This and That...

[Warph]

Col. David Hunt on O'Reilly: Bergdahl Called Unit The Day After He Walked Away Saying 'I've Deserted'

Hunt also claims 14 soldiers were killed trying to find him.

Needless to say, the Obama regime is aware of this, it has to be in Bergdahl's file.

"We've traded war criminals for a deserter", Hunt said.

Even Spider-Man can't believe all this sh!t from Obuma.

[Ross]

Gutfeld: 'Bergdahl Swap Is Like a

Common Core Math Problem'

Earlier today, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wrote a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee requesting an immediate hearing into the president's actions after he failed to notify Congress, as generally required under the National Defense Authorization Act.

Today in his monologue on The Five, Greg Gutfeld said, "It sounds like a Common Core math problem – five high risk terrorists for one mysterious hostage."

The Taliban has called the prisoner swap a "victory," leading many to wonder what message it sends that the United States negotiated with terrorists.

"What else did we give them?" Gutfeld asked. "We're dealing with mobsters on mules, after all. And why these five specific guys? They weren't working in HR. We've been told that Islamophobia only increases violence worldwide, but you could say the same thing about this."

He said the past proves that when terrorists are released or escape, they will kill Americans.

As for President Obama, Gutfeld called him a "lousy" poker player, "telegraphing intentions even before entering the casino. What did he photograph? That we're out of here. Done. Back to tackling the harsh realities of bullying."

How does America win in a trade like this? The only way it's a fair trade, Gutfeld said, is if those terrorists end up dead.


EXCLUSIVE: Tonight at 9p/12a ET on The Kelly File, hear from two soldiers who served with Bergdahl. Plus, former Vice President Dick Cheney talks to Megyn Kelly about the repercussions of the exchange.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/06/02/gutfeld-bergdahl-swap-common-core-math-problem

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Graham on Bergdahl Prisoner Swap:
US Released the 'Taliban Dream Team'

Moments ago, Senator Lindsey Graham sent a letter to Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, requesting an immediate hearing on the transfer of U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl.

The Obama administration has come under fire for negotiating with terrorists and in essence, putting a price on American soldiers' heads.

Sen. Graham wrote:

I write today requesting an immediate hearing on the exchange of five high-ranking Taliban leaders for the release of Sergenat Bowe Bergdahl. While I appreciate an American was released from captivity, this decision by the Obama Administration has serious implications for our future national security.

The five terrorists released were the hardest of the hard-core.  They held positions of great importance within the hard-core anti-American Taliban, including the Chief of Staff of the Taliban Army and the Taliban Deputy Minister of Intelligence.  They have American blood on their hands and surely as night follows day they will return to the fight.  In effect, we released the "Taliban Dream Team."  The United States is less safe because of these actions.

I fear President Obama's decision will inevitably lead to more Americans being kidnapped and held hostage throughout the world.

There are also questions about why the Administration failed to comply with the law.  We need a thorough review of this decision and I urge you to hold a hearing on this matter as it has profound implications for our national security.

With President Obama's announcement of a total withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2016 - basically canceling an insurance policy to protect our homeland - and now releasing five Taliban leaders, it's safe to say last week was a great week for the Taliban.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) questioned the conditions under which the terrorists were released, warning that they could turn around and launch attacks aimed at killing Americans. Taliban leader Mullah Omar delivered a statement on Sunday calling the trade a "great victory."

On Outnumbered, Army veteran Pete Hegseth was outraged over the prisoner swap.

"If there's one thing we've never done, it's negotiate with terrorists," he said. "We decide now that the price of an American soldier is five Taliban. [...] These are guys associated with Usama bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks."

Harris Faulkner noted that as news broke about Bergdahl's release, he went from being called a hero to a possible deserter. 

Hegseth said, "The Taliban said he was drunk and off base. He said in a statement that he had fallen behind on a patrol. Which if you fall behind on a patrol, you're in a fire fight or somebody knows about it."

Members of Bergdahl's unit were told not to talk about the situation until he was returned home. Now, fellow soldiers are coming out and saying he walked off the base.

"They don't want the story to be Bowe Bergdahl, American hero, if he isn't. If he is, then great," Hegseth said. "But if he deserted and didn't believe in the mission, and then they spent months and months looking for him, and now he's being lauded as such – that really complicates the situation."

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/06/02/hegseth-bergdahl-prisoner-swap-obama-admin-put-price-american-soldiers

[Ross]

Justification Over the top, for the following article in my opinion!

TRADE SECRETS

Impeach-Obama movement surges on Bergdahl deal

'This is aiding and abetting the enemy'

The charge that President Obama has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" and should be impeached because of the deal he arranged to set free five top Taliban leaders in exchange for an American soldier whose behavior is under investigation is gaining traction.

Lots of traction.

Including a request from a former member of Congress, Allen West, to current House Speaker John Boehner and others "to draft articles of impeachment as no one is above the law in America."

"I call upon the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives; Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to draft articles of impeachment," West wrote Tuesday.

West argues Obama signed into law only months ago the National Defense Authorization Act, which makes it a crime against the nation to offer or provide any material support to terror groups.

The problem was explained by Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, who supported West's opinion.

"We have a federal statute which makes it a felony to provide material assistance to any terrorist organization. It could be money, maps, professional services, any asset whatsoever, include human assets," he said.

Napolitano argues it is likely the five terrorist leaders will rejoin the campaign against the United States, which constitutes material support.

Just a day ago, Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who brought the evidence that convicted perpetrators of the first Islamic terror bombing of New York's World Trade Center, said Obama likely broke the federal law against supporting terror.

The definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office is presented in "Impeachable Offenses" by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

Transferring the five terrorists to Qatar in exchange for the release of Bergdahl "violates the law against material support to terrorism," Andrew McCarthy told the the Daily Mail of London.

McCarthy was assistant U.S. attorney in New York. He led the 1995 prosecution of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and nearly a dozen others charged with the bombing, which failed to bring down the towers but killed six and injured more than a thousand.

West wrote Tuesday that Obama used an Article 2 signing statement to deem unconstitutional a measure he had signed into law contained in the National Defense Authorization Act.

"The law stated that he must advise Congress within 30 days about any plans to transfer detainees from Gitmo," West wrote. "Obama basically stated that this was 'unconstitutional' and that his unilateral action fell within his purview. Once again Obama used selective discretion as to what law he feels he must adhere to — in this case it has severe ramifications for our national security."

He said the five Guantanamo Bay detainees "were senior Taliban officials, basically members of Mullah Omar's inner circle."

"This is aiding and abetting the enemy, which goes along with the collusion of this administration with Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations and supplying weapons and arms to Islamists," West wrote. "Obama just released the leadership of a terrorist organization, and what did we get in return? A deserter, who by his own self-proclamation harbors anti-American sentiments – which it seems that Susan Rice, our esteemed national security adviser, didn't even realize his heinous actions – or maybe as usual she just lied about it again.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that Barack Hussein Obama's unilateral negotiations with terrorists and the ensuing release of their key leadership without consult – mandated by law – with the U.S. Congress represents high crimes and misdemeanors, an impeachable offense."



Napolitano said it's clear Obama did "the very thing that government is prohibited from doing under federal law."

The action, Napolitano said, "defies" Obama's oath of office, which is to "faithfully" enforce federal law.

"He may very have committed a federal crime by giving material assistance to a terror organization," he said.

Impeachment, he said, is "a very, very valid argument."

Roll Call reported the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee also joined the conversation.

"My perception is he broke the law by not informing Congress 30 days before," Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., said in an appearance on MSNBC.

McKeon was referring to a 2013 law that requires the administration to notify Congress before detainees from the detention camp are released.

"We will be holding hearings. I'm sorry that this is being portrayed as a Republican issue. Democrats also voted for this law. It was important for our national security," he said.

McKeon noted the law passed overwhelmingly in both chambers of Congress and the president signed it.

"And although he said now he had a disclaimer along with it that he apparently didn't support the law, he did sign it," the congressman said.

WND's report Monday explained that McCarthy differed slightly. He said Obama's actions in releasing the five terrorists were not impeachable based on not notifying Congress, because he said that law itself was flawed.

But the law, he said, specifically forbids any "material support to terrorism." And he said the president actions likely violated that provision.

"And because high crimes and misdemeanors (the offenses cited in the Constitution as reason for impeachment) are not statutory offenses but political wrongs that endanger the United States, the return of senior terrorists to the Taliban while we still have soldiers in harm's way is, in my view, a 'high crime and misdemeanor,'" McCarthy told the Mail.

A book also has made a case for impeaching Obama. "Impeachable Offenses," by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, has been called a blueprint for impeaching Obama, outlining the high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and other offenses committed against the U.S. Constitution.

The Daily Mail itself called "Impeachable Offenses" "explosive," saying the book contains a "systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president's defenders will find troublesome."

Among the offenses enumerated in the book before the Bergdahl deal erupted:
•Obamacare not only is unconstitutional but illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states' rights and marking an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of IRS power.
•Sidestepping Congress, Obama already has granted largely unreported de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens using illicit interagency directives and executive orders.
•The Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.
•The president's personal role in the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, with new evidence regarding what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the assault – arguably impeachable activities in and of themselves.
•Illicit edicts on gun control in addition to the deadly "Fast and Furious" gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun data.
•And more.

The definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office is presented in "Impeachable Offenses" by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/impeach-obama-movement-surges-on-bergdahl-deal/#JUTSXuodOtzDVfFV.99

[Ross]

The Secret Service
Wants to Get an
Actual
Sarcasm Detector

Isn't it great that our government doesn't do anything remotely silly? I'm just kidding, of course they do. I was just being sarcastic because the Secret Service, in a work order posted online yesterday, actually wants to find a way to detect sarcasm on the internet. Great idea.

Yes, there's actually a request in there for the "ability to detect sarcasm and false positives" on social media outlets like Twitter. A Secret Service spokesperson explained, "The ability to detect sarcasm and false positives is just one of 16 or 18 things we are looking at. We are looking for the ability to quantity our social media outreach. We aren't looking solely to detect sarcasm."

Well, at least there's that. But here's the problem: you can't always detect sarcasm online. That's why a major part of sarcasm is inflection. You know, speech! The thing you don't do when you type things out!

This will probably go well.

[h/t WaPo]
[image via Shutterstock]
http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-secret-service-wants-to-get-an-actual-sarcasm-detector/

[Ross]

[Ross]

'I. Am. The. Mom.': It Didn't Go Over Well When a Hospital Allegedly Told a Mother They'd Need to Have a 'Private' Conversation With Her Teenage Daughter

Jun. 3, 2014 10:48pm   Jason Howerton

When Christy Duffy took her 17-year-old daughter to her local hospital in Michigan, she was stunned to see a notice posted alerting parents that a nurse will need to "have a short 5 minute private conversation with your child."

In a fiery blog post published on Monday, Duffy took a bold stand in favor of parental rights. She explains how the situation unfolded:


I was there last week for an appointment for Amy. She hurt her foot, which makes dancing difficult, so we had to get that checked out. Amy is 17; I asked if this policy was in effect and if so, how could I opt out. The receptionist told me it's a new law and there is no opting out. Working to keep my cool, I said, "I'm sure there is." She said, "No, there isn't." At which point I asked if I needed to leave and go to the urgent care center because I was not submitting my daughter to such a conversation.

That did not go over well

The receptionist closed the window. Almost immediately, the office manager turned the corner and said, "Mrs. Duffy, may I speak with you?"

She said there was a new policy that would allow a child to access his/her medical records online and the child would be allowed to block a parent from viewing the website. The nurse would also inform my children that the doctor's office is a safe place for them to receive information about STDs, HIV and birth control. That is what the nurse would be chatting about with my children without any pesky parental oversight.

Refusing to back down, Duffy then says she "politely" informed the office manager that no one would be talking to her child privately and asked how she may opt out of the policy before she returned to the hospital for her daughter's physical the next month.

"Make sure this is crystal clear: what they want to do is talk to your child about sex and drugs (maybe rock and roll – who knows?) without your input," Duffy writes. "Is it really such a stretch to imagine that a doctor who does not value abstinence before marriage would encourage your daughters – as young as 12! – to receive birth control? Is it really such a stretch to imagine a nurse telling a young boy – because a 12 year old boy is a BOY – that she will give him condoms so he can be 'safe'?"

She also made sure to snap a picture of the notice:

Credit: Christy Duffy

"I am the Mom. I will pick who can talk to my kids about sex and drugs. And rock-n-roll for that matter," she adds in the post.

In a follow-up blog post published on Tuesday, Duffy revealed that a woman with the hospital's "privacy department" called her on the phone after she sent an email seeking clarification.

Duffy claims she was informed that the law in Michigan requires a minor be given the ability to deny his or her parents access to the online portion of his or her medical records.

The "private" 5-minute conversation would cover the online account as well as information on STDs and birth control. The private conversation between a minor and a nurse is apparently not required by law.

The representative also said the particular hospital had "jumped the gun" by posting the sign because its not clear how the the policy will be implemented yet. The sign has reportedly been removed.

The mother says she's not satisfied because "jumped the gun" doesn't mean the policy will never be enforced.

"They will attempt to separate a child from her parent at an appointment. They just don't know when," she writes. "I have nothing to hide. I do not abuse my children. But that's not the point. The point is that parents' rights are eroding right in front of our eyes."

TheBlaze has reached out to Duffy and will attempt to contact the hospital in question.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/03/i-am-the-mom-it-didnt-go-over-well-when-a-hospital-allegedly-told-a-mother-theyd-need-to-have-a-private-conversation-with-her-teenage-daughter/
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Check out parentalrights.org. They see the importance of securing the rights of parents http://www.parentalrights.org/

[Warph]

,










,



























,

















,
















,





















[...]









[...]

[Warph]

Pic of The Day: Obama Struggles To Lift 5-Pound Dumbbells

What a CLOWN!

Via NY Post:
Even the president pumps iron at the hotel gym.

A fellow gym user snapped a few covert shots of President Obama
lifting weights at a 5-star hotel in Warsaw, Poland — evidently
without being seen by the president's security team — then posted
them on his Facebook page.

The leaked photos show Obama, in a dark blue track suit and white
T-shirt, lifting dumbbells while surrounded by several people in
the Marriott Hotel's luxury gym. He spent around 30 minutes working
out in the gym before heading back to his presidential suite,
according to Central European News.

The photos were taken by Facebook user Jean Ekwa, who managed to
take the shots on his cellphone.

         

[Warph]

          So G-d Made A Liberal...

[Warph]

             

White House Whines: GOP Criticism of Bergdahl Is Just a
"Proxy For Their Hatred Toward The President"

(The White House is also claiming they knew about
the desertion claims against Bergdahl, if this is true then why did they trot
Susan Rice out on Sunday to praise him for "serving with honor and distinction?")

Via Politico:
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.