Freed soldier faces backlash in Idaho hometown over desertion claims

HAILEY Idaho (Reuters) - A hometown celebration of Bowe Bergdahl's release from five years of Taliban captivity in Afghanistan will go on this month as planned, despite a growing backlash against the U.S. Army sergeant over allegations he was a deserter, friends and supporters say.

Days after the small mountain community of Hailey, Idaho, erupted in elation over news that he had been freed in a prisoner exchange, the festive mood in town has been tempered by claims from former members of his combat unit that Bergdahl had deliberately abandoned his post.

Some of his one-time comrades assert that the massive search for Bergdahl after he went missing in Afghanistan on June 30, 2009, may have cost the lives of up to six fellow soldiers who searched for him.

The U.S. military has said the circumstances under which Bergdahl disappeared have yet to be fully investigated, though Pentagon officials have indicated Bergdahl is unlikely to face charges regardless of what the Army learns of his capture because he has suffered enough.

Still, for all the outpouring of hometown joy and national media attention lionizing Bergdahl immediately following his release on Saturday, supporters in Hailey insist they never regarded him as a hero.

“People in Hailey have been aware for some time that there were questions about how Bowe came to be captured, and that there was a chance that Bowe could be in trouble when he came home,” said Stefanie O'Neill, a co-organizer of a welcome-home rally planned for June 28.

Ohio PI Doubts Obama SS Number

I am including this article for information only. There certainly is a question as to whether it is true or not. As near as I could tell, there apparently have been some inroads made with the court in Ohio. I have read material presented on both sides. I must admit, the Daniels information seems more plausible to me. I honestly doubt that anything will ever come of this. If, and I mean IF there is any truth to this, those involved have left no stone unturned. 


Susan Daniels has been a licensed private investigator since 1995.  During that time, she has investigated thousands of Social Security Numbers for clients and is very well versed in knowing what to look for.

In the interview below, Daniels explains she became suspicious of Barack Obama when his first executive order was to hide all of his personal information from everyone.  These actions would only be taken by someone with something to hide and it sure seemed obvious that Obama has a lot he wants to hide.

Daniels’ investigation turned up that not only is Obama’s Social Security Number a Connecticut number, but one that had to have been issued prior to the time Obama claims to have received it.  She has located the sequential numbers preceding and following Obama’s and his number is the only one that raises a red flag of doubt.  They were all issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979 and there is no evidence anywhere to indicate that Obama ever lived in the state at that time.

Her investigation has also led her to believe that the Social Security Number used by Obama was issued in March of 1977.  Additionally, she said that she found evidence indicating that Obama’s number had been previously issued to another person who was born in 1890 and lived in Connecticut during 1977 to 1979.
On Monday, July 2, Daniels filed a lawsuit in the Common Pleas Court in Geauga County, Ohio, requesting that Barack Obama’s name be removed from the November ballot unless the President can verify the authenticity of his Social Security Number.

One thing I found interesting in Daniels’ interview is her saying that everyone in politics and all of the judges know that Obama is ineligible to hold the office but are afraid to do anything about it.  But that prompts me ask what they are afraid of?  Are the people behind Obama so wealthy and so powerful that they have intimidated the entire American government and judicial system?  If they really did threaten the life of Chelsea Clinton four years ago to get Bill Clinton to shut up, have they threatened others as well?

If Daniels is right about all of the judges knowing but not willing to act upon that knowledge, then as much as I would like her lawsuit to succeed and see Obama’s name removed from the ballot in one of the key swing states, I doubt if any judge would have the guts to rule against Obama.

Some questions about the President .. NOT EXACTLY

Regardless of your politics, whether a Republican, Democrat or an Independent, there have been some unanswered questions and concerns about Obama. Controversy like we have never seen before in the White House, unanswered questions.

This next election is perhaps the most important one our nation has ever faced. My main concern is that groundwork has been started this four years, that will come to fruition during the next four years, if the present administration is allowed to have another four years. I just feel like were are standing on a dangerous threshold.

I have many unanswered questions. I am not sure what all has been accomplished this four years, other than a lot of groundwork.

Check out this page on my blog:

http://dooleyobserved.blogspot.com/p/obama-not-exactly.html

Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?

1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes'.
So how can the Obama birth certificate state he is 'African-American' when the term wasn't even used at that time?

2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961.
It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father.
No big deal, right?
At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is age 25 years old and that Obama's father was born in " Kenya , East Africa ".
This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth and 27 years after his father's birth.
How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist?
Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the " British East Africa Protectorate".
Wikipedia about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_Colony

3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital".
This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home," respectively.
The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged.
How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?

Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media?????

If you are concerned, please forward this blog to those who might find this of interest. I think these questions should be pursued. I personally have not verified these facts, but they do raise a question.