Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

07 June 2014

Unclassified Document Shows In 2011 Obama Argued In Court Taliban Commander He Freed In Exchange For Bergdahl Should Not Be Released…

Khairulla Khairkhwa

'[T]hese five detainees do not and will not pose a significant threat to the United States. And it was in the national security interests of the United States to secure Sergeant Bergdahl’s release.'

- Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, 2 June 2014

That (meaning the documents referred to below) was then.  This is now.

While some top Obama administration officials are downplaying threats posed the five senior Taliban officials released from Guantanamo in the prisoner exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, not long ago the administration went to court to prevent one of those men from going free. In a decision on May 31, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled in favor of the government–and “Respondent Barack Obama”–in its effort to keep Khairulla Khairkhwa in detention. That decision, once classified “Secret,” has since been declassified and released. 

Today, with these Taliban leaders free in Qatar and already looking likely to rejoin the fight against America, top Obama administration officials are seeking to reassure Americans that the threats are minimal–or, in the words of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, “sufficiently mitigated.” But just three years ago, the same administration argued in court against Khairkhwa’s writ of habeas corpus because of his senior position with the Taliban, his close relationship with Taliban leader Mullah Omar, and his support for Taliban forces fighting against the United States.

The case provides a window on the Obama administration’s concerns–concerns that many top intelligence and military officials continue to have. The court summarized the government’s case this way. “The government contends that the petitioner, a former senior Taliban official, is lawfully detained because he was part of Taliban forces and purposefully and materially supported such forces in hostilities against the United States,” the court wrote in the introduction to its opinion. [...] 

The court found persuasive the Obama administration’s argument that Khairkhwa helped lead Taliban fighters after the beginning of hostilities with the U.S. in the fall of 2001. Khairkhwa “had a “long history of involvement with the Taliban’s military affairs” and was a “prominent and influential leader within the Taliban.”

Before he was released, the Obama administration argued that Khairkhwa’s long experience as a jihadist leader required his continued detention by the U.S. government. Now that Obama has chosen to transfer him to Qatar the administration would have the public believe that he and the other freed Taliban leaders do not constitute a threat to the United States. 

Hmmm...I wonder what could have happened in the interim to change Obama's mind?

1) He was reelected and believes it is now safe to take off the mask and tell the country to 'Shut the fuck up and salute...or kiss the ground that I walked on.'

2) Benghazi, IRS, NSA, EPA, DOJ, etc.

3) Vets dying on wait lists secreted by the Veterans Administration and 79% of Americans hold Barack Obama - at least partially, if not entirely - PERSONALLY to blame.

4) He wanted to keep his campaign promise to close Gitmo and sacrificed another campaign promise by going around Congress.

'I taught constitutional law for 10 years. I take the Constitution very seriously.  The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all.  And that is what I intend to reverse when I become president of the United States.'

- Senator Barack Obama, at a campaign rally in  Lancaster, Pennsylvania., 31 March 2008

5.  His party is facing a bloodbath in November and he wants to energize his base.  (Of course, he didn't realise that only 24% of Americans believe that we have a duty to rescue deserters and that includes 40% of Democrats. Oops.)  This is a real problem for him because he has told allies that losing the Senate to Republicans would make his last two years in office unbearable . . .

'I don’t really care to be president without the Senate.'

Of all so far, this would have been at the top of my 'Most Unlikely List', BUT, this is only true if you look at it through the eyes of Senate Democrats and Obama isn't exactly known for being 'that into' his fellow Democrats on The Hill.  Rather, you have to look at it this way:  As usual, Obama is making himself the issue.  'Well, if I can't get my flunkie Harry Reid to do whatever I want as Majority Leader, fuck the country.  I will just pick up my toys and go home.'

But, if he wants to leave, I won't stop him.

6.  As Obama, on numerous occasions, has placed himself in the Pathenon of Presidents right there besides Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan, he has already begun to transition to his 'post-presidency.'  He is going to focus on doing whatever he wants with his phone and his pen in the remaining 2.5 years with an eye to how Doris Kearns Goodwin, David McCullough, Doug Brinkley, and the rest will write about him.  

How he could imagine that this unmitigated clusterfuck of decisions, probably one of the worst trades in history, would cement his greatness is waaaaaay beyond me.

7.  He is cocooned with inexperienced hacks giving him advice.

What did he think would happen when he hired people like Susan Rice (advised Bill Clinton not to take custody of Osama bin Laden and refused the request to increase security on the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in the months before Al Qaeda blew them up killing more than 200 people), Ben 'My brother runs CBS News, wink, wink' Rhodes (who wrote the talking points for both Benghazi and Bergdahl and then gave them to the dope, Susan Rice's ), and Tommy Vietor, whose first job for then-Senator Barack Obama was as the driver of the press van following the former on the campaign trail in 2008)? 

'But, dude, that was like six years ago!  I've learned soooo much.  No, like, really.'

8.  He is just bloody delusional, which often happens to narcissistic personalities.

If Obama's ego ever sets foot on Guam, the whole island will tip over and capsize.  

God love Hank Johnson!

Big Time Democrat Donor Invokes Gas Chambers And Screams ’Fuck God’s Chosen People!’

By Christopher Cook 

(Sung to the tune of “The Candyman Can”):

Who can slander Catholics,
Mexicans and Jews, 
Then have her team of lawyers pull the vids from YouTube?   
J.Z. Knight. J.Z. Knight can.

J.Z. Knight can ’cause she fuels her rants with wine and thinks that she sounds good.

Who can run a weird cult,
With hundreds in her thrall, Say lots of vile things and still impress them all? J.Z. Knight. J.Z. Knight can.

J.Z. Knight can, ’cause she’s so completely sloshed she can’t be understood.

Who can take her money,
For their political campaigns, Ignore things she says, tho’ she’s patently insane? The Democrats. The Democrats can.

The Democrats can, ’cause her money gives them power . . . so it’s all good.

It’s not often that I am moved to write parody song lyrics these days. For one thing—it takes time to match new lyrics to existing melodies and get the meter just right. 

But in the case of cult leader and big-money Democrat donor J.Z. Knight, I found myself moved to make an exception. For truly, “parody” is one of the first words that comes to mind when observing the wine-fueled hate-speech (masquerading as ancient “Lemurian” wisdom) that issues forth from this bizarre cult leader.

Indeed, if you were writing a screenplay with a cult-leader character, and you made that character like J.Z. Knight, you might just get laughed out of the producer’s office. “Too over-the-top . . . too hackneyed . . . too weird . . . too evil,” he might say. But that is exactly how one might describe J.Z. Knight.

Or should I say, Cult-leader, drunken bully, and big-money donor to the Democratic Party . . . J.Z. Knight. For it’s that last part—her role as a donor to the Democratic Party, that makes her story all-the-more interesting.

Let’s start with a question: Have you heard of J.Z. Knight?

Now, how about Donald Sterling? Heard of him? I thought so.

And yet nothing Sterling said approaches the appalling nature of this J.Z. Knight classic: 

'Fuck God’s chosen people!  I think they have earned enough cash to have paid their way out of the goddamned gas chambers by now.'

In case you don’t believe me . . . here is the video evidence. It cannot be embedded here, because Knight’s lawyers keep forcing YouTube and other hosts to take down video evidence of her hate speech. So watch this right away, before it too is forced down.

1.  Saying '@#$% God’s chosen people (The Jews)'

2.  Raising the age-old canard of the money-grubbing/rich Jew.

3.  Invoking the Holocaust in a way that is so far beyond poor taste it almost defies description.

Imagine if a big-money donor to the Republicans had said this. Seriously. It wouldn’t just be national news, it would be international news. There would be vigils. There would be serious discussions on mainstream news programs about incipient fascism and the possibility of neo-Nazi control at the heart of the Republican machine. There would be shocked horror at the audience members clapping like trained seals at Knight’s bilious vitriol. 

Instead, she’s a donor to the Democrats, and the trained seals are rich west-coast liberals, so we hear more crickets than we do media coverage. 

We should be horrified by statements like this no matter who utters them. Too bad having that sort of fixed moral standard doesn’t occur to Democrats—including Barack Obama, who never returned the $50,000 he received from Knight.

There is a great deal more to the J.Z. Knight saga. Proving that the tragic observation “What starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews” applies to words every bit as much as it does to violent governments, Knight also has plenty of bile reserved for Mexicans, Catholics, and others. But those will have to wait until a Part 2. We want to get this one out right away, before Knight sics her lawyers on those currently hosting it.

06 June 2014

Obama Trades All Remaining Gitmo Detainees for Magic Beans

On the heels of his widely-praised exchange of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five captured Taliban commanders, which Democratic strategists are comparing to trading General George Patton for five taxi drivers, President Obama went them one better and swapped all remaining Guantanamo detainees for a bag of magic beans.

In announcing the trade, Secretary of State John Kerry stated, "President Obama has unloaded hundreds of unskilled laborers and taxi drivers whom we already have enough of, and transported them from Gitmo to Afghanistan where they will be more likely to find jobs that fit their training and aspirations, like driving a cab, or follow their dream of being an artist or a poet."

"The magic beans he obtained from the Taliban in the trade will grow into large beanstalks which will pierce the cloud cover of Republican obstructionism surrounding the planet, and help alleviate climate change. It's a win-win," Kerry said.

"This is a big effing deal," said Vice President Joe Biden praising the trade. "For years the enemy has claimed our foreign policy was based on magical thinking. This swap is proof that we are guided by practicality and realism," Biden said, adding in passing that "someone's been eating [his] porridge."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also made a supportive statement, noting that the giant beanstalks will help reduce the deficit: "We can send people to climb up the beanstalks and steal gold from the giant Koch Brothers, who have hidden it in a castle in the clouds so they wouldn't have to pay taxes on it. Fee, fi, fo, fum," stated Reid.

State Department's Senior Twitterer, Jen Psaki, preempted any hostile criticism by Tweeting that the idea of growing large beanstalks around the White House has nothing to do with making it difficult to see what's going on inside, nor is it an attempt to distract attention from alleged "scandals," such as, the VA and Benghazi. "If anything, President Obama does not give himself enough credit for all his accomplishments in the last five years. He doesn't need magic plants to hide his successes from the public," Psaki Tweeted.

UN Ambassador Susan Rice led the Administration's effort to sell the transaction to TV viewers, telling a Sunday cooking show that "magic beans can be served with honor and distinction, especially with a main dish of fowl, such as crow."

In a rare public statement, Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban Taxi Drivers' Union, called the swap a "victory" for President Obama in his fight against climate change. "Allah willing, we will continue to aid Obama's jihad against non-believers in global warming."

"Since he's clean out of detainees, maybe Obama can trade more of our magic beans for something else he doesn't need, like spent plutonium, for example. Our mountain caves make excellent toxic waste repositories. Call me if you want to trade, Barack," stated Omar, holding his thumb and index finger out in the traditional "phone call" hand gesture.

Bernard's Great Escape: D-Day Veteran, 89, Who Sneaked Off From Care Home After Staff Told Him He Couldn't Go To 70th Anniversary Commemorations Makes It To Normandy Against All The Odds... AGAIN!

Screengrab via the Daily Mail

Found: Veteran Bernard Jordan has been found in Normandy after travelling to France to mark the anniversary of D-Day. Above, the 89-year-old is pictured now (left) and during his time as a member of the Royal Navy (right)

Read the story from the Daily Mail here.

Bernard Jordan? 

Disobeyed orders in order to join his Band of Brothers during a time marking one of the most important battle in the world's worst ever war. 

Bowe Bergdahl?

Disobeyed orders in order to desert and take off looking for the enemy during a time of war.

Pretty much says. it. all.

Bernard Jordan


It also tells us a lot about contrasts Obama:

American-hating military deserters?

Obama bails him out and makes the worst trade in American history.

The Greatest Generation?

Obama closes down their open-air memorials and sends the Nationalsozialismus Park Service to harass and intimidate them.

Don't Do Stupid Shit: The 70th Anniversary of D-Day Edition

Obama took selfies at Nelson Mandela's funeral.

Today, he chewed gum at the memorial marking the 70th anniversary of D-Day...managing to insult both the French & British and projecting the image of a rude, selfish, ill-mannered, inelegant, déclassé, and gauche leader to the rest of the world.

Remember when we were told that he was the 'smartest man in the world'?

Seriously, does no one surrounding Barack Obama understand appropriate behaviour and advise him of such?

For an example of French reaction, has a good rundown:

Obama was caught on camera chewing gum while clapping during the welcome for Her Majesty the Queen. He kept chewing throughout the ceremonies, also managing to anger France. French twitter blew up (not to mention British and American reaction): 

Obama et son chewing-gum. Classe. #DDay70 

— Grégory Gasson (@GregGasson) June 6, 2014 

#DDay Peu élégante, l’attitude de M #Obama mâchant ostensiblement son chewing gum en pleine cérémonie… 

— Thierry Le Bras (@ThierryLeBras2) June 6, 2014

#Obama ac son chewing gum… Pas classe du tout #DDay70  

— Laurent Caselli (@LaurentCaselli) June 6, 2014 

'No class at all'

Est-ce que quelqu'un pourrait demander à Barack Obama d'arrêter de mastiquer son chewing-gum comme un cow-boy? #DDay

— Jayce Oliver (@jaycelight) June 6, 2014 

'Is there anyone who will ask Barack Obama to stop chewing on his gum like a cowboy?'

'Le chewing-gum Obama merde'

— Ju' (@SaisirUnPseudo) June 6, 2014 

And if you need a translation for that last one, ‘merde’ = shit, as in the Obama Doctrine:  

Don't. Do. Stupid. Shit.

Poll: Plurality Of Public Disapproves Of Bergdahl Deal And Only 24% Believe America Has A Duty To Rescue Deserters

So much for the Obama's claim that the outrage relative to the Bergdahl-4-Taliban5 deal is just another 'controvers[y] that [has been] whipped up in Washington.'

The latest research from YouGov shows that the deal to free Bergdahl might not be the political victory that the Obama Administration may have hoped for. Half the country (49%) say that it’s unacceptable for the US to release suspected terrorists to secure the release of a captive US soldier, and even first impressions of this deal before many of the darker details emerged show that people tend to oppose (39%) rather than support (35%) the deal that freed Bowe Bergdahl.

If the allegations about how Bergdahl was captured turn out to be true, support for the deal could fall even further, particularly among Republicans. Only 24% of Americans think that the government even has a responsibility to try and rescue a deserter who is captured by enemy combatants. This compares to 82% for soldiers that get lost and captured, 87% for soldiers who are wounded and captured. Even for soldiers that surrender to the enemy, most Americans (57%) think that the government has a responsibility to rescue them.

I wonder if Obama and team has ANY idea of the ferocity of the shit-storm that they are in.  Part of me - a big part - thinks that they are so arrogant, smug, elitist, and completely out-of-touch that they are completely unaware.  But, how on earth can anyone possibly be so tone-deaf and delusional?  

Do they really think that they can fix this outrageous mess by having Obama give another 'Just Words, Just Speeches' speech?  If so, the next two and half years are going to be amongst the most dangerous in American history.  Obama will become the very definition of an existential threat.

The other day, I was speaking to my mum and discussed this situation with her.  I said, 'Mummy, it is like we are on a bus, the driver has had a heart attack rendering him unconscious, and we are all looking at a sign that says':

'DANGER! Road Closed. Cliff Ahead.'

Stalin, His POW Son, & ‘I Will Not Trade A Field Marshal For A Lieutenant’

Dzhugashvili in captivity.

Yakov Dzhugashvili was Josef Stalin’s son from his first wife. In July of 1941, he either surrendered to or was captured by the Nazis. He was sent to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp in Oranienburg, Germany. 

At one point, the Germans offered to trade Dzhugashvilli for Friedrich Paulus, the German Field Marshal who was captured during the Battle of Stalingrad. Stalin, reportedly said:

‘I will not trade a Field Marshal for a Lieutenant.’

In 1943, at the age of 36, a guard in Sachsenhausen, most likely, put a bullet in Yakov Dzhugashvili’s head for failing to obey orders.  There remains some debate as to whether it was a bullet to the brain or an electric fence, to which Yakov ran.  Flat-out murder or suicide after 2 years of desperation, despair, deprivation, and pain?  That's not the real issue. Either way, he died as a POW, which is a label that the Pentagon refused for five years to put on Bergdahl…and his own father (he was somebody’s child!) refused to make the trade.

Why is this of any import?

Because many people throughout the years have pointed to Yakov’s death as evidence of Stalin’s coldness, which he certainly was and I am in no way defending the evil bastard, but he did understand that he was:

1) Fighting a war;

2) Sending millions of his fellow countrymen to fight and die;

3) Watching millions of Russian civilians be starved and massacred;

4) The leader of his country and military, and as such, he had to put the interests of the nation above his own and those of his son.

Notice the head wound.

He, especially, understood that a trade of a Field Marshal for his son, a Lieutenant, was not a equal trade and he, in effect, would be replenishing Hitler’s military during a time of war when Russians were expending blood, sweat, and treasure.

Well, as much as I loathe Stalin, his ideology, and actions, his position on high-ranking commander swaps for low-level soldier while combat is still ongoing is interesting to consider in light of recent events.  Further, if Stalin realised that he could not make such a deal, which would put a Field Marshal back on the battlefield, why can't some see that it is questionable as to whether we should have traded a Buck Private Sergeant for five 4-star generals while the enemy is still killing our own and, whether we like it or not and whether we decide to unilaterally withdraw/surrender, the Taliban and other Jihadists will continue the fight.  They have refused to renounce terrorism, which was one of the original conditions Obama put on a trade.  They refused.  Barack Obama capitulated.

Since Obama has said that he wouldn’t leave any American soldier behind, I wish someone would ask him: 

Rather than the Taliban 5, would you have swapped Malia for Bergdahl? 

Yeah, I know that it is a PREPOSTEROUS question (and I made it so intentionally), but if Obama’s principle is that we don’t leave American troops behind, then such a question would tell us exactly how much he means it. 

I mean, if the CINC’s position is that we don’t leave any American soldier behind, then there should be no question. Right? 

Would the circumstances of Bergdahl’s ‘disappearance’ factor into Obama’s ‘calculus’? 

Would Obama have even thought about exchanging Malia for a AWOLer, deserter, defector, and/or collaborator Bergdahl if that was wanted the Taliban had demanded? 

Of course not. 

And, no one would expect him to make such a trade... 

..but one does have to ask, then, is Malia Obama worth more than Bowe Robert Bergdahl? Is she one of those ‘more equal than others’ animals? Is this ‘fair’? Is this ‘equality’? 

Further, it does, however, disprove Obama’s contention that ‘we don’t leave Americans behind’ because, obviously, we would if the Taliban demanded Malia Obama. 

On the other hand, would he have traded Khalid Sheik-Mohammed for two American soldiers held in captivity and who were actually captured on the battlefield? 

Would he trade the mastermind of 9/11, who is responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans for those two American soldiers, who did, in fact, serve honourably and with distinction?

 After all, he did trade Mullah Norullah Noori, a senior Taliban military commander, who is wanted by the United Nations for possible war crimes, including the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims and 6,000 men and boys in Mazar-i-Sharif, according to a leaked JTF-GTMO file. 

So, are Muslim lives worth less than American ones?

To paraphrase Kanye West, why does Obama hate brown-skinned people?

Many on the Left have argued that those upset about this trade would have 'left an American soldier' behind.  Well, if you like strawmen, there you go.   I haven't ever said that we should have left Bergdahl behind in Afghanistan.  Rather, I have had the following points, problems, issues, and concerns with the trade:

1)  Yes, this country has negotiated with terrorists before, but we have NEVER traded terrorists in exchange for a hostage.

2) Yes, American soldiers and civilians will always be targets for terrorists and others, who seek to harm our nation and/or influence our foreign policy, but it is undeniable that, once we have so publicly demonstrated our willingness to make such lopsided deals, more hostages will be taken.  Indeed, I understand that the Norks took an American today, a former Cuban terrorist is proposing a 1 American-for-3 Cuban terrorists exchange, and the Taliban has said that, not only did Obama give them legitimacy, he incentivised them to take more Americans.

3) Yes, Bergdahl volunteered to put on a uniform and serve his country in a time of war, but he also voluntarily took it off and voluntarily abandoned his brothers-in-arms in a combat zone.  While I certainly want Bergdahl to have every right of due process and presumption before a courts martial, it is, in the words of the 2010 Pentagon report, 'incontrovertible' that he 'walked away' of his own free will and abandoned his country and fellow service members.  No one is denying this.  Some are trying to excuse it and make a victim out of him.  'Swiftboating, full of psychopaths, as much his unit's fault as his, blah, blah, blah.  I'm not calling for him to executed like Eddie Solvik was during WWII, but he sure isn't Sgt York either.

4)  Was Bergdahl, a possible or probable deserter, worth 5 4-star generals?  No.

5) Would Bergdahl have been worth five 4-star generals?  Maybe, but not until hostilities cease.  Would we have traded Goebells, Goring, Himmler, and Hess for one private during WWII?  Of course not.  It would be insanity to replenish Hitler's command while he is still slaughtering our troops.

6)  If the military decided that Bergdahl 'just wasn't worth' risking the lives of special forces, why is he worth five of what Mullah Omar has said is worth 500,000 recruits, i.e., each worth 100,000 jihadis, to put back on the 'terrorfield'?  He wasn't.

7)  As bad as Obama might want to close Gitmo, it is the height of delusion and insanity to put those people back out where they can wage jihad against innocent men, women, and children.

8) Bergdahl was not worth Obama violating his oath and the law.

9) To paraphrase Leon Trotsky, Obama and many Americans may no longer be interested in fighting the war on terror, our enemies in the war on terror are very much interested in us.

10) War only ends when either one side secures an victory or both sides agree to end it.  War will never end, as Obama evidently believes, when one side just surrenders and the other continues to fight.