Posted on 06/27/2009 7:17:21 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
As previously reported by The New American on June 12, President Barack Obama has fired Gerald Walpin, the inspector general who found out that Americorps funds were being misused at Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnsons St. HOPE Academy. Administration officials tried to strong arm Walpin into leaving quietly, but he would not acquiesce. Obama then claimed that he had lost confidence in Walpin and dismissed him, not even caring that it gave the appearance of punishing Walpin for catching a big Obama supporter in wrongdoing.
The administration did attempt to characterize Walpin as being confused, disoriented, and unable to answer questions at a meeting. It is strange then, considering the presidents single-minded focus on healthcare, that no one from the administration has insisted that Walpin, age 77, undergo a medical examination to find a cause for these alleged problems. If some cause could be found, it would certainly lend credence to the administrations allegations.
Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) has stood up on Walpins behalf, saying that the former inspector general has identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds either wasted outright or spent in violation of established guidelines, and that it appears he has been doing his job. A June 24 U.S. News & World Report article entitled Even Political Foes Cheer on Fired AmeriCorps Inspector General Walpin points out that 145 of Walpins acquaintances, from both sides of the political divide, have written a letter to Congress and the White House defending his capabilities and integrity. As U.S. News notes, the 145 include former federal judges and even Democrats like Bernie Nussbaum, former President Clinton's first White House counsel.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
I’m sorry, there is no air time left for such a story as the death of a pedophile is far too important.
Shame on you for not supporting the annointed one!!!
How very un-american can you be?
Zero is the twelfth imam.
C. the Younger
People are so over the top in love with Obama that they are tying their wagon to him and will fall off the cliff along with him when his true agenda and motives are revealed. If our nation survives enough to punish the losers.
Sooner the better, get ye over that cliff!
I urge everyone to post a comment at the end of the article....you just submit your name and email...no registration.
The libs are already on this.
It is all sickening.Kate and whatever his name is, divorce; and Jackson and a pub Sanford, rule the news! These are the top headlines...
Morning Shows Devote Almost an Hour to Hyping Sanford Story
Night Before Key Vote, Networks Remain Silent on Cap-and-Trade
The AARP should be so proud of their support of Obambi, after his treatment of this “old and confused” guy
I did not renew my AARP.
Thank you Mr. Soetoro, treasonous Democrats (but I repeat myself), spineless Republicans, and government-educated idiot masses.

DONE.
Operation take over the government? Maybe he will arrest Congress?
yup...take the $$$$ & run....no healthcare costs. 
I sent this to Drudge. Think he will headline it?
145 of Walpins acquaintances, from both sides of the political divide, have written a letter to Congress and the White House defending his capabilities and integrity.
http://static.usnews.com/documents/whispers/Walpin.pdf
If Bush had fired Walpin, they would have made ample time for the story, even with Jacko's death.
*******************************************************
Chicago way! Obama uses Lucifer as his spiritual adviser...IMO!
In the original edition of Saul D. Alinskys, Rules for Radicals.... the preface states the following:
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdomLucifer.
AND... Current editions of the book lack this controversial preface.
Alinsky wrote in the books prologue:
What I have to say in this book is not the arrogance of unsolicited advice. It is the experience and counsel that so many young people have questioned me about through all-night sessions on hundreds of campuses in America. It is for those young radicals who are committed to the fight, committed to life. In the first chapter, opening paragraph Alinsky writes, What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.[2]
Outlining his strategy in organizing Alinksy writes:
Theres another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we dont encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but lets not let it happen by default.[1]
Alinsky codified and wrote a clear set of rules[3] for community organizing. His rules for radicals are now used as key tactics to learn in the training of new community organizers.
That perennial question, Does the end justify the means? is meaningless as it stands: the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, Does this particular end justify this particular means?
The second rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.
The fourth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
The fifth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
The sixth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
The seventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
The eighth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
The ninth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
The eleventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that goals must be phrased in general terms like Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Of the Common Welfare, Pursuit of Happiness, or Bread and Peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.