany, he went about killing all his political enemies, including six million Jews.
Was the de facto martial law declared by Obama after the Boston Bombing a precursor of what is to come? Were the light-armored tanks roaming the streets, illegal house-to-house searches, and suspension of habeas corpus just a taste of nationwide martial law?
Let us hope Barack Hussein Obama is stopped before that happens.
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Is Obama Worse Than Benedict Arnold, Or Just Compassionate?

by Peggy Palmer 
Is it just me, or can others smell the rotting of America and it’s presidency coming from the White House, by way of lies and deceit that permeate the air? Does the American public understand they were just used and mocked again by the usurper-in-chief?
Was it my imagination, that just days ago our illustrious so-named President heralded the words “No man left behind” when he proudly and with conviction announced that he had just traded one AWOL (Absent Without Orders) deserter, who allowed 6 precious young men who did not turn their backs on their friends and fellow soldiers to die looking for him in his walk to freedom?

Let me think this through. Four war heroes in Benghazi were not only left behind, but their pleas went unanswered. However, that was perfectly acceptable with Obama, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice and all the people on the left?
Let me regress: Obama becomes President in 2008 and took office on January 20, 2009. Bergdahl walked away of his own free will on June 30, 2009. Since February 27, 2009 we’ve been following Obama’s campaign promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. That was more than five years ago now. However, Congress has made closing the prison difficult through various pieces of legislation, including bans on sending prisoners to particular countries and tough requirements for the government to meet in order to transfer detainees from the prison (even though Eric Holder tried to move court trials to the USA.)

So? What did this president do to get his way? He used the words and tradition of “No man left behind” to dishonor other heroes, and especially those of Benghazi, in order to get his Islamic friends freed. He stepped on the Congress and overreached his position of President in order to work his debauchery against other nations and America.
If you feel that the so-named president has committed treason, you need to step up and cry out and find a place to sign a petition to have this criminal charged with treason as an enemy of the state, an enemy of a foreign land, and an enemy from within the borders of America. If you do not, America is forever abandoned and shamed.

The most well known traitor in U.S. History was Benedict Arnold. In 1780, he was given command of West Point, the American fort on the Hudson River in New York (and future home of the United States Military Academy, established in 1802). Arnold contacted Sir Henry Clinton, head of the British forces, and proposed handing over West Point and its men. On September 21 of that year, Arnold met with British Major John Andre and made his traitorous pact, in which the American was to receive a large sum of money and a high position in the British army. However, the conspiracy was uncovered; and Andre was captured and killed. Arnold fled to the enemy side and went on to lead British troops in Virginia and Connecticut. He later moved to England, though he never received all of what he’d been promised by the British. The former American hero and patriot died in London, in relative obscurity, on June 14, 1801.
Ask yourself this: what is the difference between what Arnold did and what Obama has done to the world (let alone the United States of America, from which he holds the most treasured of offices)? Obama believes he is above the law and steps on anyone and everyone to attain his plan. What is his plan? Did he not state it in his book (if push comes to shove, I will stand with the Muslims)? Has he not done what he promised? And by the way, this was the only promise he ever made to the USA that he has fulfilled.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom
 

Ethics Complaint Targets Harry Reid for Abuse of Power

[Senator Reid, It's Time To Resign!]
by: Josh Siegel 
Tea Party Patriots filed an ethics complaint against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., alleging he has abused his power in a campaign to smear conservative donors.
The complaint, filed Monday with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, alleges Reid has purposely tried to damage the names of Charles and David Koch, prominent conservative donors whom Reid has publicly criticized for running advertisements attacking Democrats. It also cites Reid’s partisan campaign activities, which allegedly violate Senate rules and federal law.
Tea Party Patriots filed a separate complaint against Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., for his alleged role in influencing the Internal Revenue Service to scrutinize conservative nonprofit groups.

“Whitehouse exerted pressure on federal agencies to target tea party non-profits and to criminally prosecute groups such as ours,” the complaint reads.
Whitehouse was the main sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act, legislation that would have forced nonprofits who make campaign donations to disclose their donors.
Cleta Mitchell, an attorney representing the Tea Party Patriots, says the complaints were timed to coincide with a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Tuesday, where congressional leaders, including Reid, clashed over a proposed constitutional amendment to curb political spending.
“We are tired of Reid, Democratic senators, and the White House bullying conservatives and conservative donors,” Mitchell said. “They do not respect the First Amendment rights of citizens and we are sick of it, so we are fighting back.”

Speaking at the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, Reid defended the proposed amendment, a plan that Democrats plan to vote on this year.
“I support this constitutional amendment,” Reid said. “Our involvement in government should not be dependent on bank account balances. It’s bad for America. What the nation needs is to bring sanity back to campaigns.”
Upon receiving a complaint, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., will initiate a preliminary inquiry to review the case.
If the committee finds substantial evidence, it can issue a public or private letter of admonition, or initiate an adjudicatory review. It can then recommend the Senate take disciplinary action.

In another, unrelated complaint filed Tuesday with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, the Center for Competitive Politics, another conservative nonprofit, charges nine Democratic senators with “interfering with the administrative proceedings of the IRS.”

06-02-2014 Date-Stamped Senate Ethics Complaint Re Sen Reid by John Hinderaker 

 

D-Day is Dumb Day for Too Many

by: Cal Thomas 

Given the numerous studies revealing how American education lags behind instruction in other countries in disciplines once thought to be essential, it should come as no surprise that on the 70th anniversary of D-Day, a lot of people are clueless about central elements of the Allied invasion of the European continent on June 6, 1944.
The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) has released the results of a survey, which finds only slightly more than half (54 percent) of those who took a multiple choice quiz knew that Dwight D. Eisenhower was the supreme commander of Allied forces on D-Day. Fewer than half knew Franklin Roosevelt was president and 15 percent identified the location of the landing as Pearl Harbor, not beaches named Normandy and Omaha. One in 10 college students were among those giving the wrong answer. 

Colleges and universities clearly are not teaching what they once did. That is also apparent in the ACTA survey, which found that 70 percent of recent college graduates knew D-Day occurred during World War II, compared to 98 percent of college graduates 65 and older.
Dr. Michael Poliakoff, ACTA's vice president of policy, says: "We are allowing students to graduate college with the historical knowledge of a twelfth grader. Not a single liberal arts college, except the military academies and only five of the top 50 public universities require even one survey of American history.
Poliakoff continues: "We aren't adequately preparing the next generation for the challenges of career and community with this apathetic approach to our national heritage. These college graduates are unlikely to understand the cost of maintaining our nation's freedom."
While much of this should disgust, especially those parents who are paying more and getting less of an education for their kids, none of it should surprise. Today's young people seem to know and care more about sex, pop stars and the latest cellphones, than wisdom and knowledge from our past and the character of those who fought to preserve our freedoms.

• «
• 1
• 2
• »

View Full Article

 

New WH Spin: Criticism of Taliban Swap is Really Just About Obama 'Hatred'

oped: Enough is enough already with the rediculous Race Card..The whole damn Obama administration has cried Wolf more than the Fabled 'The Boy who cried Wolf" 'We the people' are sick and tired of your incompetence,lies,cheating,pure and simple BS! Attacks on you Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Davis Obama or whatever your  real name is, has absolutely nothing to do with your tan line or lack of! Do everyone a favor and resign akin to Nixon before you are drummed out of office with the proverbial Perp Walk ! Get a clue already the real you has come through quite clearly...you should never have been elected to the highest office in the country much less been accepted at Columbia and Harvard...a local Junior college would be closer to your abilities! *PERIOD* 

by: Guy Benson 

This Politico story is highly revealing, from top to bottom. It paints a portrait of a White House reeling from a festering, self-inflicted political wound that's flailing frantically to regain some measure of control over the narrative. It's also a tad unnerving. This crew is so deep in the bunker that they can't see a major mistake for what it is, preferring to take the mental exit ramp of chalking up the entire maelstrom to "hatred" of Obama -- a claim that requires acute cognitive dissonance, for reasons we'll discuss in a moment. A few choice excepts:

President Barack Obama’s Rose Garden appearance Saturday afternoon with Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s parents was an attempt to humanize the prisoner swap to deflect potential criticism of letting five Taliban leaders out of Guantanamo Bay, White House aides say. It didn’t work. White House aides were aware Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl had been tagged a deserter, and that they would be grilled over not keeping Congress in the loop. But they figured people would be most outraged over the national security implications. The White House has been surprised by how much attention has remained on the questions about Bergdahl, from the circumstances of his disappearance to the wild beard his father grew while he was being held that’s even led to Bergdahl’s hometown canceling a celebration. All this, Obama aides say, is in their minds a proxy for the hatred toward the president. The new approach: Frame the criticism as another example of Republicans complaining about something just because Obama was the one to do it. White House aides and other liberal outlets are highlighting what they see as Republican hypocrisy, citing past quotes from GOP lawmakers calling for Bergdahl’s freedom.

Just a few days ago, White House aides were whispering to Chuck Todd that they were utterly shocked by the negative public reception to the Taliban swap; they had been expecting widespread "euphoria." With soldiers who served with Bergdahl prior to his evident desertion coming out of the woodwork to douse the attempted jubilant whitewash with cold water, administration officials shifted to accusing them of "swift-boating" Bergdahl. Now Team Obama has moved on to claiming that they expected some significant backlash all along, but failed to anticipate the flash points and depth of the anger. Flummoxed, they've discarded the entire episode into their catch-all "Obama haters" bin, and are busily crafting a lefty media strategy to highlight Republican "hypocrisy." Their big smoking gun on this point is a series of past statements from Republicans urging the safe return of Sgt. Bergdahl. See? They said they wanted Bergdahl home, and now that Obama's achieved that amazing feat, they're mad because he's the one who did it. 

This is a moronic line of argument. Of course many Republicans, and many Americans generally, are heavily inclined to be sympathetic toward a US soldier being held by the enemy. Most of the people who voiced support for Bergdahl likely had no idea about the desertion allegations. Even those who may have heard those rumbles could still have been supportive of a move to bring him home. But the deal Obama struck isn't hypothetical. It isn't some yellow ribbon tied around an oak tree. It's real, and it's very messy. Thus, there's new information on the table (some of which was deliberately suppressed via non-disclosure agreements and exhortations to shade the truth).   


And based on that changing information, and the incensed reaction from Bergdahl's platoon mates, people's opinions are shifting. Imagine that. What we now know is that the White House negotiated with the Taliban, a horrible, radical group that most people consider to be terrorists. (Also, the Haqqani network, which is officially classified as a terror group). Beyond that, our "negotiators" made major concessions, basically giving the Taliban everything they asked for. And what they asked for was the release of five jihadist commanders that our own government classified as high-risk detainees. Then there's the issue of failing to inform Congress in a timely fashion, which broke a law that Obama himself signed. Finally, there are the sordid and increasingly plausible accusations that Bergdahl is a deserter who may have collaborated with the enemy. 

Several members of his unit have now publicly stated their strong suspicion that Bergdahl helped the Taliban hone their anti-US bombings. The Taliban said he was doing as much in 2010, as reported in a British newspaper. There is a difference between spitefully opposing Bergdahl's return outright and having profound problems with the way the dominoes fell. The Huffington Post's Sam Stein, a noted Obama hater, scoffs at the administration's new line:

Maybe they could claim that Rice spoke out of school with her infamous "honor and distinction" line, but no. The Politico piece says those offensive comments were carefully chosen: "Even though they were aware of the deserter questions, the lines she and other aides have been using to defend Bergdahl’s record were no mistake." So they intentionally sent her out to praise him, just as they made a choice to hold a celebratory event in the Rose Garden. But...they also say they knew the desertion/collaboration stuff would be an issue. It's incoherent. It appears as though they're also planning to lean more heavily on chest-thumping emotionalism, exemplified by President Obama's comments in Poland yesterday:

“Regardless of the circumstances, whatever those circumstances may turn out to be, we still get an American soldier back if he’s held in captivity. Period. Full stop. We don’t condition that.”

Harry Reid took things a step farther, arguing that the appropriate course of action is to "rescue our soldiers first and ask questions later. Both Obama and Reid's sentiments sound great. Their rhetoric is also specious. What if the Taliban's demand had been the unconditional release of KSM, the mastermind of 9/11? Or the immediate freeing of all Gitmo detainees? Or a nuclear weapon? Would we have said 'yes,' and asked questions later, "full stop"? Of course not, so let's dispense with that ridiculous standard as a meaningful defense. This was a difficult decision based on a number of factors, including national security concerns and precedent.
. Based on what we currently know, a lot of people have concluded the White House made the wrong choice, with potentially disastrous consequences. If that's all rooted in Obama 'hatred,' then we're witnessing the emergence of some rather unlikely haters -- from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to former Obama SecDef and CIA chief Leon Panetta, to Chris Matthews (!), to worried Afghan villagers, to defense and intelligence officials, to the soldiers who served with Bergdahl and risked their lives searching for him. It's that last group that's leading this charge, and their passion has nothing to do with Barack Obama, despite what White House advisers suffering from reflexive myopia want to believe. These guys were betrayed and personally endangered by Bergdahl's actions. At least six of their friends were killed trying to bring him back to safety, in spite of the indications that he willfully deserted them. It requires some nasty brew of cluelessness and sociopathy to insinuate that these actual heroes, and the people who have their backs, are engaged in this issue in order to score a few cheap partisan points. Good luck with that argument. I'll leave you with this:



More "hate."

Harry Reid Channels Hillary Clinton on Bergdahl

by: Conn Carroll 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) used a very familiar line to deflect questions about what he knew and when about the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
“This is making a big deal over nothing,” Reid said. “The whole deal, is it Friday or Saturday? What difference does it make? What difference does it make?"
The controversy stems from a disagreement between Reid and President Obama's White House about when exactly Reid was told of the deal. Reid's office claims the White House told them Friday, while the White House insists they told Reid Saturday.

Reid's answer at a Capitol Hill press conference today mirrors the same line Hillary Clinton used to deflect questions about what she knew about the killings of four Americans at a U.S. asset in Benghazi.
"With all due respect," Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "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 who decided that they'd they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? "
Watch both videos below:
Reid: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCZPIZUGBt4 


Clinton: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8INIH0JfNA8

Obama Official Brandon Friedman Calls Bergdahl’s Platoon Members ‘Psychopaths’

oped: I think Brandon Friedman is long on psycho for going to work for the Un balanced Obama administration! *PERIOD*



By Jennifer Burke
Following Obama’s brokered deal with the Taliban to exchange five of their most notorious and violent leaders for Bowe Bergdahl, a firestorm erupted. Numerous individuals who served with Bergdahl in the 501^st Infantry Regiment have come forward and said that Bergdahl deserted his post in 2009. His infantry leader and others have even said that communications chatter indicated that, following Bergdahl’s desertion, there was an American looking for the Taliban to speak to them. They also said that attacks against them by the Taliban got more direct after Bergdahl deserted.


Not only did these men have to risk their lives, with six from his troop losing their lives, searching for a deserter, they were forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement while in the Army agreeing not to speak about Bergdahl’s disappearance or the search efforts to find him. In addition, reports have surfaced that Obama knew Bergdahl was a deserter in 2010 and the Intelligence community had concerns that Bergdahl was collaborating with the enemy.
But, that has not stopped members of Team Obama and their allies in the Democrat Media Complex from attacking the men who have spoken out about their firsthand knowledge of the Bergdahl situation. On Wednesday, Obama’s LEAN FORWARD network, MSNBC, planted the seed of denigration of those speaking out about Bergdahl. Chuck Todd said, “I’ve had a few aides describe it to me as ‘we didn’t know they [those who served with Bergdahl] were going to swift-boat Bergdahl.”

Swift-boating is a negative term meaning “unfairly smearing someone on our team.”
An Obama official decided to take the slander hurled at those who served with Bergdahl who have chosen to speak out to another level. On Twitter, Brandon Friedman, who is the deputy assistant secretary of public affairs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, accused Bergdahl’s platoon members of ‘smearing him publicly’ because they are psychopaths.











While Obama’s claims about the reason he illegally traded five Taliban terrorists for Bergdahl as well as the circumstances surrounding it keep changing, there is consistency in the stories being told by those who served with Bergdahl and were forced to look for him. So, Team Obama feels a need to do what they are known to do – go on the attack in an attempt to discredit those they perceive as an enemy to their actions and agenda. They will go to any length as they enter the protectionist stance, even if it means dishonoring our military and endangering America.

H/T Free Beacon

Last original Navajo Code Talker dies

Washington (AFP) - Chester Nez, the last of 29 Navajo Indians who helped create a code used during World War II and never broken by the Axis Powers, died Wednesday. He was 93.

Flags will be flown at half-mast until June 8 on the tribe's territory in the United States.

"The power of our language was shared with the world during World War II when the Original 29 Navajo Code Talkers stepped forward for service," Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly said in a statement.

He said Nez's passing in his sleep during the morning hours "closes another chapter in the annals of Navajo." 

Nez and 28 other Navajos were recruited by the Marine Corps in May 1942 to create a code for communications on the battlefield based on their complex tribal language, which is tonal and unwritten.

He later participated in the war's Pacific Battles in Guadalcanal, Guam, Peleliu and Bougainville.

View gallery

US President George W. Bush (R) salutes Navajo "code talker" Chester Nez (L), 26 June 2001 …

Nez's death "sadly marks the end of an era in our country's and Marine Corps' history," said Marine Corps spokesman Colonel David Lapan.

"The Navajo Code Talkers made invaluable contributions to the war effort in the Pacific theater during World War II," he added, hailing their "heroic actions." 

Last year, Nez said "I was very proud to say that the Japanese did everything in their power to break that code but they never did."

A total of 400 Navajo Indians took part in the Pacific Wars as Code Talkers.

Other Native Americans from the Choctaw, Comanche and Seminole tribes took part in combat against the Germans and the Japanese, transmitting coded messages in their native language.

Due to the lack of equivalent terms in their native tongue, certain words had to be substituted, such as "plane" for "bird" and "bomber" for "pregnant bird."

The Navajo code would attribute an Indian word for each letter of the alphabet. So "moasi," which means "cat," would serve to designate the letter "c."

The code was classified until the 1980s because the US military long hoped it could reuse it in a future conflict. 

We n' de ya ho