Democrates will hide, "Hate Crimes Bill" or pedophile Protection Act, as amendment to a “must-pass” bill. Its just like what liberals are trying to do to talk radio. Americans don't want 547 paraphilias (sexual deviancies) groups protected nor do they want to be forced to listen to only "liberal socialist talk radio". The left wing radical extremists in power are trying to force a socialist/communist transformation of this country. They can't pass a pedophile protection act/queer act nor can they affect freedom of speech on talk radio by forcing Americans to listen to "state run media" without midnight backdoor secret hidden forceful fradulent action. We are living in a country that is run by FRAUDS who support the FRAUD obama and his socialist/radical left wing extremist tactics of destroying any oppostion. Obama is a thug just like hitler. Obama is acting like a dictator. America is in peril. We must fight for our freedoms before obama takes them all by creating manufactured media "crisis". We must watch every move congress makes. Congress is but a "butt boy" for obama and his agenda.
....................................................................................
Backdoor pedophile/queer protection act information
EMERGENCY ALERT!DEMOCRATS WON'T HOLD HATE BILL HEARINGS WILL MOVE HATE BILL FORWARD AS RIDER
By Rev. Ted Pike
10 June 09
In a major strategic shift, Senate Democratic leaders will push the federal hate crimes bill to the floor of the Senate as another amendment to a “must-pass” bill (Washington Blade, www.washblade.com, June 8, 2009, "Senate to Pass Hate Crimes Bill as Amendment"). Widespread Christian/conservative protest has destroyed the bill's chances of going forward as standalone legislation – as happened on April 29 with passage in the House.
Democrats say there will be no hearings and no amendments allowed. There will undoubtedly be a minimum of debate on the floor of the Senate, probably no more than an hour. Clearly, they are in dread of allowing the hate bill to be opened to public scrutiny and Republican attack as the “Pedophile Protection Act.” They will not allow Senate Judiciary Democrats to be asked the same formidable question Republicans put to Democrats six weeks ago in the House Judiciary: “Will you allow an amendment expressly forbidding pedophiles special protection under the hate bill?”
The only answer Democrats then or now can reply is, “No.” As pro-hate bill Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings boldly asserted, all members of 547 paraphilias (sexual deviancies) listed by the American Psychological Association, including pedophiles, will be given special treatment under the hate bill, “so that they will no longer have to live in fear because of who they are.”
Democrats have chosen to despise the intense concern and hate bill protest from heartland America. Many concerned citizens assert that S. 909 is very dangerous legislation, poorly understood by Congress; it must be discussed in the open public forum of Senate Judiciary hearings!
Instead, since the Matthew Shepard Prevention Act is so shaky, so unable to withstand scrutiny by the normal legislative process, Democrats now resort to their habitual, under¬¬-the-table method of passage: attaching it as “pork” to the underbelly of some (probably unrelated) bill.
Last Congress, Sen. Edward Kennedy attached his hate bill to the Defense Authorization Act. Yet, The Washington Blade tells us Rep. Barney Frank has problems with repeating that scenario: “You get kind of cognitive dissonance,” he says, “when you put [a] liberal amendment on a conservative bill…” That “dissonance” comes from the fact that one and a half years ago rebellious anti-war Democrats and anti-hate bill Republicans refused to grant final passage to the hate bill. Despite approval by both House and Senate, it was ultimately defeated. Frank says memory of that humiliation precludes attaching the hate bill to an arms bill again.
What other pending bill would Democrats consider to host the hate bill? Democrats are not saying. Yet, with mid-term elections next year, they want to pass the “Pedophile Protection Act,” with its nasty stigma of specially protecting rapists of little boys and girls, as soon as possible.
How soon could Sen. Kennedy propose his new hate bill amendment? As soon as Democrats decide on its host legislation. That could happen anytime, with passage of the hate bill within a week.
Also, with today’s shooting spree in the holocaust museum by alleged “racist and anti-Semite” James Von Brunn, Democrats could exploit this or some other horrendous hate crime to hasten passage.
Of one thing we are sure: Senate Democrats, especially in the Senate Judiciary, are bone weary of hearing popular criticism of their “pedophile-protecting hate bill.” They are apprehensive of the rising sophistication of criticism against it and possible declining Senate support. If I were Sen. Patrick Leahy or Sen. Harry Reid, I would try to move it through sooner rather than later. This means YOUR calling of the Senate right now is crucial. Since calling has declined in the past month as a result of Senate Judiciary indecision, it must resume with a vengeance. We must head off the Democrats, moving more quickly than they, prejudicing the entire Senate against this blatant disregard of the will of the people.
Call your state's members of the Senate and all Senators (names on the action page at www.truthtellers.o rg), 1-877-851-6437 toll free and 1-202-225-3121 toll. Say, “I am calling to protest refusal by Senate Democrats to hold hate bill hearings on S. 909. Instead, they are underhandedly attaching the hate bill as a rider. This shows how weak the pedophile-protecting hate bill is. It can’t withstand normal legislative scrutiny. Please reject this end run around honest due process. Vote NO on S. 909!”
Watch the dynamic 10-minute educational videos, Stop the Pedophile-Protecting Hate Bill!, at www.truthtellers.org which explains how the hate bill, S.909, ends freedom. Please tell the offices of members of Congress to watch it! Also at www.truthtellers.org, watch our gripping 82-minute documentary Hate Laws: Making Criminals of Christians.
Let the Anti-Defamation League teach you how they have saddled 45 states with hate laws capable of persecuting Christians, and spearhead attempts to pass the federal hate crimes bill: http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp.
Hate Crimes Info
Hateful free speech occurs. It is spoken by obama every day in the form of double talk and half truth/lies. Hate speech does not exist. It is not defined in the constitution. The first amendment to the US constitution allows for freedom of speech. Americans can and do say almost anything. Hate speech does not exist. Hateful speech does. People commit hateful crimes everyday. The US congress and obama destroy our freedoms every day by committing the hateful crime of playing the race card or creating a manufactured crisis or growing the government to control our freedom. The most hateful criminal in America is obama. He is a FRAUD who hates capitalism and wants to control Americans every move.
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject. Call (503) 631-3808.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Why Obama Is A FRAUD
The evidence was given by Obama himself on his website. He declares he was a Kenyan citizen at birth. By his own admission he exposed himself as a FRAUD. This fact cannot be pushed aside by his supporters as meaningless. This fact is what Obama seeks to hide by not answering legal challenges to his "birth certificate". Obama supporters follow their fake "leader" by not directly answering two simple questions. (1) Do you believe that obama told the truth when he said he was a Kenyan citizen at birth? If they say no that means Obama lied about his citizenship. If they say yes then ask them this next question. (2) Do you believe obama is a natural born citizen? If they say yes ask why. If they say no they are correct. Either answer will lead to the conclusion obama is a FRAUD. If they deny he is a FRAUD they to are FRAUDS who only want a FRAUD to not be exposed. When obama is exposed as a FRAUD supporters are exposed also. The real FRAUD and his supporters are hiding his true identity. Why? It is because all his supporters have a "stake" in perpetuating the mith obama is a US citizen. They are "wed" to the birth certificate lie. A divorce from obama will not be granted by the "State Run Media" on the grounds that the "community" property is government controlled and owned. Comparative rectitude grounds can be used when both are at fault. When obama supporters become aware their own tail is on fire maybe they will "divorce" themselves from the lie of obama. A FRAUD who is not a US citizen. We the people must suffer this FRAUD who calls himself "president" when in fact he is not even a resident of the US!
....................................................................................
The resident "president" possible motives for hiding it with such tenacity and diligence. (wnd)
* Perhaps something in that birth certificate, if it indeed exists, would contradict assertions Obama has made about his life's story. These might even involve his true parental heritage. Without a real birth certificate, no one really knows who his parents were. So it is ridiculous even to speculate about whether citizenship could be conferred upon him by his mother, when we don't know for sure who his mother is.
* Perhaps it reveals a foreign birth, as Hawaii allowed for in 1961 while still issuing the "certification of live birth" we have seen posted on his website.
* Or perhaps it will show just what Obama has claimed all along – a birth in Hawaii to two officially non-citizen parents, for the purpose of establishing "natural born citizenship" under the Constitution.
(We don't know for sure who his father is.)
We don't know who Barack Obama's parents are, because we have never seen his birth certificate. All we have seen is a facsimile of a "certification of live birth" on the Internet.
That document, even if genuine, proves nothing about Obama's birth in Hawaii or who his parents were. Hawaii had a very slipshod practice in 1961 of issuing these documents to babies born outside the country and listing parents who may not have been the parents at all.
But we do know who Barack Obama claims his parents were. According to him, neither one of them was an American citizen able to confer natural born citizenship on a child. One, Barack Obama Sr., was a foreign national from Kenya, and the other, Stanley Ann Dunham, was too young to have qualified under the law for bestowing that privilege on her son, even if the father had been a citizen and even in the unlikely event Obama was actually born in Hawaii!
So, if we are to take Obama at his word, he is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to serve as president. If we take him at his word, he has admitted he is a FRAUD!
Obama supporter do you believe what you "commandeer" in chief has stated. Do you agree he was a citizen of Kenya at birth as he said? If so you are stating he is a FRAUD and not eligible to serve as president.
If obama is an American citizen he should be able and willing to back it up with documentation proving he is a US citizen. A photo copy of cob on a web site is not legal domentation. Anyone can fake a cob. Documentation verifies a cob or original birth certificate. Obama has not verified or proved anything other than he is a FRAUD.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Obama fires IO because he was exposing the FRAUD
Obama fires watchdog Inspector General
Rush Limbaugh calls action illegal, 'bigger' than Alberto Gonzales fray
Former Inspector General Gerald Walpin filed two reports exposing gross misappropriation of federal AmeriCorps funds by a prominent Barack Obama supporter and was shortly thereafter fired by the White House, circumstances he told WND are likely linked and others have called an outright illegal action by the administration.
"I think you have to look at the facts and the circumstances and reach your conclusions," Walpin said in a WND interview. "I will tell you that [my firing] came only after we had issued those two reports to Congress, and I don't think that's a coincidence."
Further, Walpin said, "I am convinced that I and my office are not guilty of any impropriety. In essence, I was fired for doing my job."
Independent, federal inspectors general are supposed to be granted special protection from political interference – thanks in part to a law co-sponsored by the then-Senator Barack Obama – to ensure that they are free to investigate waste and fraud uninfluenced by political cronyism.
But after Walpin dared to push for action against the St. HOPE Academy program – run by Obama supporter and former NBA star Kevin Johnson – which had misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal AmeriCorps funds, he nonetheless found himself fired by the White House under circumstances that have led some to wonder if Obama has violated his own co-sponsored law in retaliation.
"There are two big questions about the president's actions," writes Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner. "One, why did he decide to fire Walpin? And two, did he abide by the law that he himself co-sponsored?"
Radio talk host Rush Limbaugh fired off an answer to York's questions on his program yesterday:
"Firing an inspector general is a big deal. If you'll remember, Alberto Gonzales as attorney general fired a couple of U.S. attorneys. He took hell for it. This is bigger. Inspectors general are supposed to be completely above politics," Limbaugh commented. "This is big. This is political cronyism, power and so forth. … I'm telling you, firing an I.G., because they're not political, it is a much bigger deal than replacing United States attorneys."
Furthermore, Limbaugh stated, the unusual circumstances surrounding the night before Walpin's dismissal constitutes a clear violation of the very law Obama helped to pass as a senator.
"The Obama administration did it overnight," Limbaugh stated. "[It] broke the law firing the AmeriCorps I.G."
According to the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, co-sponsored by Obama, inspectors general do not serve at the president's pleasure and therefore cannot be fired without 30 days notice and written cause for the decision sent to Congress.
The firing of Walpin, however, took on a very different form.
Walpin received a sudden and unexpected ultimatum from White House counsel Norman L. Eisen: Resign with the hour or suffer being fired.
Walpin refused to resign, replying in an email, "It would do a disservice to the independent scheme that Congress has mandated – and could potentially raise questions about my own integrity – if I were to render what would seem to many a very hasty response to your request."
The next day the administration nonetheless fired Walpin and sent a letter to Congress citing as its only reason for the dismissal, "It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general. That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general."
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who also co-sponsored the Inspector General Reform Act, immediately protested the White House's action.
"I was troubled to learn that last night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated," Grassley stated in a letter to the president. "Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure. This independence is the hallmark of all inspectors general and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny."
Grassley's letter reminded Obama of the statute requiring the president to submit 30-days notice to Congress of an inspector general's dismissal and stated, "No such notice was provided to Congress in this instance."
"We cannot afford to have inspector general independence threatened," Grassley concluded. "In light of the massive increases in federal spending of late, it is more critical than ever that we have an inspector general community that is vigorous, independent and active in rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. I urge you to review the Inspector General Reform Act you co-sponsored and to follow the letter of the law should you have cause to remove any inspector general."
The White House then clarified two issues, explaining that Walpin was not immediately fired, but suspended for 30 days of paid leave as a countdown to his official release, and that his dismissal, indeed, was related to the Johnson investigation.
In a written response to Sen. Grassley, White House counsel Gregory Craig cited an ethics complaint filed against Walpin by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown.
Brown had had declined to file criminal charges against Johnson, who was elected in November as mayor of Sacramento, or the St. HOPE Academy, but did reach a settlement requiring the organization to pay back over $400,000 of $850,000 in grants it was given through the AmeriCorps program.
Both Grassley's letter and Walpin, however, pointed out that the inspector general has not been found guilty of any misconduct, and the charges are disputed.
"I have been performing – and my office has been performing – its work with the highest integrity, in the spirit of an independent office, calling the shots as it sees them," Walpin said. "The integrity committee will decide the merits of the complaint, but what troubles me is that the White House is apparently relying on the complaint. At this point, it is before an adjudicatory body, and if the White House felt it couldn't wait for that decision, it should have at least waited for me to come in and provide my factual response, so it could consider it. It did not."
And while Walpin has been guarded in responses to the media, refraining from commenting on his future plans or even accusing the president of firing him for political reasons, he did say he believes Obama has compromised the independent integrity of the office of inspector general.
"I am sorry for what I believe to be clear interference with the institution of the inspector general," Walpin said. "And I am sorry for the people in my office, who I respect. I took the position because I believed when the president called upon me, it was a great opportunity to give something back to this country. I have done what I believe is right, and I will go on."
....................................................................................
It is obvious the FRAUD obama is covering up corrupution for his buddies. Obama is a thug. Here is another fact to prove it. Obama the FRAUD said, he did not have the fullest confidence in the IG. This was the only reason he gave for illegally firing him. Obama is a LIAR and a FRAUD. A traitor to the country. Obama is as are other members of congress "traitors withing the government" who are destroying our nation.
The 30 day requirement is important because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which was designed to strengthen protections for IGs, who have the responsibility of investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse within federal agencies, against interference by political appointees or the White House. Part of the Act was a requirement that the president give Congress 30 days' notice before dismissing an IG. One of the co-sponsors of the Act was then-Sen. Barack Obama.
The Act also requires the president to outline the cause for his decision to remove an IG. Beyond saying that he did not have the "fullest confidence" in Walpin, Obama gave no reason for his action.
Grassley's version of events suggests that the White House first tried to muscle Walpin out of his job without having to go through the 30-day process. It was only when Walpin refused to resign that the White House then notified Congress of the president's intention to fire Walpin.
The bigger question is why the president is doing this and why he is attempting to do it so quickly. Senate sources now believe Obama is firing Walpin over Walpin's investigation of Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and a prominent supporter of the president.
Johnson, now the mayor of Sacramento, California, started a non-profit organization called St. Hope. The group's mission, according to its website, is "to revitalize inner-city communities through public education, civic leadership, economic development and the arts." As part of its work, St. Hope received a grant of about $850,000 from AmeriCorps.
Last year, Walpin began an investigation of how Johnson's group spent the money. According to the Associated Press, "[Walpin] found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car." Walpin asked federal prosecutors to investigate. In April, the U.S. attorney in Sacramento, a Bush holdover, declined to file any criminal charges in the matter and also criticized Walpin's investigation.
That might suggest that St. HOPE was OK, and it was Walpin who was in the wrong. But at the same time prosecutors decided not to file any charges against St. HOPE, the U.S. attorney's office also entered into a settlement with St. HOPE in which the group also agreed to pay back about half of the $850,000 it had received from AmeriCorps.
In his letter to the president, Grassley defended Walpin's performance. "There have been no negative findings against Mr. Walpin by the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), and he has identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds either wasted outright or spent in violation of established guidelines," Grassley wrote. "In other words, it appears he has been doing his job. "
The bottom line is that the AmeriCorps IG accused a prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. After an investigation, the prominent Obama supporter had to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. And Obama fired the AmeriCorps IG.
Obama the FRAUD hides behind his curtain of lies. Who is that mutt behind the curtain? It is the FRAUD barry sorento an illegal alien who has conned his way into the white house. A FRAUD who daily proves either he is an IDIOT or he is purposefuly destroying this country. I believe he is a muslim radical who is destroying the economy for islam. Obama is on a jihad to destroy America.
Rush Limbaugh calls action illegal, 'bigger' than Alberto Gonzales fray
Former Inspector General Gerald Walpin filed two reports exposing gross misappropriation of federal AmeriCorps funds by a prominent Barack Obama supporter and was shortly thereafter fired by the White House, circumstances he told WND are likely linked and others have called an outright illegal action by the administration.
"I think you have to look at the facts and the circumstances and reach your conclusions," Walpin said in a WND interview. "I will tell you that [my firing] came only after we had issued those two reports to Congress, and I don't think that's a coincidence."
Further, Walpin said, "I am convinced that I and my office are not guilty of any impropriety. In essence, I was fired for doing my job."
Independent, federal inspectors general are supposed to be granted special protection from political interference – thanks in part to a law co-sponsored by the then-Senator Barack Obama – to ensure that they are free to investigate waste and fraud uninfluenced by political cronyism.
But after Walpin dared to push for action against the St. HOPE Academy program – run by Obama supporter and former NBA star Kevin Johnson – which had misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal AmeriCorps funds, he nonetheless found himself fired by the White House under circumstances that have led some to wonder if Obama has violated his own co-sponsored law in retaliation.
"There are two big questions about the president's actions," writes Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner. "One, why did he decide to fire Walpin? And two, did he abide by the law that he himself co-sponsored?"
Radio talk host Rush Limbaugh fired off an answer to York's questions on his program yesterday:
"Firing an inspector general is a big deal. If you'll remember, Alberto Gonzales as attorney general fired a couple of U.S. attorneys. He took hell for it. This is bigger. Inspectors general are supposed to be completely above politics," Limbaugh commented. "This is big. This is political cronyism, power and so forth. … I'm telling you, firing an I.G., because they're not political, it is a much bigger deal than replacing United States attorneys."
Furthermore, Limbaugh stated, the unusual circumstances surrounding the night before Walpin's dismissal constitutes a clear violation of the very law Obama helped to pass as a senator.
"The Obama administration did it overnight," Limbaugh stated. "[It] broke the law firing the AmeriCorps I.G."
According to the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, co-sponsored by Obama, inspectors general do not serve at the president's pleasure and therefore cannot be fired without 30 days notice and written cause for the decision sent to Congress.
The firing of Walpin, however, took on a very different form.
Walpin received a sudden and unexpected ultimatum from White House counsel Norman L. Eisen: Resign with the hour or suffer being fired.
Walpin refused to resign, replying in an email, "It would do a disservice to the independent scheme that Congress has mandated – and could potentially raise questions about my own integrity – if I were to render what would seem to many a very hasty response to your request."
The next day the administration nonetheless fired Walpin and sent a letter to Congress citing as its only reason for the dismissal, "It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general. That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general."
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who also co-sponsored the Inspector General Reform Act, immediately protested the White House's action.
"I was troubled to learn that last night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated," Grassley stated in a letter to the president. "Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure. This independence is the hallmark of all inspectors general and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny."
Grassley's letter reminded Obama of the statute requiring the president to submit 30-days notice to Congress of an inspector general's dismissal and stated, "No such notice was provided to Congress in this instance."
"We cannot afford to have inspector general independence threatened," Grassley concluded. "In light of the massive increases in federal spending of late, it is more critical than ever that we have an inspector general community that is vigorous, independent and active in rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. I urge you to review the Inspector General Reform Act you co-sponsored and to follow the letter of the law should you have cause to remove any inspector general."
The White House then clarified two issues, explaining that Walpin was not immediately fired, but suspended for 30 days of paid leave as a countdown to his official release, and that his dismissal, indeed, was related to the Johnson investigation.
In a written response to Sen. Grassley, White House counsel Gregory Craig cited an ethics complaint filed against Walpin by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown.
Brown had had declined to file criminal charges against Johnson, who was elected in November as mayor of Sacramento, or the St. HOPE Academy, but did reach a settlement requiring the organization to pay back over $400,000 of $850,000 in grants it was given through the AmeriCorps program.
Both Grassley's letter and Walpin, however, pointed out that the inspector general has not been found guilty of any misconduct, and the charges are disputed.
"I have been performing – and my office has been performing – its work with the highest integrity, in the spirit of an independent office, calling the shots as it sees them," Walpin said. "The integrity committee will decide the merits of the complaint, but what troubles me is that the White House is apparently relying on the complaint. At this point, it is before an adjudicatory body, and if the White House felt it couldn't wait for that decision, it should have at least waited for me to come in and provide my factual response, so it could consider it. It did not."
And while Walpin has been guarded in responses to the media, refraining from commenting on his future plans or even accusing the president of firing him for political reasons, he did say he believes Obama has compromised the independent integrity of the office of inspector general.
"I am sorry for what I believe to be clear interference with the institution of the inspector general," Walpin said. "And I am sorry for the people in my office, who I respect. I took the position because I believed when the president called upon me, it was a great opportunity to give something back to this country. I have done what I believe is right, and I will go on."
....................................................................................
It is obvious the FRAUD obama is covering up corrupution for his buddies. Obama is a thug. Here is another fact to prove it. Obama the FRAUD said, he did not have the fullest confidence in the IG. This was the only reason he gave for illegally firing him. Obama is a LIAR and a FRAUD. A traitor to the country. Obama is as are other members of congress "traitors withing the government" who are destroying our nation.
The 30 day requirement is important because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which was designed to strengthen protections for IGs, who have the responsibility of investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse within federal agencies, against interference by political appointees or the White House. Part of the Act was a requirement that the president give Congress 30 days' notice before dismissing an IG. One of the co-sponsors of the Act was then-Sen. Barack Obama.
The Act also requires the president to outline the cause for his decision to remove an IG. Beyond saying that he did not have the "fullest confidence" in Walpin, Obama gave no reason for his action.
Grassley's version of events suggests that the White House first tried to muscle Walpin out of his job without having to go through the 30-day process. It was only when Walpin refused to resign that the White House then notified Congress of the president's intention to fire Walpin.
The bigger question is why the president is doing this and why he is attempting to do it so quickly. Senate sources now believe Obama is firing Walpin over Walpin's investigation of Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and a prominent supporter of the president.
Johnson, now the mayor of Sacramento, California, started a non-profit organization called St. Hope. The group's mission, according to its website, is "to revitalize inner-city communities through public education, civic leadership, economic development and the arts." As part of its work, St. Hope received a grant of about $850,000 from AmeriCorps.
Last year, Walpin began an investigation of how Johnson's group spent the money. According to the Associated Press, "[Walpin] found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car." Walpin asked federal prosecutors to investigate. In April, the U.S. attorney in Sacramento, a Bush holdover, declined to file any criminal charges in the matter and also criticized Walpin's investigation.
That might suggest that St. HOPE was OK, and it was Walpin who was in the wrong. But at the same time prosecutors decided not to file any charges against St. HOPE, the U.S. attorney's office also entered into a settlement with St. HOPE in which the group also agreed to pay back about half of the $850,000 it had received from AmeriCorps.
In his letter to the president, Grassley defended Walpin's performance. "There have been no negative findings against Mr. Walpin by the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), and he has identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds either wasted outright or spent in violation of established guidelines," Grassley wrote. "In other words, it appears he has been doing his job. "
The bottom line is that the AmeriCorps IG accused a prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. After an investigation, the prominent Obama supporter had to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. And Obama fired the AmeriCorps IG.
Obama the FRAUD hides behind his curtain of lies. Who is that mutt behind the curtain? It is the FRAUD barry sorento an illegal alien who has conned his way into the white house. A FRAUD who daily proves either he is an IDIOT or he is purposefuly destroying this country. I believe he is a muslim radical who is destroying the economy for islam. Obama is on a jihad to destroy America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
