Laws??? Obama needs no Laws...

[newtothegame]

Amazing how he can neglect to follow the laws.....(gee come to think of it and the tax problems his cabinet has had...seems none of the laws apply to them....)

Report: AmeriCorps Feared IG’s Push for Further Probe into Case Involving Obama Supporter

Former inspector general Gerald Walpin has accused President Obama of firing him without the 30-day notification required by law for his investigation into the alleged misuse of federal grants by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.


Former Inspector General Gerald Walpin's determination to investigate further the alleged misuse of AmeriCorps funds may have led President Obama to fire him, a Republican member of the board overseeing the volunteer agency alleged to a Washington newspaper.

If true, the assertion contradicts an explanation provided by White House, which said Walpin, 77, was "confused" and "disoriented" at a recent meeting of the board, exhibited a "lack of candor" and "engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct."

Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of officials -- including four former U.S. attorneys, three former federal judges, one former attorney general and a former counsel to President Clinton -- sent a letter to the Senate Wednesday defending the integrity and competence of Walpin.

more at the link.....www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/gop-official-americorp-feared-igs-push-probe-case-involving-obama-supporter/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/gop-official-americorp-feared-igs-push-probe-case-involving-obama-supporter/)

[boxcar]

Open defiance of the Law by an elitist or an elite group is just one more indication that we're moving farther and farther away from our constitutional republic to an oligarchy. "Republic" itself literally means in Latin "the thing" or "the law", i.e. the rule of law. Even according to modern definitions, elected representatives are supposed to govern by the rule of law.

For the last 100 years or so, thanks largely to activist judges' decisions on the supreme court, our government has ignored the Law of the Land and instead has allowed these activist judges to create law (or public policy) by judicial fiat from the bench. And this kind of activity far exceeds the role and limits of the judicial branch. But the most pernicious aspect to these kinds of decisions, in my opinion, is that when also coupled with bad legislation these two activities will eventually have a lethal effect on the form of government established by our founding fathers. In fact, our present form of government has been dying now for decades. (It's already on life support.) This doesn't mean that our nation will cease to exist, but only that a different form of government will fill the vacuum -- an oligarchical form -- "the rule by an elite few" . Sadly, the world's greatest and longest experiment in a form of government that gave preeminence to Personal Freedom over Tyrannical Rule is all but completed. In the end, it will be said that it was nice while it lasted, but when history is written, this experiment will be regarded as a failure because the entire world at large preferred limited freedom and unlimited government under Collectivism over limited government and Individual Liberties.

If you doubt this, just stop to reflect for a moment on the kinds of governments we have in this world. It doesn't take very long to see that the United States was a very unique country. We stood out from the rest -- head and shoulders above all nations on this earth -- which is why so many in the world were jealous of us. But now, we're all but falling into lockstep with the likes of socialists, communists, monarchs and tyrants. BO is enthralled with Europe, bows to Arabian kings, rubs elbows with South American dictators, etc., etc. The liberals in this country want the U.S. to become just like the rest of the world. In fact when it comes down to it, monarchies and dictatorships are really non-existent because there are always the "unseen powers" behind the thrones and the dictators. Essentially, and for all practical intent and purposes, all nations subscribe to the oligarchical form of rule. The U.S. has been the last holdout. But BO and other world leaders are doing all they can to bring us into the fold of the world as quickly as possible. And when that happens, the beacon light of Freedom that has shined so brightly in this dark world will be extinguished forever; for I believe the U.S. will be the final great experiment in Personal Liberties. The world will then be ready to take its next big step -- and one that is quite logical, I might add -- it will move rapidly to a "one world order" -- a "super oligarchy", as it were. The world itself will be ruled by a few. After all, haven't the world governing mechanisms been in place for a long time now? We have the U.N., various world associations, conglomerate states, decision-making world bodies -- divided primarily along geographical lines far more than along ideological ones. Do we not have world organizations such as the EU, OAS, etc.? And wouldn't you know that when these things come to past, they will be in accordance with and consistent with what the bible predicts about these end times?

Boxcar

[jonnielu]

Open defiance of the Law by an elitist or an elite group is just one more indication that we're moving farther and farther away from our constitutional republic to an oligarchy. "Republic" itself literally means in Latin "the thing" or "the law", i.e. the rule of law. Even according to modern definitions, elected representatives are supposed to govern by the rule of law.

No, the Republic stands firmly in the face of all assaults, having repelled all to date.

For the last 100 years or so, thanks largely to activist judges' decisions on the supreme court, our government has ignored the Law of the Land and instead has allowed these activist judges to create law (or public policy) by judicial fiat from the bench.

No, this is a fairy tale spun for you by the federal jurisdiction, in the hope that you will simply step aside and allow it to usurp from you, all lawful authority. The favorite tool for doing this is what you call the Law of the Land AKA the Constitution.

With that charter, in the interest of creating a beast powerful enough to insure your security, you yielded an "exclusive legislation" (jurisdiction) to that creature (creation of yours).

And this kind of activity far exceeds the role and limits of the judicial branch. But the most pernicious aspect to these kinds of decisions, in my opinion, is that when also coupled with bad legislation

The role of the federal bench is to rule on those subject matters that arise within the federal jurisdiction, again, a place where you have authorized an "exclusive legislation" through the Constitution. There are no Constitutional limits in this place.

these two activities will eventually have a lethal effect on the form of government established by our founding fathers.

Only if the people fail to understand the form of government that was established by the founders, and continue to abdicate their responsibility for Liberty by continuing to un-hand it. Instead of listening to the propaganda, read the federalist papers.


In fact, our present form of government has been dying now for decades. (It's already on life support.)

No, the democracy that was mostly installed by FDR within the federal jurisdiction seems to be thriving with millions of people laying down their rights in favor of the "security" promised by the federal Santa Claus. All of the vote-buying schemes of the thirties are still here, and they are being expanded by leaps and bounds to this day.



This doesn't mean that our nation will cease to exist, but only that a different form of government will fill the vacuum -- an oligarchical form -- "the rule by an elite few" .

If the people stand aside long enough, how much longer can you stay on the sidelines? You aren't waiting for Obama and/or Congress to give you permission to take up your authority are you?


Sadly, the world's greatest and longest experiment in a form of government that gave preeminence to Personal Freedom over Tyrannical Rule is all but completed. In the end, it will be said that it was nice while it lasted, but when history is written, this experiment will be regarded as a failure because the entire world at large preferred limited freedom and unlimited government under Collectivism over limited government and Individual Liberties.

No, it will be over if you continue to abdicate your responsibility by empowering the federal jurisdiction to overthrow you with your own authority. They can't exercise your authority if you have it tied up in your own use. First, you will have to take it back from them.

Which means that the first thing you will have to do is stop asking permission, and fill up your spot by putting your ass on the line.

Which is much easier to do today then it was 233 years ago. Because your spot is already established and reserved by the Law of the Land, you just need to put your ass in it.


If you doubt this, just stop to reflect for a moment on the kinds of governments we have in this world. It doesn't take very long to see that the United States was a very unique country. We stood out from the rest -- head and shoulders above all nations on this earth -- which is why so many in the world were jealous of us. But now, we're all but falling into lockstep with the likes of socialists, communists, monarchs and tyrants. BO is enthralled with Europe, bows to Arabian kings, rubs elbows with South American dictators, etc., etc. The liberals in this country want the U.S. to become just like the rest of the world. In fact when it comes down to it, monarchies and dictatorships are really non-existent because there are always the "unseen powers" behind the thrones and the dictators. Essentially, and for all practical intent and purposes, all nations subscribe to the oligarchical form of rule. The U.S. has been the last holdout. But BO and other world leaders are doing all they can to bring us into the fold of the world as quickly as possible. And when that happens, the beacon light of Freedom that has shined so brightly in this dark world will be extinguished forever; for I believe the U.S. will be the final great experiment in Personal Liberties. The world will then be ready to take its next big step -- and one that is quite logical, I might add -- it will move rapidly to a "one world order" -- a "super oligarchy", as it were. The world itself will be ruled by a few. After all, haven't the world governing mechanisms been in place for a long time now? We have the U.N., various world associations, conglomerate states, decision-making world bodies -- divided primarily along geographical lines far more than along ideological ones. Do we not have world organizations such as the EU, OAS, etc.? And wouldn't you know that when these things come to past, they will be in accordance with and consistent with what the bible predicts about these end times?

Boxcar

So, are you just going to let them have it?

jdl

[Pell Mell]

Open defiance of the Law by an elitist or an elite group is just one more indication that we're moving farther and farther away from our constitutional republic to an oligarchy. "Republic" itself literally means in Latin "the thing" or "the law", i.e. the rule of law. Even according to modern definitions, elected representatives are supposed to govern by the rule of law.

For the last 100 years or so, thanks largely to activist judges' decisions on the supreme court, our government has ignored the Law of the Land and instead has allowed these activist judges to create law (or public policy) by judicial fiat from the bench. And this kind of activity far exceeds the role and limits of the judicial branch. But the most pernicious aspect to these kinds of decisions, in my opinion, is that when also coupled with bad legislation these two activities will eventually have a lethal effect on the form of government established by our founding fathers. In fact, our present form of government has been dying now for decades. (It's already on life support.) This doesn't mean that our nation will cease to exist, but only that a different form of government will fill the vacuum -- an oligarchical form -- "the rule by an elite few" . Sadly, the world's greatest and longest experiment in a form of government that gave preeminence to Personal Freedom over Tyrannical Rule is all but completed. In the end, it will be said that it was nice while it lasted, but when history is written, this experiment will be regarded as a failure because the entire world at large preferred limited freedom and unlimited government under Collectivism over limited government and Individual Liberties.

If you doubt this, just stop to reflect for a moment on the kinds of governments we have in this world. It doesn't take very long to see that the United States was a very unique country. We stood out from the rest -- head and shoulders above all nations on this earth -- which is why so many in the world were jealous of us. But now, we're all but falling into lockstep with the likes of socialists, communists, monarchs and tyrants. BO is enthralled with Europe, bows to Arabian kings, rubs elbows with South American dictators, etc., etc. The liberals in this country want the U.S. to become just like the rest of the world. In fact when it comes down to it, monarchies and dictatorships are really non-existent because there are always the "unseen powers" behind the thrones and the dictators. Essentially, and for all practical intent and purposes, all nations subscribe to the oligarchical form of rule. The U.S. has been the last holdout. But BO and other world leaders are doing all they can to bring us into the fold of the world as quickly as possible. And when that happens, the beacon light of Freedom that has shined so brightly in this dark world will be extinguished forever; for I believe the U.S. will be the final great experiment in Personal Liberties. The world will then be ready to take its next big step -- and one that is quite logical, I might add -- it will move rapidly to a "one world order" -- a "super oligarchy", as it were. The world itself will be ruled by a few. After all, haven't the world governing mechanisms been in place for a long time now? We have the U.N., various world associations, conglomerate states, decision-making world bodies -- divided primarily along geographical lines far more than along ideological ones. Do we not have world organizations such as the EU, OAS, etc.? And wouldn't you know that when these things come to past, they will be in accordance with and consistent with what the bible predicts about these end times?

Boxcar
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

No, the Republic stands firmly in the face of all assaults, having repelled all to date.

What gives you so much hope and optimism that the U.S. will continue to stand "firmly in the face of all assaults" and repel them indefinitely? We have become a morally decadent nation and an increasingly godless one. And the liberal politicians know this and like sharks, who have caught the scent of blood in the water, they have been circling our freedoms and liberties for decades now, moving in ever closer for the kill -- and it will be with the blessings of the majority!

I have long maintained that a people get the government they deserve and desire. It will be no different with the United States of America, unless there is a great revival in this land and God graciously saves this country from the enemies within for a season.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Amazing how he can neglect to follow the laws.....(gee come to think of it and the tax problems his cabinet has had...seems none of the laws apply to them....)

Report: AmeriCorps Feared IG’s Push for Further Probe into Case Involving Obama Supporter

Former inspector general Gerald Walpin has accused President Obama of firing him without the 30-day notification required by law for his investigation into the alleged misuse of federal grants by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.


Former Inspector General Gerald Walpin's determination to investigate further the alleged misuse of AmeriCorps funds may have led President Obama to fire him, a Republican member of the board overseeing the volunteer agency alleged to a Washington newspaper.

If true, the assertion contradicts an explanation provided by White House, which said Walpin, 77, was "confused" and "disoriented" at a recent meeting of the board, exhibited a "lack of candor" and "engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct."

Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of officials -- including four former U.S. attorneys, three former federal judges, one former attorney general and a former counsel to President Clinton -- sent a letter to the Senate Wednesday defending the integrity and competence of Walpin.

more at the link.....www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/gop-official-americorp-feared-igs-push-probe-case-involving-obama-supporter/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/gop-official-americorp-feared-igs-push-probe-case-involving-obama-supporter/)

I don't recall the exact quote, but newspaper people say that a good story answers the questions, who, what, where, when and why. This story does a very poor job on the who questions. Who are the officials who sent a letter of support for Walpin to the Senate? Even if they worked with him in the past, they cannot be judges of his current behavior. And who was the Republican board member, who alleged that Obama fired Walpin because Walpin wanted to continue the investigation of St. Hope. (ACCORDING TO YOU.)

Read the story again!!! Here is the pertinent quote:
"Right now, when there is such a great emphasis on service, we did not need any press out there on this St. HOPE matter, which was already settled," the board member told the newspaper. "We thought he was going to use the press. He had an issue with the fact that a settlement was reached ¦and he was doing everything he could to continue to keep the issue at the forefront

When reading the above pay attention to phrases such as "Already settled" and "He was going to use the press" and "He had an issue with the fact that a settlement was reached" Also pay attention to what was not said. Nowhere does he criticize the removal of Walpin. Actually if you read other stories on this subject you will find that the board was unanimously behind the removal of Walpin.

The behavior of Mr Walpin was very inappropriate. First of all he submitted
a report to the US attorney, which failed to include evidence that pointed strongly to the innocence of Kevin Johnson and St. Hope. Evidence which Mr. Walpin was in possession of. Mr. Walpin also attempted to "Try the case in the media"

As to whether the Obama administration failed to follow procedure in the firing of Mr. Walpin, I am not completely clear on that. As I read it, the White House told Mr. Walpin that he had one hour to resign or he would be fired. That is not the same as saying he would be fired in one hour. You present an ultimate. When the time limit passes, you begin the procedures to enforce the ultimate.

[ArlJim78]

Walpin did nothing innapropriate. His job was to report on any misuse of taxpayer dollars. He was punished for doing his job well. Just because the board wanted to drop the issue and move on doesn't mean that was the right thing to do. The board obviously has a different agenda, hence the need for an inspector.
Walpin is a hero to taxpayers, he stood up to the good old boy network and didn't recede quietly when the pressure was put on him. We should have many more like him.

[mostpost]

Walpin did nothing innapropriate. His job was to report on any misuse of taxpayer dollars. He was punished for doing his job well. Just because the board wanted to drop the issue and move on doesn't mean that was the right thing to do. The board obviously has a different agenda, hence the need for an inspector.
Walpin is a hero to taxpayers, he stood up to the good old boy network and didn't recede quietly when the pressure was put on him. We should have many more like him.
He absolutely did something inappropriate He failed to turn over evidence which contradicted his viewpoint. This is the same as was done in the Ted Stevens case. Prosecutors withheld evidence which would have helped prove Stevens innocence. As a result AG Holder asked that the case be dismissed. An IG has the same duty to the law as a prosecutor. Mr. Walpin is lucky he's not in jail. or at least under investigation.

And, as I stated in the original thread on this subject, all of this began as a result of a complaint by the acting US attorney for Northern California who happens to be a Bush appointee.

[BenDiesel26]

He absolutely did something inappropriate He failed to turn over evidence which contradicted his viewpoint. This is the same as was done in the Ted Stevens case. Prosecutors withheld evidence which would have helped prove Stevens innocence. As a result AG Holder asked that the case be dismissed. An IG has the same duty to the law as a prosecutor. Mr. Walpin is lucky he's not in jail. or at least under investigation.

And, as I stated in the original thread on this subject, all of this began as a result of a complaint by the acting US attorney for Northern California who happens to be a Bush appointee.

Come on now. Use your brain. KJ was guilty as charged, which is why he gave half of the money back. This was a politically motivated firing, this is obvious. You know it is. BO knows it is. There really is no defense. He will get away with it though. Mr. Walpin did nothing wrong. The reasons for the firing are bogus. If he did something wrong, KJ would not have settled. One of Obama's cronies messed up. Everybody knows it. Unfortunately, nothing will be said about it. Notice how vague Obama's reason's were and how no "exculpatory evidence" was actually presented, cause its bogus.

[jonnielu]

What gives you so much hope and optimism that the U.S. will continue to stand "firmly in the face of all assaults" and repel them indefinitely?

I didn't say that it will continue, I said that it has withstood all assaults to date. The one thing that it won't withstand is if you continue to leave it laying on the floor to be trampled by those organizing the oligarchy you speak of.

Hope is about all I have left, and it often runs short when I consider that trying to get across to you is mostly like trying to get thru a block wall. Not just you, but everyone that is so thoroughly trained, which is most. The hope that this country can remain free is like the expectation that lightning can strike the same spot twice.


We have become a morally decadent nation and an increasingly godless one. And the liberal politicians know this and like sharks, who have caught the scent of blood in the water, they have been circling our freedoms and liberties for decades now, moving in ever closer for the kill -- and it will be with the blessings of the majority!


You don't need to lable politicians, they are all worthless for representing you and your desires in life. The error is still ours to correct, it is we that elect the powerless to do the things that we don't want to be bothered with. We just want to be left alone, but we forget that is the one thing that the powerless has never been good at.


I have long maintained that a people get the government they deserve and desire.


That is exactly correct, if our way of life crumbles into dust, it is only because we allowed it.


It will be no different with the United States of America, unless there is a great revival in this land and God graciously saves this country from the enemies within for a season.

Boxcar

It could be different, but you'll have to get involved, my hope is that maybe you'll do something. Like take your power away from the criminal element (both red and blue) in the federal jurisdiction and start exercising it yourself through your state the way Thomas Jefferson hoped you would.

I did, I'm still standing here. I always thought it would be taken as good news to find that the Constitution still works. Is it a disappointment to you?

jdl

[mostpost]

Come on now. Use your brain. KJ was guilty as charged, which is why he gave half of the money back. This was a politically motivated firing, this is obvious. You know it is. BO knows it is. There really is no defense. He will get away with it though. Mr. Walpin did nothing wrong. The reasons for the firing are bogus. If he did something wrong, KJ would not have settled. One of Obama's cronies messed up. Everybody knows it. Unfortunately, nothing will be said about it. Notice how vague Obama's reason's were and how no "exculpatory evidence" was actually presented, cause its bogus.

Funds were misused. The question is "Was the misuse deliberate and fraudulent?" Mr. Lawrence G. Brown , the US attorney for eastern California, determined there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter criminally. Mr. Brown's office negotiated a return of half the money. This was based on the commission of "Administrative Errors", NOT on the basis of deliberate fraud.

As far as the "Exculpatory evidence" is concerned go to the "Gangsta presidency" thread. Read post #13 and click on the second link. (The letter from Lawrence G. Brown). Read the whole thing but pay particular heed to paragraph two on page one in which Mr. Brown points out that the responsibility of an IG is to gather evidence and turn it over to others who make the decision of how to proceed. The IG is not to be an advocate for either side of a case. Look also at the second paragraph on page two. Here Mr. Brown points out that the case Mr. Walpin presented to the US attorney's office was lacking, including the fact that no audit was done to determine how much money was misspent. Finally on Page three, Mr. Brown gives us one example of the "Exculpatory evidence" which Mr. Walpin failed to include in his report.

The truth is Mr. Walpin's actions made it impossible for the US attorney to conduct a competent investigation. Withholding evidence and arguing the
case in the media are perfect tactics for getting a case thrown out of court.

As I have said several times before: 1. The bipartisan board of the CNCS unanimously supported the firing of Mr. Walpin; 2: Acting US attorney Lawrence G. Brown was appointed by George W. Bush.

I know that you and NewtotheGame and Arljim 78 and others are obsessively determined to pin something on Obama, and you don't particularly care if your charges are based on fact. Rest assured that there will be people here who will keep you honest.
Have a great day.

[BenDiesel26]

Funds were misused. The question is "Was the misuse deliberate and fraudulent?" Mr. Lawrence G. Brown , the US attorney for eastern California, determined there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter criminally. Mr. Brown's office negotiated a return of half the money. This was based on the commission of "Administrative Errors", NOT on the basis of deliberate fraud.

As far as the "Exculpatory evidence" is concerned go to the "Gangsta presidency" thread. Read post #13 and click on the second link. (The letter from Lawrence G. Brown). Read the whole thing but pay particular heed to paragraph two on page one in which Mr. Brown points out that the responsibility of an IG is to gather evidence and turn it over to others who make the decision of how to proceed. The IG is not to be an advocate for either side of a case. Look also at the second paragraph on page two. Here Mr. Brown points out that the case Mr. Walpin presented to the US attorney's office was lacking, including the fact that no audit was done to determine how much money was misspent. Finally on Page three, Mr. Brown gives us one example of the "Exculpatory evidence" which Mr. Walpin failed to include in his report.

The truth is Mr. Walpin's actions made it impossible for the US attorney to conduct a competent investigation. Withholding evidence and arguing the
case in the media are perfect tactics for getting a case thrown out of court.

As I have said several times before: 1. The bipartisan board of the CNCS unanimously supported the firing of Mr. Walpin; 2: Acting US attorney Lawrence G. Brown was appointed by George W. Bush.

I know that you and NewtotheGame and Arljim 78 and others are obsessively determined to pin something on Obama, and you don't particularly care if your charges are based on fact. Rest assured that there will be people here who will keep you honest.
Have a great day.

Please open up your eyes man. There's a reason Obama broke the law in trying to fire Walpin. There's a reason KJ gave half the money back. Think for a change. Obama is definitely the most partisan president I have seen in my day. Fact: Obama did not follow the law in trying to fire Walpin. Only after this was brought into the spotlight did he level charges against Walpin. Is this not a fact mostpost? I don't what you think or care about other Obama policies, he is in the scum here. It's obvious.

[BenDiesel26]

By the way, since Walpin investigated Johnson (known by many to have had sexual relations with underage girls while on the suns) the FBI has taken up an investigation into the fraud allegations. I'm assuming you think they wouldn't have anything to do with this if Walpin wasn't actually on to something?

[newtothegame]

Most.....I will attempt this one time......

You can try to deviate from the story but it is not about what Mr walpin did or didnt do. Its not about any of the other characters who may have stood side by side.
IT IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW!

I know you will try and deviate from that topic at hand but the fact is EXACTLY what I highlighted in red.

[newtothegame]

I don't recall the exact quote, but newspaper people say that a good story answers the questions, who, what, where, when and why. This story does a very poor job on the who questions. Who are the officials who sent a letter of support for Walpin to the Senate? Even if they worked with him in the past, they cannot be judges of his current behavior. And who was the Republican board member, who alleged that Obama fired Walpin because Walpin wanted to continue the investigation of St. Hope. (ACCORDING TO YOU.)

Read the story again!!! Here is the pertinent quote:
"Right now, when there is such a great emphasis on service, we did not need any press out there on this St. HOPE matter, which was already settled," the board member told the newspaper. "We thought he was going to use the press. He had an issue with the fact that a settlement was reached ¦and he was doing everything he could to continue to keep the issue at the forefront

When reading the above pay attention to phrases such as "Already settled" and "He was going to use the press" and "He had an issue with the fact that a settlement was reached" Also pay attention to what was not said. Nowhere does he criticize the removal of Walpin. Actually if you read other stories on this subject you will find that the board was unanimously behind the removal of Walpin.

The behavior of Mr Walpin was very inappropriate. First of all he submitted
a report to the US attorney, which failed to include evidence that pointed strongly to the innocence of Kevin Johnson and St. Hope. Evidence which Mr. Walpin was in possession of. Mr. Walpin also attempted to "Try the case in the media"

As to whether the Obama administration failed to follow procedure in the firing of Mr. Walpin, I am not completely clear on that. As I read it, the White House told Mr. Walpin that he had one hour to resign or he would be fired. That is not the same as saying he would be fired in one hour. You present an ultimate. When the time limit passes, you begin the procedures to enforce the ultimate.

Did you NOT see the link I posted for the story?? NONE OF THIS STORY IS ACCORDING TO ME. I did Not write the story. :lol:

[Tom]

Obama is a far greater threat than Osama.
We need to focus on the real enemy.

[Lefty]

Obama not only broke the law, but it was a law that he co-sponsored.
They are trying to ruin Walpin, who campaigned for Obama, by the way, just like the Clinton's tried to ruin those people in TravelGate. Oh, the dems, champions of the people, uh huh...

[Tom]

Sadaam Hussein eliminated all of his opposition early on in his reign of terror. Sound familiar?

[Marshall Bennett]

Sadaam Hussein eliminated all of his opposition early on in his reign of terror. Sound familiar?
Obama is another " Hussein " . :)

[Tom]

D'oh! :lol:

And libs here got their tightie whitie's in a knot during the campaign when I kept using that name. Then HE goes and uses it overseas to sit his agenda.

Haven't heard a lib weigh in on that one yet.

[mostpost]

By the way, since Walpin investigated Johnson (known by many to have had sexual relations with underage girls while on the suns) the FBI has taken up an investigation into the fraud allegations. I'm assuming you think they wouldn't have anything to do with this if Walpin wasn't actually on to something?

"Known by many to have had sexual relations with underage girls while on the Suns" What does that mean? There was an incident where a 16 year old claimed that Johnson fondled her. The Maricopa county police investigated and found no evidence on which to base an indictment. During the mayoral election in Sacramento, one of Johnson's opponents claimed to have found another underage girl whom Johnson had fondled. But that girl recanted her story.

Now I am not dumb enough to think that you are not going to believe what you want to believe, and I admit the stories MAY be true. However, they mean nothing in regard to the subject being dicussed here. Bringing them up is just a cheap attempt on your part to confuse the issue.

[mostpost]

Did you NOT see the link I posted for the story?? NONE OF THIS STORY IS ACCORDING TO ME. I did Not write the story. :lol:

You did not write the story. You just totally misinterpreted it to serve your own agenda. :bang: :bang:

[NJ Stinks]

Mostpost, you just don't want to believe the sky is falling.

How can you live with yourself? :lol:

[BenDiesel26]

"Known by many to have had sexual relations with underage girls while on the Suns" What does that mean? There was an incident where a 16 year old claimed that Johnson fondled her. The Maricopa county police investigated and found no evidence on which to base an indictment. During the mayoral election in Sacramento, one of Johnson's opponents claimed to have found another underage girl whom Johnson had fondled. But that girl recanted her story.

Now I am not dumb enough to think that you are not going to believe what you want to believe, and I admit the stories MAY be true. However, they mean nothing in regard to the subject being dicussed here. Bringing them up is just a cheap attempt on your part to confuse the issue.

Pretty odd that he was recorded apologizing to the girl by phone and gave her a six figure settlement with the agreement not to talk publicly about the case, don't you think?

[mostpost]

Mostpost, you just don't want to believe the sky is falling.

How can you live with yourself? :lol:
Educating these guys is like digging a hole in the ocean. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[newtothegame]

You did not write the story. You just totally misinterpreted it to serve your own agenda. :bang: :bang:

Ok, (now your making the same mistake another poster made regarding my post)....please ohhh great most, tell me what my agenda is? Seeing how you KNOW I AM MISINTERPRETTING THINGS. You even went so far to say how I said "walpin wanted to continue the investigation of St Hope". Yet, when I called you on that, I see how you failed to address that only to retract and say how I "misinterpreted it to serve my OWN agenda".
I didn't MISINTERPRET ANYTHING. I ask you this....show me where the attorey general was given the thirty days as REQUIRED BY LAW. If Obama failed to give him the thirty days, then OBAMA broke the law...no ifs and or buts.
And lets not forget the first question ....what is my agenda???

[mostpost]

Ok, (now your making the same mistake another poster made regarding my post)....please ohhh great most, tell me what my agenda is? Seeing how you KNOW I AM MISINTERPRETTING THINGS. You even went so far to say how I said "walpin wanted to continue the investigation of St Hope". Yet, when I called you on that, I see how you failed to address that only to retract and say how I "misinterpreted it to serve my OWN agenda".
I didn't MISINTERPRET ANYTHING. I ask you this....show me where the attorey general was given the thirty days as REQUIRED BY LAW. If Obama failed to give him the thirty days, then OBAMA broke the law...no ifs and or buts.
And lets not forget the first question ....what is my agenda???
Your agenda is a continuous criticism of Barack Obama, justified or not.
Newt, there are two issues here. One is the issue of why Obama is firing Walpin. You, and/or others of your ilk, claim it is because Walpin was investigating a friend of Obama's. The White House claims that Mr Walpin is being fired due to his peformnce in office. The overwhelming evidence suppports the White House claims. This evidence includes a complaint by the CNCS Board regarding Mr. Walpins conduct during a meeting, the refusal by Mr. Walpin to work at Board headquarters, a complaint by the United States attorney for Eastern California that Mr. Walpin withheld pertinent and exculpatory evidence in his investigation, the fact that Mr. Walpin contacted the press and wrote several letters concerning the case after being specifically ordered not to do so. Any one of these actions would have been sufficient grounds for dismissal. The charge that he was fired because he was investigating Kevin Jounson, a friend of Obama's, does not stand up tp scrutiny. The U.S. attorney's Office determine that there was not sufficient evidence to make a criminal complaint. There were irregularities. That same U.S. attorneys office determined that those irregularities were caused by an incorrect interpretation of the rules and/or by careless bookkeeping. They negotiated a settlement in which approximately half of the grant money was to be returned. This is common procedure in cases such as this. But with your irrational hatred for Obama, I am quite certain that you willl never admit that.

The other issue is whether Obama broke the law regarding the firing of Inspectors General. Here is the pertinent portion of the Inspectors General Reform Act of 2008
a) Establishments.--Section 3(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking the second sentence and inserting "If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal.".

I stipulate that someone from the White House called Walpin and told him to resign in one hour or he would be fired. That is not the same as saying he would be fired in one hour. Despite what you think, this is not a stupid President and this is not a stupid administration. They cross thier "I"s and dot their "T"s. (Or something like that). The Administration did send the requisite letter to Congress and followed up with more information when requested. Mr. Walpin is now on administrative leave pending the resolution of this matter.
He was not fired, although an intention to fire was certainly given, because he cannot be fired until thirty days after Congress has been notified.

I realize the futility of pointing out these facts, but i am getting really good at typing, so thanks for that. :rolleyes:

[newtothegame]

Your agenda is a continuous criticism of Barack Obama, justified or not.
Newt, there are two issues here. One is the issue of why Obama is firing Walpin. You, and/or others of your ilk, claim it is because Walpin was investigating a friend of Obama's. The White House claims that Mr Walpin is being fired due to his peformnce in office. The overwhelming evidence suppports the White House claims. This evidence includes a complaint by the CNCS Board regarding Mr. Walpins conduct during a meeting, the refusal by Mr. Walpin to work at Board headquarters, a complaint by the United States attorney for Eastern California that Mr. Walpin withheld pertinent and exculpatory evidence in his investigation, the fact that Mr. Walpin contacted the press and wrote several letters concerning the case after being specifically ordered not to do so. Any one of these actions would have been sufficient grounds for dismissal. The charge that he was fired because he was investigating Kevin Jounson, a friend of Obama's, does not stand up tp scrutiny. The U.S. attorney's Office determine that there was not sufficient evidence to make a criminal complaint. There were irregularities. That same U.S. attorneys office determined that those irregularities were caused by an incorrect interpretation of the rules and/or by careless bookkeeping. They negotiated a settlement in which approximately half of the grant money was to be returned. This is common procedure in cases such as this. But with your irrational hatred for Obama, I am quite certain that you willl never admit that.

The other issue is whether Obama broke the law regarding the firing of Inspectors General. Here is the pertinent portion of the Inspectors General Reform Act of 2008
a) Establishments.--Section 3(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking the second sentence and inserting "If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal.".

I stipulate that someone from the White House called Walpin and told him to resign in one hour or he would be fired. That is not the same as saying he would be fired in one hour. Despite what you think, this is not a stupid President and this is not a stupid administration. They cross thier "I"s and dot their "T"s. (Or something like that). The Administration did send the requisite letter to Congress and followed up with more information when requested. Mr. Walpin is now on administrative leave pending the resolution of this matter.
He was not fired, although an intention to fire was certainly given, because he cannot be fired until thirty days after Congress has been notified.

I realize the futility of pointing out these facts, but i am getting really good at typing, so thanks for that. :rolleyes:
My criticism is NOT of Obama personally as I do not know the man. My criticism is of his handling of this country and his policies toward what I percieve as socialism. Now you may wish to chose to support many of the social programs he is pursuing, but as I see it, I am responsible for MY family. Not the guy down the street who is capable of working but choses not too. or, the illegal immigrants who continually flood this country, recieve much better benefits then in their own country (why else would they be here of not), yet pay NOT a dime in taxes towards said programs.
And although you are having a hard time understanding the second part I highlighted, I DID NOT WRITE THE STORY. Show me where I typed anything about Obama fired this guy BECAUSE he is investigating one of Obama's friends!!! The story suggested that. I only posted the story here for others to share in. I do have a problem with the 30 days. Now you go on to say " I stipulate that someone from the white house called....."
I would ask you this...how do you know? I can stipulate ANYTHING...that doesnt make it fact.
As for whether or not this is a stupid administartion or president, he and his administration will be judged in time. He will have a place in americas history. his legacy is NOW being written daily by his actions. I am just one of the MANY who will have a say in the next election to MY agenda!

[Tom]

Walpin passed a government test to measure competence on TV - Obambi broke the law and is lying about it. What else is new - nothing but lies and cigarette smoke come of that slug's mouth.

Obambi = liar, murderer, thieve, smoker, coward. Sums him up pretty good.
Oh, forgot, enemy of the people.

[NJ Stinks]

Walpin passed a government test to measure competence on TV - Obambi broke the law and is lying about it. What else is new - nothing but lies and cigarette smoke come of that slug's mouth.

Obambi = liar, murderer, thieve, smoker, coward. Sums him up pretty good.
Oh, forgot, enemy of the people.

You forgot to provide the link. :rolleyes:

[Lefty]

post, the fact that Walpin was right about Johnson, seems to escape you as does the fact that Obama broke a law he co-sponsored.

[PaceAdvantage]

Educating these guys is like digging a hole in the ocean. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Yet, something compels you to continue participating here in off-topic...odd when you think about it....

[mostpost]

" I stipulate that someone from the white house called....."
Actually Newt is quoting my quote, just to be clear.
Newt, you do know that stipulate can be used in place of "agree"? As in "I agree that someone from the White House called..." THE STORY made the claim and I admit it is true. My argument is with the interpretation as expressed in my previous.

[mostpost]

Walpin passed a government test to measure competence on TV

:confused: :confused: Does that mean that Walpin is good at repairing televisions? Does it mean he took a televised test to measure his competence? If so, in what field? Does it mean there was a government test on competence sitting on his TV and he walked by? Could it be possible you're just posting Gibberish? Provide a network, a time, something, anything.

[mostpost]

Yet, something compels you to continue participating here in off-topic...odd when you think about it....
I just can't believe you guys think like you do. I'm waiting for someone to yell
GOTTCHA!!!!!

[mostpost]

Yet, something compels you to continue participating here in off-topic...odd when you think about it....
And, it would be boring if everybody agreed.

[ArlJim78]

:confused: :confused: Does that mean that Walpin is good at repairing televisions? Does it mean he took a televised test to measure his competence? If so, in what field? Does it mean there was a government test on competence sitting on his TV and he walked by? Could it be possible you're just posting Gibberish? Provide a network, a time, something, anything.

g-8gZ8BrIA0

[mostpost]

g-8gZ8BrIA0
Damn! I failed! :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[PaceAdvantage]

And, it would be boring if everybody agreed.I agree 100%, which is why I'm puzzled that you feel the need to put down those with a differing opinion. And please don't come back at me "well, they do it!"

I like to think I don't go around putting people down with differing opinions. Have I done it in the past? I'm sure I have...but I don't make it a habit, that's for sure...

And yes, I took your "Educating these guys is like digging a hole in the ocean. :rolleyes:" as the putdown it was meant to be....

[mostpost]

I agree 100%, which is why I'm puzzled that you feel the need to put down those with a differing opinion. And please don't come back at me "well, they do it!"

I like to think I don't go around putting people down with differing opinions. Have I done it in the past? I'm sure I have...but I don't make it a habit, that's for sure...

And yes, I took your "Educating these guys is like digging a hole in the ocean. :rolleyes:" as the putdown it was meant to be....
It wasn't. It was an expression of frustration. An example: Newtothegame started this thread by linking to an article which he felt included a statement by a Republican member of the CNCS board accusing Obama of firing Walpin because Walpin was investigating Johnson. I pointed out that there were several other legitimate reasons for the firing and that the board member stated clearly, in the very article NEWT quoted that he and other members of the board agreeed with the decision. The response from Newt was he didn't write the article. Other responded by repeating the charges without addressing my points and by changing the subject. One poster even brought up some sexual harassment charges against Johnson, which, even if true are irrelevent to the current discussion. What frustrates me is their inability to see anything except through the narrow prism of a political ideology.

[newtothegame]

Actually Newt is quoting my quote, just to be clear.
Newt, you do know that stipulate can be used in place of "agree"? As in "I agree that someone from the White House called..." THE STORY made the claim and I admit it is true. My argument is with the interpretation as expressed in my previous.

I quite clearly know that stipulate can be used to replace agree. My contention is though that you are using PARTS of the story to agree with as they fit YOUR agenda. Other parts, you dismiss. I am not agreeing with or disagreeing with ANY parts of the story. I go back to my original statement, if Obama broke the law (which is what the story also contends so do you stipulate that as well??), then he is WRONG!
And since you seem to know my agenda, let me help you with that...here is my agenda....I am against ANY AND ALL politicians who do not serve MY best interest. I really could care less whether they are democrat or republican. Although I would tell you that in generalities, the republicans more closely align with my beliefs. Now you could sit here and say well " I havent seen you on here bashing republicans". And I will tell you there have only been a few democrats as well. I have only been a member here since last year. If it helps, I think what Staford (carolina rep) did (republican) is stupid and repulsive. But again, as I said earlier with Obama, I don't know the man. Only what is being reported.