Tag Archives: Washington Times

Update on Navy Seals Killed in Chinook Crash on May 2, 2011

Families suspect SEAL Team 6 crash was inside job on worst day in Afghanistan

Video at link below.


By Rowan Scarborough

The Washington Times

Sunday, October 20, 2013


Questions haunt the families of Extortion 17, the 2011 helicopter mission in Afghanistan that suffered the most U.S. military deaths in a single day in the war on terrorism.

The investigative file made available to The Washington Times shows that the helicopter’s landing zone was not properly vetted for threats nor protected by gunships, while commanders criticized the mission as too rushed and the conventional Chinook chopper as ill-suited for  a dangerous troop infiltration.

Every day, Charlie Strange, the father of one of the 30 Americans who died Aug. 6, 2011, in the flash of a rocket-propelled grenade, asks himself whether his son, Michael, was set up by someone inside the Afghan government wanting revenge on Osama bin Laden’s killers — SEAL Team 6.

“Somebody was leaking to the Taliban,” said Mr. Strange, whose son intercepted communications as a Navy cryptologist. “They knew. Somebody tipped them off. There were guys in a tower. Guys on the bush line. They were sitting there, waiting. And they sent our guys right into the middle.”

Doug Hamburger’s son, Patrick, an Army staff sergeant, also perished when the CH-47D Chinook descended to a spot less than 150 yards from where armed Taliban fighters watched from a turret.

He asks why the command sent his son into Tangi Valley toward a “hot landing zone” in a cargo airship instead of a special operations helicopter. The souped-up choppers — the MH-47 and the MH-60 Black Hawk, which SEAL Team 6 rode the stealth version of to kill bin Laden — are flown by Night Stalker pilots skilled in fast, ground-hugging maneuvers to avoid detection.

“When you want to fly them into a valley, when you’ve got hillsides on both sides of it with houses built into sides of the valley, that is an extremely dangerous mission,” Mr. Hamburger said. “The MH, the new model, they’ve got radar that will pick up an incoming missile or incoming RPG. They’re faster. They’re quicker on attack. They’re more agile. So there was every reason in the world to use the MH that night.

Sith Douangdara, whose 26-year-old son, John, was a Navy expeditionary specialist who handled warrior dog Bart, said he has lots of unanswered questions.

“I want to know why so many U.S. servicemen, especially SEALs, were assembled on one aircraft,” he said. “I want to know why the black box of the helicopter has not been found. I want to know many things.”

Not all families believe the fact-finding investigation, conducted by Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Colt covered all issues. Gen. Colt, who has since been promoted to major general, told commanders that his job was not to find fault and his report did not criticize any person or decision.

“I want people held accountable,” said Mr. Strange, a former union construction worker who deals blackjack in a Philadelphia casino.

A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which overseas the war and conducted the probe, declined to answer the families’ questions and referred a reporter to Gen. Colt’s report.

Congress gets involved

More than two years later, more answers may be forthcoming.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican, is making inquiries after meeting with some families.

Rest Of Story HERE!!

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/20/families-suspect-seal-team-6-crash-was-inside-job-/#ixzz2iS1jFZg2


Obama Gets a Smack Down

164wa4 (2)

DEVELOPING: Obama recess appointments unconstitutional, court.

By Stephen Dinan

The Washington Times Updated: 11:41 a.m. on Friday, January 25, 2013

n a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.

The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments Mr. Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and the board no longer has a quorum to operate.

But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intrasession” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks.

The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned sine die, which is a legislative term of art that signals the end to a long work period. In modern times, it means the president could only use his powers when Congress quits business at the end of a year.

“The dearth of intrasession appointments in the years and decades following the ratification of the Constitution speaks far more impressively than the history of recent presidential exercise of a supposed power to make such appointments,” the judges wrote.

“Recent presidents are doing no more than interpreting the Constitution. While we recognize that all branches of government must of necessity exercise their understanding of the Constitution in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law.”

The case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court, and it turns on the definition of what the Constitution means when it says “recess.”

ast January Mr. Obama named union lawyer Richard Griffin and Labor Department official Sharon Block, both Democrats, and a Republican, NLRB lawyer Terence Flynn, to the labor board using his recess powers. He also named Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, using those same powers.

Noel Canning, a bottling company, sued the NLRB, arguing that a rule issued by the new board was illegal since the recess appointments were unconstitutional. Senate Republicans, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, joined in the suit.

Read The Rest HERE!!

Conservatives must have a new pop culture strategy

Painful as it is, Conservatives must face the reality that we lost the 2012 election, whether fairly or by crook. We now find ourselves facing a minimum of four more years in the political wilderness. The challenge before Conservatives as well as Fellowship of the Minds is to figure out how best we should spend the next four years.

But Conservatives have a woeful penchant, after an electoral defeat, to finger point and blame fellow conservatives and even the very conservative ideology itself — which Rush Limbaugh cogently observed is something the Left NEVER do. Instead, the Left circle their wagons around even disgraced elite members, and the Left certainly NEVER EVER question or propose abandoning their socialist beliefs and agenda.

2012 is no exception to conservatives’ lamentable practice, as seen in the current bashing within the GOP against Romney-Ryan and against conservative values and principles. That bashing is mirrored on FOTM, as supposed fellow patriots and conservatives turn viciously on each other, with accusations, insults and name calling — about which FOTM has Zero Tolerance.

An essential element in the Conservative strategy henceforth is to recognize and identify the obstacles in our way and how best to combat them. Here’s an op-ed from The Washington Times suggesting that Conservatives must make inroads in pop culture, which is so dominated by the Left, via “entertainment funding”. (H/t BritCapitalist)

Hollywood holding American culture hostage

Conservative strategy must include entertainment funding

By Demos Chrissos, Nov. 21, 2012

Republicans are struggling to explain the pounding they took at the ballot box. After spending an unprecedented amount of money only to lose an election that was certainly within their reach, the answer lies far beyond politics. With all the emphasis on focus testing, polling and the metrics necessary to measure success, we now have proof of the recipe for complete failure. Like the Beatles said, “Money can’t buy you love,” and just throwing billions of dollars at political campaigns is no way to change America.

Republicans must examine not only how and why they were defeated, but the source of the headwind they face every election. They need to recognize that their political future is not dependent on simply changing their message. It requires new ways to state their case to the American public, utilizing windows of opportunity they consistently ignore. If they look below the veneer of party politics and high-priced political soothsayers, they will discover the same source of power for liberals has always been available to conservatives, if they would just seize it.

Beyond the liberal bias of the mainstream media news outlets, Democrats also reap rewards from liberal decision-makers in the entertainment industry who are aligned with their political agenda. These executives use their power over funding to infuse our cultural media with messages consistent with their liberal worldview. The reality is, creative projects aimed at a more conservative audience are routinely denied funding. Until now, no one seemed willing to challenge the way “business-as-usual” in Hollywood actually censors conservative ideas from the public. While these executives claim these are business decisions and they produce only what the public wants, no one believes it. If this past election is any indication, what Hollywood produces is only half of what the public wants. They are ignoring the other half entirely. Most savvy businessmen would see this as an opportunity.

There are award-winning conservative actors, writers and producers in Hollywood and New York who have commercially viable scripts waiting to be produced that celebrate American exceptionalism and promote the values and principles consistent with our founding documents. Most of these stories sit on shelves or have been left unfinished for years because there is no way for them to get past the liberal gatekeepers who control what gets produced in Hollywood.

Compare this to the formidable gifts from Hollywood laid at the feet of Democrats year after year — a barrage of well-written, well-produced feature films and weekly television series that promote talking points consistent with the Democratic Party. These politically tinged messages are delivered by some of Hollywood’s highest-paid actors and crafted by award-winning directors and producers using an arsenal of the most sophisticated production tools in the world. Given the influence of this tidal wave of sustained liberal messaging, it’s no wonder Republicans lose elections. The odds of winning are completely stacked against them long before any election campaign begins.

Unfortunately, while the American public is being entertained and amused, many fail to see the seeds of a liberal ideology planted across multiple episodes and thousands of hours of programming. These seeds take root, and their liberal messages go “viral” through repetition and mimicked behavior that coarsens American culture. This behavior not only undermines the values and principles of future generations, it distorts the image of America throughout the world and emboldens our enemies. Unfortunately, with so much at stake, conservatives are not even on the playing field while the battle for the hearts and minds of the American public is being fought and won by liberals between election cycles.

Instead of retreating to the sidelines and waiting for the next election, conservatives must use this time to invest the same level of financial resources necessary to change the culture as they do to win elections. If conservatives fail to challenge the liberal dominance of our cultural media, the Republican Party and conservative movement will continue to be defined only through the fog of mind-numbing political attack ads and robotic sound bites that fill the airwaves every campaign season.

If conservatives really want to change the outcome of elections, they must end the one-sided conversation Hollywood liberals are having with the American public. They must look beyond party politics. To influence change in America, they must seize the opportunity between elections to enlist conservative, creative talent available in the entertainment industry in order to more effectively define traditional values and principles away from the “noise” and distortions of a typical election cycle. In this way, the American public will be afforded a more honest and realistic alternative to consider at the ballot box. All it takes is money, and given this past election, that doesn’t seem to be the problem. The real problem for conservatives is changing their approach.

It’s not just about changing the message — it’s how and when you deliver it. Change the culture, and elections will take care of themselves.

Demos Chrissos is president of the Foundation for American Media.

All is not bleak. A book by Steven J. Ross, Hollywood Left and Right: How Movie Stars Shaped American Politics, published by the prestigious Oxford University Press, challenges the commonly held belief that Hollywood has always been a bastion of liberalism. The real story is far more complicated. First, Hollywood has a longer history of conservatism than liberalism. Second, and most surprising, while the Hollywood Left was usually more vocal and visible, the Right had a greater impact on American political life, capturing a senate seat (Murphy), a governorship (Schwarzenegger), and the ultimate achievement, the Presidency (Reagan). (Take a look at the book on Amazon, here.)

See also:


Obama Fake Birth Certificate Ads

We Birthers Obama Truthseekers don’t give up. Ever.

Washington Times‘ National Weekly Edition, May 16, 2011, has two ads on Obama’s fake birth certificate and questionable eligibility, on pages 5 and 9, respectively:

Click for full screen ad: 55487100-Obama-Long-Form-Birth-Certificate-Forged-Wash-Times-National-Weekly-Edition-20110516-pg-5

Click for full screen ad: 55486828-Obama-s-Lack-of-Eligibility-Document-Fraud-The-3-Enablers-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-20110516-pg-9

H/t Cdr Kerchner’s Blog.


Dems & Media Fear Civil War From Obama Eligibility

In a remarkable radio interview with Steve Malzberg on December 30, 2010, Jeff Kuhner of the Washington Times says that people around the White House, Democratic circles, and the liberal media — including senior top editors — all know there’s something there about Obama’s birth eligibility but are afraid to pursue the matter.

Jeffrey Kuhner is a columnist, writer, and radio host on WTNT in Washington, DC. He is a regular contributor to the commentary pages of The Washington Times, where he writes a weekly column, and has written for Human Events, National Review Online and Investor’s Business Daily.

What Kuhner had to say is so important that I transcribed the relevant portions of the interview. The topic of Obama’s birth certificate begins at the 3:52 mark in the audio. Here’s the gist of what he said:

“They” know there’s a problem: Beginning at the 5:18 mark, Kuhner says: “I’m choosing my words now very carefully because I don’t want to burn my sources. People around the White House and especially in Democratic circles, in private at a cocktail party, at a restaurant, will tell you ‘Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.’ They don’t know what it is. Even some liberal members of the media I’ve spoken to off the record have said, ‘Jeff, we don’t want to touch this story because we know there’s something there. We don’t know what: We don’t know if it’s going to reveal his religion that was given to him by his father or stepfather; we don’t know if it’s records that will eventually come out about his travels to Pakistan when he was a student at a university; we don’t know if he applied for foreign aid as a foreign student. We don’t know exactly what it is, but the reluctance of the White House on not just his birth certificate, but his health records, school records. They are hiding something, there’s no question about it.’  And the only question is how bad the damage is going to be. If, and I emphasize if, it turns out that he was not born in the United States, we have a legal, constitutional and political crisis without precedent in this nation.”

Controversy is gaining traction: Beginning at the 8:21 mark, Kuhner says, “This controvesy is not going away. It is gaining traction. It is gaining momentum in the courts.”

Kuhner asks the question on all our minds — why won’t the media do the eligibility story?:  Beginning at the 8:42 mark, Kuhner says, “This is a very key point. What many members of the liberal media have been confiding in me. I ask them, ‘Look, this is a bombshell of a story. It’d be like a Watergate. It’ll make your name! All you’d have to do is break the story. I mean you’d look at a Pulitzer prize for the rest of your life, you’d be wealthy beyond imagination, all the fame and glory a journalist can ever want!'”

Media are afraid of a civil war: “They [liberal media] say, ‘Jeff, you don’t understand. The implications if this story turns out to be true, we fear it could be a civil war within America.’ This is what they’re telling me — that you’re going to have African-Americans so embittered, remaining loyal to the president; so many liberals so embittered, loyal to the president. But so many people in the country feeling that it’s a serious constitutional breach — that everything he has passed — because he’s unconstitutional and doesn’t have the right, the legal authority — everything he has passed is therefore illegal and unconstitutional. It would literally be the worst constitutional crisis that ever gripped this country. So they don’t want to touch this.”

Some other things Kuhner said in the interview:

H/t beloved fellow Tina and ObamaReleaseYourRecords.


Calls For Military Intervention, Impeachment & Revolution

On October 15, I posted Americans Are Speaking Out in Open Rebellionabout anti-Obama signs, billboards, and bumperstickers spreading like wildfire across America, such as this one:

As we get closer to the pivotal November 2 elections, it is not just nameless faceless everyday Americans who are speaking their minds. Increasingly, voices attached to names are calling on the military to step in to make matters right in America, or for impeachment, or should all efforts fail, outright revolution.

Military Coup

Writing for the Canada Free Press on October 18, 2010, Thor Asgardson concludes:

What is most remarkable at this juncture, is the fact that a military man with an impeccable service record, is putting his career on the line by facing courtmartial in a kangaroo court, for refusing to obey deployment orders from an obvious usurper.

Highly decorated Army surgeon, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin has become the sacrificial lamb for the sins of the Obama regime, insofar as he now stands alone to challenge Obama´s eligibility to serve in the capacity of president, where numerous prior lawsuits against the regime have failed, due to Obama´s total control over all facets of government checks and balances.

Obama has actually attained the status of a dictator, which former President George W. Bush would only muse over in jest of fancy.

[…] The only man who should be facing a military tribunal, is the one who now sits in the Oval Office. It is hoped that the United States military will coalesce around Lt. Col. Lakin—and the nation—to release the corporate stranglehold on our country, by deposing the usurper president from power by military coup.

The United States military must come forth as the spearhead of the Second American Revolution, to deliver the American people from bondage to usury at the hands of the Federal Reserve and to restore justice and rule of law to our republic. This great task requires a military occupation on Capitol Hill, to elicit regime change.


Tim Walberg

As early as September 1, 2010, a columnist for the Washington Times already had called for impeaching Obama. His call is now joined by a GOP candidate for the House of Representatives from Michigan’s 7th Congressional district, former Congressman and former pastor Tim Walberg.

As reported by Floyd Brown on October 19, 2010:

Walberg told a town hall audience last week the president should dispel rumors about his eligibility by unveiling his full birth certificate. He stated, “I’m going to take him at his word that he’s an American citizen.” However, the president should show his full, long-form birth certificate to a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers and journalists — including Congressional leaders of both parties, a representative of the judiciary, Alan Colmes, and Rush Limbaugh. Walberg said in that situation, “I would lay out my birth certificate on the table” and tell those who verified it, “Now go and report it.”

The trouble, he said, is that no one is holding the executive branch accountable. The powers of the presidency are such that “the Executive has an awful lot of power to keep from showing certain things unless the courts will stand up to him.”

Then Walberg laid the i-word out on the table. “Or unless Congress, in majority, will stand up,” he said, “up to and including impeachment.”


GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden, an African American, is prepared to go even further than impeachment. Melanie Mason of the Dallas Morning News reports on October 22, 2010:

Stephen Broden

Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership. In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising “is not the first option,” but it is “on the table.” That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks “inappropriate.”

Broden, a first-time candidate, is challenging veteran incumbent Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson in Dallas’ heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District.

…In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation’s government as tyrannical. “We have a constitutional remedy,” Broden said then. “And the Framers say if that don’t work, revolution.”

Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to “alter it or abolish it.”

“If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary,” Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain’s King George III.

Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government. “The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms,” Broden said, without elaborating. “However, it is not the first option.”

H/t beloved fellow Tina!