A KENNEDY SHOULD NOT LECTURE THE POPE!!

This issue of Newsweek magazine has an article written by Kathleen Kennedy that essentially says that Obama represents Catholics in the USA more than the Pope.
She concludes the article with this "pearl" of left wing wisdom that the Kennedy's have demonstrated since they tried to cover up the Chappaquiddick debacle when Mary Jo Kopeckne drowned and Teddy Kennedy survived, after Teddy drove his car off a bridge.
She is correct in one assumption. Apparntly 58% of people who call themselves Catholics voted for a man for President who not only supports abortion but partial birth abortion! Go figure!!

But some one with a family history of sex scandals and chicanery is no one to take seriously when she writes about the moral leadership of Catholics, as I will outline in the following.
The eldest of Robert F. Kennedy and Ethel Skakel's 11 children, she is part of the Kennedy family. She was named for her aunt Kathleen Kennedy Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington, who died in a plane crash in 1948. And like all elitists and wealthy Liberals she thinks she is a good judge of what all people including the Pope should do and act!
Of course ,Ms. Kennedy Townsend should not be blamed for her family members imprudent acts, but her association with two organisations gives insight to why she wrote this article.

In 1986, Townsend ran for Congress in Maryland's second Congressional district, losing to Helen Delich Bentley 41% to 59%, thus becoming the first Kennedy to lose a general election.

Mrs. Kennedy Townsend is also a member of the contributing staff of the National Catholic Reporter that gave a voice to Father Roy Rourgeois until he was excommunicated by the Catholic Church in 2008.
The paper is based in midtown Kansas City, Missouri. The founding editor in 1964 was Robert Hoyt. In 1968, the NCR was officially condemned by bishop Charles Herman Helmsing. [1] When the paper was first founded, Bishop Helmsing provided diocesan office space and funds until the paper was able to move to the building where it continues to this day. In the late 1960s, Bishop Helmsing objected most specifically to the paper’s strong stands on birth control, priestly celibacy and criticism of the hierarchy, citing an imbalance in news coverage. A total of 66 Catholic journalists signed a petition during this time to support the stances of NCR.

Unlike diocesan publications or those of religious institutes, it is independent of ecclesiastical oversight. Therefore, the NCR often dissents from official Catholic Church teachings in some areas.Catholics like me call the rag The National Catholic Distorter! It is no wonder she took the time to write such a stupid and heretical article!

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is also a member of the Center for American Progress, a Liberal organization that has such other left "wingnuts" as Tom Daschle and John Podesta as members. The Center was often featured prominently on the Al Franken Show on the Air America Radio network, where Christy Harvey and Al Franken criticized the Bush administration at length, accusing it of dishonesty and incompetence.

The Center has no information on its website about its funding, but the Washington Post reported that "seed money pledged by such deep-pocketed Democrats as financier George Soros (and mortgage billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler)" assisted its formation.[9] The authors of Her Way, a biography of Hillary Clinton, also assert that the Democracy Alliance, a progressive donors collective, has funded the Center. They also assert that the Sandlers and Soros provided seed money.Source: Wikapedia

Then there was the incident in 2006 when Patrick Kennedy crashed his car at 3 a.m. into a security barrier outside the U.S. Capitol, returning to rehab and then pleading guilty to driving under the influence of prescription drugs. He's admitted battling depression, bipolar disorder, an addiction to prescription drugs and bouts of binge drinking.

And before that, in April 2000, when 39-year-old Michael Skakel finally appeared in court to plead not guilty to the charge of murdering a teenaged neighbor named Martha Moxley in Palm Beach, in 1975. The event was reported as the latest scandalous episode in the ongoing dramedy of the self-styled "clan" that has long stood in for royalty in these lamentably egalitarian United States.
Skakel is, of course, a Kennedy. To be precise, he is a nephew of Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert F. Kennedy.
And the continuing saga of the ethically challenged Kennedy clan shows that in 1997the Kennedy family was involved in another scandal. Michael Kennedy's plea for forgiveness for "serious mistakes" he has committed. Kennedy had been accused of having an affair with his family's underage baby sitter. Statutory rape in most States!

Prosecutors decided to drop the investigation against Kennedy in response to the young woman's refusal to cooperate. Michael Kennedy's father was the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.You think maybe she was offered a "offer she could not refuse"?

Norfolk County District Attorney Jeffrey Locke said that he had no compelling evidence that would warrant any further investigations into the statutory rape accusations brought against Kennedy. However, the prosecutor did say that he would be "ready, willing, and able" to reopen the case if the baby sitter, now a 19-year-old college sophomore, decided to cooperate.

Hours after Locke's announcement, Kennedy publicly asked for forgiveness from his wife and family and the family of the baby sitter for his "serious mistakes."

In her article she wrote this absurd statement, despite the fact that most American Catholic Bishops condemned the action of Notre Dame in conferring a honorary degree on Obama!
"Notre Dame awarded the president an honorary degree because it saw the need to highlight the best of Catholic teaching as applied to politics: the ability to open the eyes of those who would prefer to keep them closed, and to open the hearts of those who would prefer not to know the pain that their actions cause. The pope has a lot to learn about Catholic politics in America. Barack Obama can teach him".

She must have ignored the fact that The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2004, specifically forbade giving "awards, honors or platforms" to "those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles." And as a result the Bishop of Fort Wayne/South Bend, Indians Bishop John M. D'Arcy refused to attend the graduation eremony at which Notre Dma gave an honorary degree to Obama.
Abortion is a fundamental violation of Catholic doctrine, and anyone who supports it is in violation of the basic principles of the Church. So be it!

Ms. Kennedy joins a long list of people who call themselves Catholics, but by their actions and words have effectively excommunicated themselves from the Church
Latae sententiae for supporting an abortion advocate.

THE LIARS ARE AT IT AGAIN!!

The amount of lies coming out of the Obama operatives and Democrat Congressmen and women is appalling for an administration that campaigned on having an open and honest administration.

The lies are too numerous to list in this brief post, so I will review some of the most egregious.
The excuse for firing Independent Counsel Gerald Walpin is a good place to start. The Obama administration said he was fired without notifying Congress thirty days ahead of the firing as require by law,because he was mentally incompetent and unable to perform his duties. This was absurd, as it was proved by Conservative TV personality Glenn Beck, when he gave the same test on camera that is used by doctors to test the mental ability of a suspected senile people. Walpin answered every question correctly and quickly.

Then there was the Campaign promise by Obama that he would not tax the middle class.
The administration has an extremely difficult educational problem on its hands,” said Henry J. Aaron, a health care expert at the Brookings Institution. “They understand that at some point tax increase are going to be necessary across the board.

“Yes, for the middle class, too,” he added.

Obama made a firm tax pledge during the presidential campaign, repeating it numerous times in the weeks and months leading up to Election Day: no tax increases for individuals making less than $200,000 a year or couples making less than $250,000.Did he lie or are we to assume he is too naive to realize that he cannot do what he is proposing without taxing more than the "rich"?

In February, President Barack Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus bill while making lavish promises about the results. He pledged that "a new wave of innovation, activity and construction will be unleashed all across America." He also said the stimulus would "save or create up to four million jobs." Vice President Joe Biden said the massive federal spending plan would "drop-kick" the economy out of the recession.

But the unemployment rate today is 9.5% -- nearly 20% higher than the Obama White House said it would be with the stimulus in place. Keith Hennessey, who worked at the Bush White House on economic policy, has noted that unemployment is now higher than the administration said it would be if nothing was done to revive the economy. There are 2.6 million fewer Americans working than Mr. Obama promised.

And now there is the "whopper" told by Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, about the CIA never advising her that the CIA was using "waterboarding". This despite the fact that members of the Intelligence committee, have said that the CIA did inform the committee.
If that was not enough to illustrate the ingenuousness of the Democrats. This will show you that they will do anything to cover up the Speakers lies.

On June 26th, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX, 82%), sent a letter to ranking Republican member Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI, 88%); Reyes claimed that two days earlier, in a classified briefing by CIA Director Leon Panetta (a hyper-partisan Democratic former House member), the director admitted the CIA routinely misled and even lied to Congress under George W. Bush.
Of course, all eight accusers coyly refuse to say exactly what the CIA is supposed to have misled them about. They just allow the nation to draw the “obvious,” but not necessarily accurate, conclusion.
Democrats are using this bit of "bs" to prop up the wobbly Speaker of the House, insinuating, with no lawful way to debunk it,that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Haight-Ashbury) was truthful when she said the CIA “never told her” we had already waterboarded a terrorist detainee and planned to waterboard a couple more.
CIA spokesman George Little told the Washington Independent late Wednesday that the claim that Panetta admitted his agency has misled Congress is “completely wrong.” He added, “Director Panetta stands by his May 15 statement.”

Nobody privy to the actual intelligence, not even Reyes and the "seven dwarfs" who signed the letter, has explicitly claimed that Panetta said the CIA lied about briefing Pelosi or anyone else on waterboarding; but neither can anyone explicitly dispute it. a. And for that matter, Panetta’s spokesman denies that Panetta said any such thing in the first place. Source: The Politico

One of the seven members of the Committee who signed the letter to the CIA is the next ranking Democrat on the committee, is Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL, 100%)… a former federal judge who was impeached and removed from office for accepting a $150,000 bribe, then perjuring himself when caught.Not exactly the type of person who should be accusing anyone of lying!

And another questionable character is Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-CA) ,who flunked an intelligence quiz just a month before he was slated to assume that position. The quiz included such tricky, unfair questions as whether al Qaeda is Sunni or Shiite. (Reyes’ answer: “They are probably both,” followed by “Predominantly — probably Shiite.”)

When President Bush was in the Oval Office. Sens. Feinstein (D-CA, 100%), Russell Feingold (D-WI, 100%), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI, 90%), all current members of the Senate Intelligence Committee — Feinstein is the chairman — wrote a letter in July, 2007, demanding a “special prosecutor” be appointed to investigate then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for perjury… because of a trivial difference between Gonzales’ testimony and that of then-FBI Director Robert Mueller over the exact subject of a hospital-room discussion between Gonzales and former Attorney General John Ashcroft three years earlier.

Mueller, who was not present during the conversation itself, gained the impression afterwards that the discussion had been about the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP); but Gonzales testified to Congress three years later that it was about a different but similar surveillance program. And for that, four Democratic senators wanted to send Gonzales to federal prison — the three mentioned above, plus Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY, 100%).

This demonstrates such onerousness's of purpose at a time when the Iraq war was floundering,and Gen. David Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy was just starting. It was important that we needed our government to show solidarity and steadfastness. I question whether any of these three should even be allowed to serve on such a delicate and supposedly bipartisan committee as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Turning to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the current chairman, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-CA), flunked an intelligence quiz just a month before he was slated to assume that position.

And to end this exposure of lies that Obama and his minions tell. I will list just six more of a list that is found at any site on the internet. If you ask the question "how many times has Obama lied to the public".
# 1.) Selma Got Me Born - LIE, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google 'Obama Selma' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)

At one point in the speech, Obama described how that was the environment in which his father came to the United States and met his mother. Then he said, "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama."

The Selma Voting Rights March was in March, 1965. Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 so he was not born in the shadow of what happened in Selma.

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIE, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government-Truth! & Fiction!

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - LIE, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIE, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya .. It is the first widespread violence in decades.

Raila Odinga is a well-known politician in Kenya who ran for president in 2007 and challenged the election results when he lost. The resulting violence killed hundreds and left thousands homeless. Odinga has claimed to be Obama's cousin but Obama has never acknowledged the relationship.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIE, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili - LIE, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language.

When will a majority of Americans wake up and realize that we have a man in the Oval Office that does not honor the Constitution and will say anything to acomplish his goals?

CAP AND TRADE IS A MONEY MAKING SCAM!!

We have seen news reports that Al Gore stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars in CO2 credits trading via his new trading organisation. And I suspect most of the politicians who have jumped on to the band wagon of Cap and Trade have visions of dollars floating in their empty heads!

Despite the fact that more than half the real climatologists who were surveyed, said the world is actually cooling not getting warmer. The politicians all over the world are pushing this new Ponzi scheme.

Well, the fly in the ointment just may have spoiled there vision of control and riches for themselves. A report by a respected organisation was introduced to the members of the G8 meeting in Italy that may start people thinking about flushing CAP and Trade!

The Kyoto Protocol requires leading economies, by 2012, to cut by specified amounts carbon dioxide (CO2) and other “greenhouse gases” blamed for climate change. It allows for trading in carbon “credits” among lighter and heavier emitters.

A conference in Copenhagen late this year aims to deliver a global agreement for action after 2012, the end of the Kyoto-applicable period. Activists are pushing for much bigger emission-reduction targets and more stringent timetables than those set by Kyoto.

But the new report says Kyoto and its underlying approach have had no meaningful impact at all. To the contrary, cap-and-trade schemes – which set a limit on emissions and allow trading in emissions permits or carbon offsets – had seen emissions continue rising.

The report comes from a consortium of research institutes in Europe, North America and Asia, led by the London School of Economics’ (LSE) Mackinder Program and the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society at the University of Oxford.

It says the only policies that will work are those focusing directly on improving energy efficiency (reducing the amount of energy needed to provide the same service) and decarbonizing the energy supply (finding ways to reduce the amount of carbon released per unit of energy consumed), through developing and deploying technology.

“Policy should focus directly on decarbonization rather than on emissions; on causes instead of consequences,” the authors say.

“Worthwhile policy builds upon what we know works and upon what is feasible rather than trying to deploy never-before implemented policies through complex institutions requiring a hitherto unprecedented and never achieved degree of global political alignment,” lead author Gwyn Prins of the LSE Mackinder Program said in a statement.
Source:CNSNEWS

Prins and his co-authors find fault with initiatives like the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation – passed by the House of Representatives late last month – as well as the European Union’s emission trading scheme and Britain’s Climate Change Act.

Instead, they point to Japan’s climate strategy – setting a realistic, concrete target, “to be met by real-world efficiency gains and decarbonization through deployment of efficient and low-carbon technologies.”

“The Japanese target does not depend on the froth of purchased offsets,” they add.

The report notes that Japan, ironically, was slammed by environmentalists and the U.N. climate panel for what were seen as unambitious targets, even though its policy is actually working.

“Evidence from the best studied and most efficient example, namely the Japanese iron and steel industry, shows a 19 percent reduction in CO2 1991-2008 as a result of direct efficiency gains.”

‘Don’t put dogmatism ahead of pragmatism’

Despite the experts’ appeals, carbon trading looks set to stay ,there is too much money invested in the trading of CO2 credits to allow it to fail. And it will expand! To the average citizens detriment and to fill the pockets of the political aristocracy!

Obama met with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt at the G8 gathering Wednesday and, according to Reinfeldt, expressed interest in linking a U.S. carbon trading market with one run by the E.U. and, possibly, Australia. Sweden holds the rotating E.U. presidency.

Writing on a Nature magazine Web site, Jeff Tollefson voiced doubt that the idea of reversing course put forward by Prins and his co-authors would garner much enthusiasm.
How much money will Obama and his henchman make off this canard we will never know. But one thing we all know is that it will cost US a lot more in the cost of living because of the incumbent increase costs of energy

AND NOW CONGRESS WANTS A SECOND SPENDULUS!

Despite the fact that the highly touted stimulus spending has not reduced the unemployment rate, nor has it limited it to 8.5% as Obama predicted.With an unemployment rate of over 10% and climing the Democrat controled Congress is proposing another round of stimulus spending.

The "royalty in Washington apparently are either out of touch with reality or simply do not care what those who put them in the priviledgrd position by voting for them.
Congress has appropriated so much money that the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that Obama’s spending plan would leave a deficit of $672 billion by the end of 2013. Explaining the differences between his projections and CBO’s, Obama said his administration projects a higher growth rate.

Well he is being overly optimistic or flat out lying, as most sane economists predict a growth rate of less than 2%! It makes sense when you consider the negative affect that his Cap and Trade Bill
will have.
It is also important to understand that “cutting the deficit in half” is a deceit for the fact that it means he’ll still be running up a record deficit of over 600 billion a year. That is not progress in deficit reduction or “fiscally responsible” government. But it sounds good when thrown out there in a sound bite. Maybe this will help make my point:

Both the most “pessimistic” and his own projections see huge deficits projected well into the future, and as many economists have said, unsustainable deficits.

So let’s get a few facts straight concerning spending and deficits before Obama took over as president and after. The then and now!
Obama has been trying to pass himself off as a fiscally conservative leader, but his true tax-and-spend identity is starting to show through as he claims that a government “rescue” of the economy (as if any such thing were even possible) is more important than budget deficits or the federal debt.In simple terms obama believes(or at least wants us to believe)that spending money that is worthless, because it exceedes the GNP, will get us out of the economic mess we are in!

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama has added another $1 trillion.

President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course at breakneck speed.

China, the biggest overseas holder of U.S. Treasuries, trimmed its holdings of government notes and bonds by $4.4 billion to $763.5 billion in April. Premier Wen Jiabao said in March that he was “worried” the dollar would weaken as U.S. President Barack Obama sells record amounts of debt to fund his $787 billion economic stimulus plan.

“The objective is to develop a substitute for the dollar as the world’s reserve currency,” said Tim Condon, Singapore- based head of Asia research at ING Groep NV, part of the largest Dutch financial-services group. “That will reduce the ability of the U.S. government to finance deficits with impunity.”

Even Germany has said at the G8 summit, that we should cut back on spending!

Government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem! Ronald Reagan

AMERICANS ARE UNDERMINING ISRAELI IDF

While president Obama states that Israel does not have his permission to attack Iran's nuclear plants. Vice-President Biden said that Israel had a Right to do anything to defend itself.
It appears our present government is schizophrenic about Israel.
At the same time the Jerusalem Post is reporting that the USA Defense Department has once again ordered the Israeli's not to bid on a Swedish project that has been let out for bids to build a multi-purpose jet fighter.

Under pressure from the Pentagon, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) has been forced to back out of a joint partnership with a Swedish aerospace company to compete in a multi-billion dollar tender to sell new multi-role fighter jets to the Indian Air Force,the JAS 39 Gripen fighter aircraft.

The deal is estimated at a whopping $12 billion for over 120 new aircraft,and is being fought over by Lockheed Martin's F-16, Boeing's F-18/Hornet, Russia's MiG-35 and BAE's Eurofighter. IAI was asked by Saab, manufacturer of the Gripen, to jointly develop an advanced model which would compete for the deal.

The Defense Ministry ordered IAI to back out of the deal after the Pentagon expressed concern that American technology, used by Israel, would be integrated into the Gripen offered to the Indians.

"The stated concern was that Western technology in Israeli hands would make its way to the Indians," one Israeli official said.

What was strange with the American request was that Boeing and Lockheed Martin - the two largest US defense contractors - are also competing for the Indian deal. For this reason, Israeli officials said it was more likely that the Americans were concerned that if IAI competed for the deal with Saab, it would force the American companies to lower their prices.

A multi-role fighter, the Gripen is in service in Sweden, the Czech Republic, Hungary and South Africa. IAI was supposed to provide the electronic systems - radar, communications and electronic-warfare - for the plane.

This is not the first time that an Israeli company has been forced out of a deal due to concerns that competing with American companies would endanger Israeli-US relations.

Last summer, the MoD ordered Israel Military Industries (IMI) to back down from submitting a bid for a half-a-billion dollar deal to develop and manufacture a new tank for the Turkish Armed Forces.

At the time, Turkey had informed the MoD of its interest in developing a new tank and asked if IMI would want to submit a bid. SIBAT - the MOD's Foreign Defense Assistance and Defense Export Organization - decided not to submit an Israeli offer so not to compete with the Americans and endanger Israeli-US defense relations.

Apparently the Obama administration does not mind letting the Chinese automaker Geely Automobile Holdings bidding for General Motors Corp.'s Saab brand, a move that would boost the company's ability to compete overseas.

Former U.S. auto giant GM plans to sell off or wind down its Hummer, Saab and Saturn units. And in this case Obama fells it will help him to let a potential enemy have the rights to manufacture these cars. Thus, costing thousands of Americans their jobs!

Geely, based in the eastern Chinese city of Hangzhou, is among several big Chinese automakers viewed as likely candidates to acquire at least one of those brands. It has denied reports it is also bidding for Ford Motor Co.'s Swedish unit Volvo, although the reports persist.

But Israel, the only real friend the USA has in the Middle East is "ordered" by Obama's Defense Department not to bid on the Swedish plane!

INVESTIGATING UNLAWFUL ACTS SHOULD BE BI-PARTISAN

On June 19,2009 “The White House fired Gerald Walpin. The firing apparently stemmed from Walpin’s investigation of a non-profit group, St. HOPE Academy, run by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California (and a big Obama supporter).
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,” the AP reports. In April, the U.S. attorney declined to file any criminal charges in the matter and criticized Walpin’s investigation. But at the same time Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay about half of the $850,000 it had received from AmeriCorps.

Bottom line: The AmeriCorps IG accused a prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money.The prominent Obama supporter had to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. Obama fired AmeriCorps IG, Walpin.
The Congress passed a law to protect Independent Prosecutors from just this kind of underhanded firing. The IIRC bill required that the President would have to notify Congress in writing 30 days prior to any action being taken. Given the reports that Teh One’s staff reportedly tried to force him to resign within the hour or be fired, it appears that they do not pay attention to their own legislation, or, conveniently ignore it.Either way Obama and his henchmen violated the law by firing Inspector General Walpin!

This unlawful act by the Obama administration was a violation of a law passed by the Congress, and as such it should be an affront to all members of Congress regardless of party affiliation. But as predicted it is ignored by the Democrats and some Republicans who support Obama.
As a result, key Republicans in both the House and the Senate are accusing the White House of giving “incomplete and misleading” information to investigators probing the president’s abrupt firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin. In return, the White House is hinting that documents concerning its actions in the Walpin affair may be protected by executive privilege.

Both developments are part of an escalating conflict between GOP lawmakers and the Obama administration. Republicans are deeply skeptical of the White House explanation for the June 10 firing of Walpin, a tough investigator who had been probing misuse of AmeriCorps money by Sacramento, Calif., mayor — and prominent Obama supporter — Kevin Johnson. And the administration seems determined to conceal its dealings with AmeriCorps and the organization that oversees it, the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Walpin was dismissed without warning on June 10, when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform. Eisen told Walpin he had one hour either to resign or be fired — an apparent violation of a law giving special job protections to inspectors general. When Walpin refused to quit, he was terminated.

After lawmakers demanded an explanation, the White House said Walpin had been “confused, disoriented [and] unable to answer questions” at a May 20 meeting with the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service. The Johnson case was discussed at that meeting, with Walpin harshly criticizing board members for their support of a decision to let Johnson off easy.

There’s no question that members of the board, both Democrat and Republican, were unhappy with Walpin’s criticism of them. They agreed that Alan Solomont, the Democratic fundraiser appointed by President Barack Obama as chairman of the board, should tell the White House what had happened.

But now, at least three board members have told congressional investigators they did not specifically recommend that the administration fire Walpin. Instead, they simply wanted the chairman to express their concerns.

The White House claims it investigated the matter; Eisen told House and Senate aides that officials did an “extensive review” of complaints about Walpin’s performance before deciding to fire him. But there are serious doubts as to whether the White House did, in fact, conduct a serious investigation before getting rid of Walpin.

The three board members have told Congress that the White House did not contact them during the review. (One was told about Walpin’s firing at about the time it happened, and the other two were contacted days later.) No one from the White House contacted Walpin himself, or his top assistant, as part of the review.

Republican aides want to step up the pressure on the firing, because, as one senior committee aide put it: "What's at stake isn't just one man's job: it's how $6 billion in taxpayer money is going to be used by this Administration on an agency with no independent oversight." The six billion was given to the CNCS this year by Obama. This is tax payers money being used to promote Obama special interest plans!

The aide is referring to the Corporation for National and Community Service's primary entity, AmeriCorps, set up in the 1990s by the Clinton Administration to increase public service among young people -- mostly college grads and young professionals -- largely via grant-making to a network of state and local community nonprofit groups.

"Just how AmeriCorps is going to be used by the Obama Administration -- and what steps the administration has taken to ensure that it can do with AmeriCorps what it wants -- is at the heart of our concern," says the GOP House staffer. "We think that the removal of Walpin was part of that agenda." Source:American Spectator

The resources allocated to CNCS amount to more that $6 billion in funds, and those plans include turning AmeriCorps into a supersized, taxpayer-funded ACORN-like organization, focused on the Obama Administration's policy agenda, including health care reform, targeted stimulus spending, and possible work on the upcoming U.S. census in 2010.
Meanwhile, a White House source says the White House is trying to find out if dispersal of parts of the $6 billion budget for CNCS can be sped up under a Presidential request that the funds be considered part of the economic stimulus program. Stimulus?? Sounds more like war chest funds for Obama!!

In the past, AmeriCorps volunteers lobbied and organized groups against the "three strikes" rule in California, and had plans in place to identify groups to support a second attempt at health care reform after Hillarycare went down in flames. Some AmeriCorps resources have gone to assist ACORN projects around the country, including anti-Republican demonstrations in state capitals and in Washington, D.C.
And you can be sure this group will have an affect on the 2010 and 2012 elections to the detriment of fair and honest election results.
And if you doubt my words. I have enclosed a quote from the head of one of ACORNs affiliates that describes the pupose of ACORN and it's "sinister" organizations very well.
"SOCIAL POLICY asks what is to be done to secure basic structural changes in American society. Its pages will provide a meeting ground — and battleground — where ideas, tactics and strategies for radical reconstruction of American institutions can be expressed and exchanged, tested and debated, expanded and deepened.”

DO NOT BE DELUDED THE COLD WAR IS NOT OVER!

When the Berlin wall fell and the Soviet Union apparently collapsed everyone assumed the Cold War between Russia(USSR) and the USA was over.
Wrong, the Soviet Union collapse was a financial debacle because the dictators thought they could keep up with the USA in the arms race, but since they were a totalitarian country with no free enterprise incentive they were not able to generate enough GDP to stay in Reagan's race to dominance.
But the KGB members just changed their uniforms and mannerisms for business suits and tried to begin a quasi-free Enterprise system.

There were cronies associated with the government a few oligarchs that became billionaires off profits from the vast mineral deposits and oil supplies that are found in the large land mass that is Russia.
But the average person. The so called middle class never really developed to sustain the conversion to a real Free Enterprise system.

In 1991 Yeltsin came to power with a wave of high expectations. On 12 June 1991 he was elected president of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic with 57% of the vote, becoming the first popularly elected president. But Yeltsin never recovered his popularity after a series of economic and political crises in Russia in the 1990s. The Yeltsin era was marked by widespread corruption, economic collapse, and enormous political and social problems. By the time he left office, Yeltsin had an approval rating of two percent by some estimates.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, Yeltsin, vowing to transform Russia's socialist command economy into a free market economy, endorsed price liberalization and privatization programs. Due to corruption and other factors, a good deal of the national wealth fell into the hands of a relatively small group of people. Source:Wikapedia

Today as President Obama pays a visit to the Kremlin to talk nice with President Mevedev, he is talking with the "puppet" of KGB member Vladimir Putin. The real power and aspiring dictator of the Russian people.
In his talks we can assume that Obama will try to smooth over the animus that the Russian leadership has for America. The talk will be pleasant, but all the promises will be for naught if we really think that Putin and his KGB fellow travelers will co-operate in any effort to accommodate the USA!

For decades the Russian leadership and via the propaganda network of government controlled media, the Russian people, are hateful and jealous of US Americans.

The one thing that stands out in all the speeches and news that comes from Russia is that they blame the USA for their problems. Not the degradation caused by Communism and lack of Religion in the country. The Daily Der Spiegel has a revealing article in today's issue that reveals the attitude toward the USA. The following quote should give some insight as to how Russia feels about any concessions or demand( more like requests from Obama) will be received.

"Putin's explicit goal upon assuming power in 2000 was to reverse as much as possible of the geopolitical imbalance imposed upon Russia during the 1990s. He believes that in that decade of Russia's extreme financial weakness, the country effectively lost its sovereignty. The US and its NATO allies, he argued, used the opportunity to re-constitute the world order over Russia's head. They expanded NATO eastward and reshaped other international institutions to serve their agenda. They treated Russia's domestic economic, political and social policies as their own project, engaging in a crusade to shape Russia in their own image for their own interests. Putin's priority during his tenure as president, from 2000-2008, was to reverse the West's leverage over Russia".

"It would be a mistake to believe that the Russians will view any concessions that Obama makes as something that requires counter-concessions on their part. The Russians will be happy to use US concerns about Iran or arms control to elicit concessions if they can. But they will not consider themselves bound by any "deal." Stationing of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, admission of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO and Western involvement in the North Caucasus -- none of these are bargaining chips for the Russians. They oppose them without qualification, and they are non-negotiable".

It is not hard for me to come to the conclusion that the Russians see the softness in the U.S. president by observing his willingness to allow North Korea to provoke war with their violation of the ban on nuclear weapons and their firing of at least 12 missiles in the last few weeks. His willingness to talk to Iranian leadership without any preconditions is also a sign of his timidity toward foreign threats even though he is quick to use intimidation within our own country to establish his socialistic goals.The firing of the special prosecutor over the telephone,and the way he intimidated bond holders of Chrysler Corp. are just a few examples.

In the negotiations going in Moscow, both sides seemed to try to skirt a dispute that should be discussed but could have derailed the summit — the fate of an American missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, which was proposed by the Bush administration.

American officials have said the system is intended to ward off attacks from countries like Iran, but the Kremlin views it as a threat to Russia.How can a missile defense system intended to defend against incoming attacks be a treat? This is just so much verbal bovine excrement!

Before the summit meeting, Mr. Medvedev asserted that the United States would have to compromise on the system before Russia would sign off on an arms control agreement.

All this tells me that the Cold War is still on, we just do not recognize it as such, or we choose to ignore it at our own peril!