Bergdahl charged with desertion

What a f-ing negotiator!

5 for 1 swap and the end result... Bergdahl goes to jail - possibly for life. There can ONLY be one explanation. This is how desperate Barry is to close Gitmo and he illegally bypassed Congress to do it! 

From what I understand 6 of his fellow soldiers died trying to find Bergdahl. 

In addition, of the 5 released how many are they going to kill? Barry and Rice knew all the pitfalls beforehand and yet went ahead with it. You see, in the liberal world deserting your post is considered bravery. Dying for your country patriotic sap.

If it wasn't for lying Rice would be tongue-tied.

This is where we got"Gruberized".

Video 108

Rice said, “Bergdhal served with honor and distinction and was captured on the battlefield”?

Gutfeld's response, “Susan Rice is so divorced from reality she should get alimony payments”.

Unless...of course.. if they happened to be in Benghazi.

 With his negotiating skills imagine the Iranian "deal". Instead of sending them a 1000 centrifuges a month like they wanted Barry talked them down to 900.

---------------------------------------------------

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was captured by the Taliban after abandoning his post in Afghanistan and then freed five years later in a controversial trade for five Guantanamo detainees, was charged Wednesday with desertion. 

U.S. Army Forces Command announced the decision at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. 

The development comes 10 months after his May 2014 release -- which initially was a joyous occasion, with his parents joining President Obama in celebrating the news in the Rose Garden. Bob Bergdahl, who had studied Islam during his son's captivity, appeared with a full beard and read a Muslim prayer, while Bergdahl's mother Jani embraced the president.

But that euphoria quickly gave way to controversy in Washington as Bergdahl was accused of walking away from his post and putting his fellow soldiers in danger. The trade of hardened Taliban fighters for his freedom raised deep concerns on Capitol Hill that the administration struck an unbalanced and possibly illegal deal. 

Bergdahl was specifically charged Wednesday with desertion and misbehavior toward the enemy. The charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison. 

Bergdahl 28, walked away from his post in Afghanistan and was captured, then released years later by the Taliban in the controversial prisoner exchange. 

Gen. Mark Milley, head of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, has been reviewing the massive case files and had a broad range of legal options, including various degrees of desertion charges. A major consideration was whether military officials would be able to prove that Bergdahl had no intention of returning to his unit -- a key element in the more serious desertion charges. 

The announcement marks a sharp turnaround for the administration's narrative of Bergdahl's service and release. After the swap last year, National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction." 

But as Bergdahl faced criticism from fellow servicemembers for his actions, the administration faced heated complaints from Congress over the Taliban trade itself. 

"This fundamental shift in U.S. policy signals to terrorists around the world a greater incentive to take U.S. hostages," said former Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., then the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Bergdahl disappeared from his base in the eastern Afghanistan province of Paktika on June 30, 2009. A private first class at the time, he had three days earlier emailed his parents expressing disillusionment with the war. 

"The future is too good to waste on lies," Bergdahl wrote, according to the late Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings. "And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be American." 

Bob Bergdahl, a former UPS delivery driver in Sun Valley Idaho, replied with a message bearing the subject line, "OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE!" 

Bergdahl left a note in his tent that said he was leaving to start a new life and intended to renounce his citizenship, Fox News reported last year. 

For the next five years, Bergdahl is believed to have been held by the Taliban and Pakistan's infamous Haqqani network. In one of several hostage videos released during his captivity, he said he was captured when he fell behind a patrol, but fellow soldiers, outraged after the trade was made with the Taliban, accused him of deserting. Some asserted that American servicemembers' lives were put at risk in the hunt for Bergdahl. 

Bergdahl was freed on May 31, 2014, after the White House agreed to trade five high value Taliban operatives held at Guantanamo Bay for him. He was turned over to Delta Force operatives in eastern Afghanistan, near the border village of Khost, while the Taliban members were handed over to authorities in Qatar, which helped broker the swap.

The trade was branded as illegal by lawmakers, who said they weren’t advised beforehand, It was also blasted by critics who said it violated America’s longstanding tradition of not negotiating with terrorists, and from Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers, many of whom view him as a traitor.

There were also concerns – which would prove well-founded – that the Taliban members would return to the fight against the West. Of the five, Mohammad Fazl, the former Taliban army chief of staff; Khairullah Khairkhwa, a Taliban intelligence official; Abdul Haq Wasiq, a former Taliban government official; and Norullah Noori and Mohammad Nabi Omari, at least three have attempted to rejoin their old comrades, sources told Fox News.

Then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Bergdahl was a “prisoner of war,” and that the deal did not amount to negotiating with terrorists. He also said concerns about Bergdahl’s deteriorating condition made it imperative that the U.S. move quickly to make the trade.

A Pentagon probe concluded in 2010 that Bergdahl had walked away from his base, but stopped short of accusing him of desertion, reopening the probe after his return. 

Bergdhal was promoted to sergeant while in captivity, and had accrued more than $200,000 in back pay by the time he was freed. He was assigned to duty at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas, after his return and reportedly refused to speak with his parents. 

Fox News' Jennifer Griffin and Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Bergdahl charged with desertion

Bald first lady? Michelle Obama’s 'Jeopardy!' appearance raises questions

An appearance by Michelle Obama on "Jeopardy!" had fans on Twitter scratching their heads, wondering whether Michelle Obama was sporting a new, hairless look on hers.

The first lady popped up on the long-running quiz show on Tuesday to promote her "Let's Move!" anti-childhood obesity initiative.

In one clue, FLOTUS talked about rinsing canned vegetables to reduce sodium and how much Vitamin A could be found in sweet potatoes. But what many on social media up in arms appeared to not be nutrition, but an apparent lack of follicles.

Obama had also delivered a "Jeopardy!" clue in 2012. The White House and "Jeopardy!" reps didn't return ITK's request for more information about the latest appearance.

But ITK is surmising this mane mystery is more a case of a quirky camera angle and lighting than Obama opting to be the first first lady to debut a chrome dome.

The White House provided additional information on Obama's "Jeopardy!" segment, but didn't respond to a question about the "bald" buzz.

----------------------------------------------

BTW... She selected politics in the first round for $20.

She suddenly remembered she had a hair appointment and had to leave the show.

Bald first lady? Michelle Obama’s 'Jeopardy!' appearance raises questions

Barry's ulterior motives for mandatory voting

Rush was right.

Check the 4th paragraph in the article below. Democrats who don't vote are just as stupid as the one's that do. 

BTW...anyone see a glaring contradiction here? 

According to Barry forcing one to go to the polls to vote creates no hardship... … but asking for a free photo ID to vote is an insurmountable obstacle! 

On a related issue.

(The proof is in the pudding)

http://hemingwayreport.blogspot.com/search?q=Uninformed+Obama+Voters+Saying+They+Watched+Inauguration+Before+It+Took+Place

Thank God his sister Ethel didn't register.

-----------------------------------------------

During an event in Cleveland, Ohio, this week, President Obama declared: "Other countries have mandatory voting." 

"It would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract [campaign] money more than anything," he averred. "The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups," Obama continued. "There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls." 

Fair enough, but there are also ulterior motives for those who want compulsory voting. 

The people who tend not to vote also tend to skew liberal and apathetic (and are presumably less informed). There's an incentive for Democrats to compel every American (or perhaps, citizenship shouldn't be a requirement?) to vote. That's because voluntary voting poses a problem for them, especially during midterm elections (The Pew Charitable Trusts estimates that only about 2 in 3 eligible voters actually voted in 2014). 

Left unstated, though, is this point: Campaigns might still matter, but it is the rules that generally predetermine the outcome of elections. 

Perhaps sensing a firestorm, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest clarified the president's remarks, noting that Obama was "not making a specific policy prescription." This is the kind of clarification we've come to expect from the White House -- one that actually confuses things. Granted, the president was merely responding to a question about the influence of money in politics, not rolling out a policy proposal. But his words clearly betray a strong preference toward compelling Americans to vote, whether they like it, or not. 

The conservative argument is that voting is a privilege. Eligible citizens should be encouraged to vote out of civic responsibility, but there should be some effort involved in casting a ballot. This minimal effort weeds out people who don't care all that much. 

The problem for Democrats is that Obama's comments play into their authoritarian stereotype. Whether it's health care or voting, they want to mandate everything from cradle to grave. There's also an irony. President Obama suggests it is the poor and young who don't vote, and yet enforcing such a policy would require punitive measures, most likely fines. 

The problem for Republicans is that opposing mandatory voting opens the door for more Democratic demagoguery about voter disenfranchisement -- hearkening back to the bad old days of Jim Crow literacy tests. (In recent years, Republicans have been accused of racism merely for having the audacity to suggest that voters should present identification in order to prove they are who they say they are.) 

As is almost always the case, the conservatives are fighting a defensive war. In recent years, America has increasingly gotten more liberal about its voting, and I'm not just talking about expanding the franchise to include the right to vote at 18. In recent years, more and more states are adopting policies such as same day voter registration, vote-by-mail, and early voting. 

For working moms and dads who might struggle to make it out to the polls on a Tuesday in November, expanded opportunities for voting sounds like a Godsend. But some researchers suggest early voting might actually depress turnout. What is more, these innovations create new challenges in terms of ballot integrity -- and can sometimes results in ballots being cast before all the information is revealed. (What happens if you vote early and then some bombshell information about your candidate drops the next day? It's too late to change your vote, once it has been cast.) 

America has, over the years, evolved a pretty effective and fair system of elections It's not perfect; we still have the occasional hanging chad -- but it has served us pretty well. That's not to say tweaks can't be made. Maybe we should restore voting rights to non-violent ex-felons? Maybe election day should be on a Saturday? But it is to say we shouldn't use the extreme elitism of the past to justify heavy-handed solution for the future. 

While I don't want to live in a nation where only land-holding white males get to vote, I also don't want to live in a nation where my vote is effectively canceled out by someone who has neither the inclination nor the information to cast an informed ballot. Either extreme results in someone being disenfranchised. 

Congratulations are in order to President Obama for inventing yet another way to divide Americans. A week ago, who would have guessed this would even be a relevant topic? 

Barry's ulterior motives for mandatory voting

Obama Warns About Sea Level Rise From Global Warming … Buys Beachfront Mansion In Hawaii

Barry doesn't have to worry about rising tides. He already took care of it during his June 2008 acceptance speech when the Messiah said this.

BTW...Al (global warming) Gore also purchased ocean front property in 2010.

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/sea-level-rising-gore-buys-multi-million-dollar-oceanfront-mansion

--------------------------------------------------------------------

News reports indicate that President Barack Obama may have just purchased a beachfront home in Hawaii. But isn’t he worried about sea level rise from global warming?

Hawaii’s KTV4 News reports that a man connected to Obama purchased the multi-million dollar beachfront home featured in the show “Magnum P.I.” — the property was then sold to a limited liability corporation in Colorado. But if the House was bought on the president’s behalf, isn’t he worried that rising sea levels will harm his new real estate?

Obama has long warned that sea level rises caused by man-made global warming will make storm surges and flooding worse for coastal communities. In his 2015 State of the Union speech, Obama said “we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods.”

In 2013, Obama said that “seas will slowly keep rising and storms will get more severe, based on the science” — one of the reasons why he’s imposing regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants.

Obama also issued an executive order in January calling for the federal agencies to incorporate sea level rises and flood risks in planning and building along the coastlines. The order states that floods from rising seas “are anticipated to increase over time due to the effects of climate change and other threats… which affects our national security.”

And who could forget Obama’s famous line from his 2008 victory speech when he said this was “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

The “Magnum P.I.” mansion is literally right on the water. So shouldn’t Obama be concerned that sea levels around Hawaii are rising according to government water level stations. At Mokuoloe, on Oahu’s north shore close to where the Obama’s may have bought their home, the sea level is rising at a rate of one millimeter per year, or 0.36 feet per century.

Across the island in Honolulu, the sea level is rising much the same, at about 1.4 millimeters per year, or about half a foot per century.

Obama’s alleged beachfront estate was sold for $8.7 million, and the new owner got a $9.5 million mortgage to buy the house and fix it up. Residents of Oahu, and the American public, may find out if the Obamas are in fact the new owners of the house this December when the first family heads out on their annual vacation.

Obama Warns About Sea Level Rise From Global Warming … Buys Beachfront Mansion In Hawaii

Why is the US trying to do business with Iran?

Good question. 

After reading part of the article below the first implication is Barry's middle name is "weakness" instead of Hussein. But after digesting the entire piece the only possible conclusion you can come to, Barry wants a nuclear armed Iran. Barry has coddled Muslims from day one. The 5 for 1 swap was treason. No president in the modern era who cared about America would have given up 5 high ranking Taliban operatives for Bergdhal. This makes absolutely, positively, no sense... unless you have close ties to Islam.

Think about it. With all the Muslim terrorism going on around the world why is Barry so hell bent on closing Gitmo and dealing with Iran? 

---------------------------------------------------------------

By Larry Kudlow

Don't just rely on Benjamin Netanyahu's passionate advice to Congress on his way to re-election that Iran is our arch enemy. Now we have the counsel of retired general David Petraeus, who gave a remarkable interview this week to the Washington Post. Petraeus agrees with Netanhayhu: Iran, not ISIS, is the real enemy. 

His message: "I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq's long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by — and some guided by — Iran." 

Read MoreIran blows up replica US warships in drills

The general adds, "Longer-term, Iranian-backed Shia militia could emerge as the preeminent power in the country, one that is outside the control of the government and instead answerable to Tehran." (Italics mine.) 

Netanyahu is arguing against a bad U.S.-Iran deal that might end the economic sanctions and permit Iranian nuclear development after 10 years. (Of course, nobody believes Iran will wait for, or permit, true verification.) But the thrust of the Petraeus interview is that unless U.S. military strategy completely changes, Iran is going to take over Iraq. 

Petraeus gives ample evidence of this: These Shiite militias are being run by Iran's top military man, General Qasem Soleimani. He's the head of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard. He has been spotted and filmed on the ground in Iraq. And he has been making battlefield tours the way Petraeus did during the surge.

In the Post interview, Petraeus relates a remarkable story: In the midst of the surge, the general got a note from Soleimani: "General Petraeus, you should be aware that I, Qasem Soleimani, control Iran's policy for Iraq, Syria, Lebanaon, Gaza, and Afghanistan." (Italics mine.) Petraeus told the intermediary he could tell Soleimani to "pound sand."

Read MoreHow the US and Iran could become BFFs

Overall, Petraeus makes it very clear that the current Iranian regime "is not our ally in the Middle East," is part of the problem, not the solution, and is "deeply hostile to us and our friends." Without ever mentioning Obama's name, it's clear that Petraeus is splitting from administration policy. 

And isn't all this what Bibi Netanyahu told the U.S. Congress? Didn't he say Iran's goal is to control the whole area, and of course attempt at some point to blast Israel off the face of the Earth?

So why are President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry trying to do business with Iran? If we know who the militias really are and know that Iran wants to take over Iraq and control the whole region, why is the United States talking about lifting economic sanctions and negotiating some sort of accommodationist deal with our arch enemy?

And why is the U.S. doing this with oil down 50 percent and Iran a high-cost producer? The economic table is set for a catastrophic fiscal blow to Iran — our enemy. 

Read MoreObama afraid to come to Congress about Iran: Corker

According to a Wall Street Journal news report, Iran needs $130.70 per barrel of oil to balance its budget. But the price of Brent crude is about $55, or roughly 60 percent below what Iran needs. It's hard to get credible economic numbers for Iran, but it's a safe guess that the budget is most of the state-run economy. Therefore, cheap oil is deadly for Iran. 

So I ask again: Why are we helping them? We've got Iran on the ropes. Why loosen the sanctions? 

Talking to the Post, General Petraeus acknowledges that we moved troops out of Iraq way too soon and in doing so sent a signal of weakness that we were pulling back from the Middle East overall. I would guess that these last-ditch efforts at an Iranian treaty will be perceived as even greater U.S. weakness in the Middle East. 

Who knows if this can be stopped. Surely the Senate must vote on any U.S.-Iran deal. But the conundrum is, if we know Iran is our enemy, if we know Iran wants to conquer the Middle East, if we know Iran wants to destroy Israel, if we know Iran is continuing to develop nuclear weapons, and if we're hearing all this not just from the Israeli prime minister, who has the burden of defending his nation, but also from a retired general who is out of office and has no skin in the game, why won't the present administration come to acknowledge the real situation, reverse course, and halt any efforts to placate our arch enemy Iran? 

Why do we even have to ask this question?

Why is the US trying to do business with Iran?