Obama Appointee Draws Little Media Attention

By: Bob McCarty
Bob McCarty Writes

Amanda Simpson

Didn’t hear much about the Obama Administration’s appointment of Amanda Simpson (right) to serve as a senior technical adviser to the Department of Commerce? Neither did I.

Why do you think her appointment didn’t receive much attention in the mainstream media? Perhaps, it’s because President Barack Obama’s poll numbers are so low that his handlers don’t want to drive them lower by bringing attention to the appointment of Simpson.

Who is Simpson?

Among other things, he she is a transgender individual who has served on the board of directors of the National Center for Transgender Equality for the past three years, according to this article.

Despite Simpson’s desire to identify with a gender other than the one of his her birth, his her appointment might work out well. If it does, President Obama will know where to turn — here and here — to hire others like him her.


Obama: America’s Gift To Terrorists

By: Nancy Morgan
Right Bias

For al Qaeda and other terrorists across the globe, Obama is the gift that just keeps on giving. The fanatical Muslim terrorists who are intent on wiping out every man woman and child that doesn’t accept Allah as God was just handed another victory by the President of the United States.

In response to yet another threat from the al Qaeda faction in Yemen responsible for training the panty bomber who tried to take out a U.S. bound jet on Christmas day, the Obama administration decided to close down our embassy in Yemen. “The U.S. Embassy in San’a is closed today, January 3, 2010, in response to ongoing threats by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula … to attack American interests in Yemen,” the embassy said in a message on its Web site.

Obama’s counter-terrorism expert also informed the nation on Sunday that the United States would not be opening up a new front in Yemen to battle the increasing presence of al Qaeda there. This mirrors the Obama administration’s response to ever increasing threats from terrorist murderers: if we just ignore them, maybe they’ll go away.

President Obama has made it official. Faced with murderous threats from fanatical Muslims, America will cut and run. Al Qaeda and assorted terrorists the world over are rejoicing. Yet again.

These barbaric animals are laughing out loud at the policies President Obama and his buddies have enacted since he became president of the greatest country in the world.

First, Obama did what Democrats do when faced with an uncomfortable reality. They redefine it. Obama abolished the war on terror with a stroke of the pen. Presto, we now have man-made catastrophic events, not to be confused with the bogus global warming catastrophic events.

This was followed by the left’s favorite response to any crisis not of their own making: dialogue. Despite the fact that ‘reaching out’ is considered a distinct sign of weakness by our enemies and has never worked, Obama scored political points by convincing half the nation that he could effect world peace through the sheer force of his personality. Obama’s dialogue did accomplish something, however. It allowed him to appear to be doing something, when in actuality he was merely avoiding the hard decisions associated with real leadership.

This man of action then handed terrorists legitimacy, along with all the legal rights American citizens have fought and died for. Enemy combatants, for the first time in history, will be tried in civilian courts in New York. In the same neighborhood they demolished on 9/11. How cool is that, terrorists say.

This insane policy does have a silver lining. It just might encourage terrorists in Yemen and Afghanistan to surrender. That way they can leave the blood and guts battlefield and wage jihad from the worldwide platform being afforded (courtesy of U.S. taxpayers) by a New York courtroom. Again, courtesy of Obama. Who knows, terrorists might just be able to accomplish more effective jihad from within America. Just think of the recruitment opportunities in American jails. Yahoo!

Then again, these animals may just opt to stay on the battlefield overseas. After all, Obama’s new rules of engagement have severely hampered U.S. fighting men. All al Qaeda has to do is hide behind women and children and they get a virtual free pass. And if by chance they get caught killing Americans and they aren’t mirandized, well, its off to Gitmo, where they’ll have a chance to rest up and regroup. Once they gain 20 pounds or so, they’ll be shipped back home where they pick up right where they left off.

Unless, of course, Obama is successful in closing Gitmo, in which case the terrorists will have to make do with 3 squares and cable TV from Chicago until they get shipped home to the same old goat meat and drafty caves.

No wonder our enemies are laughing. As the Taliban indoctrinate kids as young as five years-old into being killing machines, Obama focuses his efforts on sanitizing and avoiding a fight to the finish that our enemies wage as a war and Obama wages as an exercise in rhetoric.

As the left steps up their efforts to sensitize males, our enemies breed warriors and come ever closer to obtaining the technology and materials needed for a nuclear weapon. America will then have no choice but to follow Obama’s policy of appeasement. And the terrorists will have won. And America will be no more.

If you’re not scared yet, let me offer you this visual exercise: Imagine Obama and his buddies coming face to face with a coven of jihadists. Which side is going to win? Obama’s words or the terrorist’s sword?

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina


CNN: Tea Party Express targets Obama agenda

Your efforts in 2009 with the Tea Party Express have received additional recognition.

In their 2009 year-in-review report, CNN cites the changing fortunes of Barack Obama as a series of obstacles emerged to Obama’s left-wing agenda. And the Tea Party Express is cited as one of the leading sources of opposition to Obama’s liberal policies.

You can watch the CNN report – HERE.

And in 2009 we were just getting started. We have 2 Tea Party Express tours already planned and the central component of these efforts will be our “Just Vote Them Out” campaign for 2010, starting with the targeting of Sen. Harry Reid for defeat.

Please continue to support this effort with a contribution. You can contribute online any amount from as little as $5 to the maximum $5,000. We’re hoping thousands of you will be able to afford to contribute $50 or $100 or more. You can make your contribution online – HERE.

You can see the impact our efforts have been having in the form of Obama’s plunging poll numbers. We’ve rallied hundreds of thousands of Americans together, received millions upon millions of dollars worth of media coverage for the tea party movement, and spent several hundred thousand dollars in advertising against the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda.

Here’s a chart of Obama’s poll numbers which have dropped during the time we’ve waged our battle to take our country back:

Thank you again for your fantastic efforts in 2009.

We appreciate your support and hope we can continue to count on your support for 2010. You can start by making a contribution to the Tea Party Express and our “Just Vote Them Out” campaign: HERE.

Or if you prefer, you can mail in a contribution to our finance headquarters:

Our Country Deserves Better PAC
ATTN: Tea Party Express Effort
770 L Street #1020
Sacramento, CA 95814


A New Year’s Day brick through The Inlander’s rose-coloured windows.

Friends of Mark Fuhrman

Scroll for Updates:

HT Tim Connor – Center for Justice, Spokane, WA

And life continues on in Spokane, WA. Spokane has many fine attributes which are why my wife and I chose to relocate here. Unfortunately the political and governmental environment here leaves much to be desired. The co-option and corruption in fact is the worst I’ve seen in my entire thirty-five career as a law enforcement criminal investigator. This is a company town run by the Cowles Co which by its past criminal actions is a ongoing criminal enterprise as defined in the Federal Rico Act:

. . .This ongoing criminal enterprise has successfully robbed in broad daylight the public treasury. Sheriff Bamonte and I believe that the evidence proves that Jo Savage died as the direct result of this public corruption that has its roots in this criminal enterprise. Its ongoing criminal actions over time were the proximate cause of Jo Savage’s death during its commission of the RPS Bond Fraud, RPS Bailout and their subsequent cover-ups and its operation continues to put the public at risk. . .

The question still remains is the RPS Parking Garage safe for continued public occupancy? As quoted by Shook, the late Steve Rudd a highly respected construction fraud expert said, “This is the most dangerous public facility I have ever seen.” Do we know it is safe for our loved ones to use? The City of Spokane has ignored Sheriff Bamonte’s and my demands for the immediate inspection of the RPS Parking Garage.

read more…


Links to Visit – 01/03/10

Bob McCarty Writes – What Really Happened to Jarret Clark? (1 of 6)

Bob McCarty Writes – What Really Happened to Jarret Clark? (2 of 6)

Bob McCarty Writes – What Really Happened to Jarret Clark? (3 of 6)

Bob McCarty Writes – What Really Happened to Jarret Clark? (4 of 6)

Bob McCarty Writes – What Really Happened to Jarret Clark? (5 of 6)

Bob McCarty Writes – What Really Happened to Jarret Clark? (6 of 6)

Brutally Honest – Brit Hume gives politically incorrect advice to Tiger Woods

The Strata-Sphere – Apparently J. Brennan & E. Holder Turned Down The Sensitivity Of Our National Security Network

examiner.com – Obama orders pow-wow with intelligence agency heads

AIM – Obama Officials, Dems Support Global Socialism

Brutally Honest – Obama’s Executive Order transparency

Atlas Shrugs – Danish Cartoonist Westergaard’s Muslim Assassin Involved in Islamic Plot to Kill Hillary Clinton

Atlas Shrugs – Stunning Blow to Obama’s Justice Dept: Judge Drops Charges From Blackwater Deaths, “reckless violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights” …..

Atlas Shrugs – US Judge Castigates Obama Administration for Silence in Terror Suit

Ace of Spades – The Bush “era of secrecy” is over, the Obama “era of freaking weird labyrinthine secrecy” begins

American Thinker – On the Obama River and Headed for the Falls

The Radio Patriot – Approaching the Point of No Return

Gateway Pundit – John Kerry Denied Entry Into Iran

Gateway Pundit – Top Obama Official: Some Gitmo Terrorists Will Be Returned to Yemen …Update: Wants to Give Undie Bomber Deal for Talking

Gateway Pundit – British Intelligence Knew About Nigerian Undie Bomber 3 Years Ago

Gateway Pundit – Brilliant! Obama Finally Ties Undie Bomber to Al-Qaeda… Guess He Wasn’t a Lone Terrorist After All?

Fox News – White House Aide: We Won’t Step Up Terror Fight in Yemen

Fox News – U.S., U.K. Embassies in Yemen Close Over Threats

Fox News – Some Dems Join GOP Opposition to Gitmo Transfers to Yemen


Muth’s Truths – January 2, 2010

By: Chuck Muth
Muth’s Truths

Is ObamaCare Constitutional? Do You Really Have to Ask?

While most members of Congress can’t or refuse to answer where and how the current ObamaCare proposal is constitutional – and all Nancy Pelosi could muster up when confronted with that question was, “Are you serious?” – some liberals have stretched the Constitution to the breaking point in efforts to justify the proposal.

But in a Wall Street Journal op/ed this morning, Sen. Orrin Hatch, Ken Blackwell and Kenneth Klukowski blow such arguments out of the water. Enjoy….and save for future reference. This issue and questions won’t be going away anytime soon.

Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional
If the government can mandate the purchase of insurance, it can do anything

President Obama’s health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.

First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress’s powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.

In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.

Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the “general welfare.” Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.

A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states’ obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed “cash for cloture” because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.

A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.

This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.

The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.

This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation, which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory. Analysts, scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.

America’s founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.

(Mr. Hatch, a Republican senator from Utah, is a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Blackwell is a senior fellow with the Family Research Council and a professor at Liberty University School of Law. Mr. Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.)