When Rules are No Longer Rules

Criminals Gone WildThere has been a lot of huff and puff this week over the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin. I have to admit that I am a little bothered by it myself. And I think I am justified in being so. Because to me, this is simply another example of the power in the White House being abused. I want to be clear here, I intentionally did not say Barack Obama abusing the power. He is simply the one doing it this time. There is a long history of those in power in this country feeling that the rules (even the ones that they themselves made) do not apply when they choose to not apply them. So this article may come across very anti-Obama by the time I am finished writing it, but I do not feel that this is something he alone has done. It was done by Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter…. as far back as you want to go. So I am well aware this is a systemic issue, not one that just this administration has. But I know that, regardless of that statement from me, there are going to be some folks who want to point out all that Bush did….

… so let me just deal with that right up front. I know Bush overstepped his bounds. We all know Bush overstepped his limits of power. No matter how many times you point it out, it won’t make Obama any more right for following suit. I don’t really care how many examples you provide to me to show me that Republicans are hypocrites to have something to say about Obama doing it. I am not a Republican, and had I been writing a blog when Bush was in office I would have called him on this too. Being able to say that both parties do it does not make it right. And I am tired of the politicians feeling as though they are an elite class of rulers who can do whatever they like. So I am saying enough. If you want to quabble on about Bush, knock yourself out. I will ignore you, but you are free to do so. The bottom line is that Obama is in office, not Bush. I don’t care if Bush shot his children, that doesn’t give Obama the right to shoot his. So know that this is my position up front and don’t waste your time. 

Gerald Walpin with Justice Ginsberg after Receiving 2nd Courts Highest Award

Gerald Walpin with Justice Ginsberg after Receiving 2nd Courts Highest Award

Bottom line on this firing. Gerald Walpin was an Inspector General for United States government. He was overseeing the use of government funds given to Americorp and their behavior. He was doing the job that so many believe has been neglected, government oversight of the use of government funds. AmeriCorps is a program of the Corporation for National and Community Service, an independent federal agency whose mission is to improve lives, strengthen communities, and foster civic engagement through service and volunteering. As the Inspector General overseeing Americorps, he worked with the board and held Americorps accountable for proper behavior. 

Last week he was suddenly fired by President Obama. The move follows an investigation by Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star. Johnson and a nonprofit education academy he founded ultimately agree to repay half of $847,000 in grants it had received from AmeriCorps (hence admitting wrongdoing?). The inspector general found that Johnson 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 firing came with no notice and no reasons given other than a “loss of confidence”. And there is the first problem. You see, President Obama was breaking the rules by doing things this way. Last year, a bill written by Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill was passed in order to protect Inspectors General from being fired for political reasons. The law requires that 30 days notice be given before the firing on an inspector general. It also requires that the reasons for the firing be presented in written form to Congress prior to taking action. Obviously these rules were not followed by President Obama. And I find this especially troubling since the bill, written by McCaskill, was co-sponsored by….

Senator Obama.


Learning from the Master

Learning from the Master

You cannot claim ignorance of the law that you co-sponsored and took credit for helping to write and put in place (well maybe you can in a Congress that passes a $800 Billion bill that no one read first). It isn’t like this is some mundane law from 100 years ago that people did not realize was being broken. It is a law passed last year and sponsored by the man that broke it. It is one of the few things that Obama didn’t simply vote “present” for while a Senator. You would think he would remember that. 

So in the days since, Senator Claire McCaskill pointed out that the bill that she wrote and he sponsored was being broken here. She also pointed out that the reasoning of “loss of confidence” was not a good enough answer. Obama’s legal aces threw together a letter to leaders of the Senate committee that oversees AmeriCorps, in which Obama argued the agency’s chief watchdog was so “confused” and “disoriented” at a board meeting that some questioned “his capacity to serve.” The letter further said that Walpin was “unduly disruptive,” and exhibited a “lack of candor” in providing information to decision makers. 

Americorps LogoWalpin, for his part, has come out and said that these charges are baseless, insufficient, and further that the accusation that he lied to decision makers is an outright lie. Adding to this mix is the question of the role the first lady may have had in this firing. Michelle Obama recently expressed her interest in the Corporation for National and Community Service when the White House announced June 4 that Norris, the first lady’s chief of staff, had been appointed as senior adviser to the service corporation (and thus would be overseen by Walpin). 

So what is the real deal with this story? Who knows, but it sure seems fishy to me. What it looks like to me is that Walpin pissed off someone with his honest appraisal of what was happening at Americorps. And it would seem that whoever that someone is, be it Kevin Johnson, Michelle Obama, or whomever, the President has overstepped his rights in terminating a man who by most accounts was very good at his job. Maybe there is nothing to this, but maybe there is something to this. And I am long past the point of giving politicians in Washington any benefit of the doubt any longer. 

But the point is that the arrogance and elite mentality in Washington is out of control. This is simply the latest version and it may be the most advanced version we have seen. It certainly seems as though the Obama administration has less regard for the law and less concern for the Constitution than any administration previously, at least in my lifetime. But Bush was worse than anyone before him too. It means that these political assholes are continuing with each day that passes to fully embrace their belief that they are America’s ruling elite. And I have grown tired of their attitude and disregard for those that they were elected to serve. How is this for a prime example of the elite mentality and petty ruling class games they play:

Senator BoxerSenator Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California is the head of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. On Tuesday, during a publicly aired segment of testimony, an army Brigadier General was testifying and made the mistake of calling Boxer “ma’am”. Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was testifying on the Louisiana coastal restoration process in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. He began to answer one of Boxer’s questions with “ma’am” when Boxer immediately cut him off. “You know, do me a favor,” an irritated Boxer said. “Could say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?’ It’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes, thank you.”

Now anyone who has ever been in the military knows that Army protocol says that you are to address someone who is higher on the food chain as sir or ma’am. That is just how it is done. And Boxer’s petty reply was meant to demean him and put him in his place, to remind him that she is the one in power here. He took it well and that is why he is a General and I never could have been. I don’t have the sense to allow someone to treat me like that regardless of their position or power. My response would be something a little less sensible than “yes, Senator”. My reply would have gone something like this:

Arrogance UMSenator Boxer, I replied to you as ma’am as a matter of respect. It was not my first choice. I would have preferred to refer to you as a crook, or a liar, or power hungry bitch. But I fought that urge because I wanted to acknowledge that you have, in fact, worked hard to get where you are. It takes a lot of work to become one of the best 535 criminals in America. Al Capone worked hard to get to the top of his criminal empire too. The second that you attempted to demean me, however, I decided that you for some reason think that you are better than me. That you think your years of fleecing American taxpayers and playing political games in Washington places you above people like me who have given a career to the service of my country. Please remember, Ma’am, that you work for me, not the other way around. I will call you Senator from this point forward, so long as it is placed into the record that my definition of Senator is no longer a Representative of the People, but is instead a legally authorized thief and liar. If you would prefer that I don’t use that term given my definition of it, I have several choice titles that I am more than willing to offer…..

The Senate Majority Leaders Message to Voters

The Senate Majority Leaders Message to Voters

Seriously, why does no one ever put these Senators and Congressmen in their place. What a bunch of arrogant assholes. Hence why I would never make it to the top of the military political scheme. And for those that are not aware of it, getting to the point of having a star on your uniform is a political game. The military is not immune to that bastion of Americanism: playing the political game. USWeapon, however, is not one that is willing to play that game. I am far too interested in saying what I think and doing what I say. But I digress.

The point is, the situation with the Inspector General firing is interesting and I am certainly interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts about it. But it is also simply the latest in a long line of abuses of power by those in Washington. I love that Chris Devine still believes that they are there with the intent to serve us. But they aren’t. They are not interested in what we say. They are not interested in what the law says. They are only interested in doing whatever serves them. They have become no different that the royals of times past. At what point will the people stand up and be heard, because regardless of all the bluster I hear from everyone, that hasn’t happened in 250 years. At what point will we say “no more” and vote every single one of these elitist assholes out of office?



  1. USW,

    I am with you on this one.

    Some time ago, while in the performance of my duties, I discovered that a contractor had billed the government for almost a half million dollars over what he actually deserved. I made my report, passed it up the line, and was reprimanded because as I was told this contractor was a “favorite son” (a term used to delineate someone with special government privileges) of either a congressman or a senator.

    I know exactly how IG Walpin feels!

  2. Vinnster says:

    “At what point will the people stand up and be heard, because regardless of all the bluster I hear from everyone, that hasn’t happened in 250 years. At what point will we say “no more” and vote every single one of these elitist assholes out of office?”

    I think the issue will be, will folks wait until it is too late do anything about it at the ballot box. We saw Mr. Gibbs/Obama refer to the Iranian situation of the government busting heads and killing its citizen’s protesters as a “debate”. And with the example of Walpin, Obama and his supporters have no problem flagrantly breaking the law and the opposition (most Republicans leaders) continuing to play nice at every citizens freedom’s expense.

    History shows us that the current leadership (both sides) is behaving no differently than many societies/countries/governments in the past. Unfortunately, history also teaches us, things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

    Many Americans (35% don’t vote) sit on the sidelines while the government attacks their freedoms. Liberals cheer the expansion of government because they see it forcing their beliefs on people who disagree with them to the point that disagreeing with them permits trampling the offender’s civil rights.

    In addition, the Obama administration, in concert with the Federal Reserve, is robbing future generations of any form of personal prosperity.

    When will Americans wake up? I have no clue because I would have never believed Americans would have let it get this bad. We are way beyond what I would have predicted possible in America’s march to Socialism/Fascism.

    The next real question (after when will they wake up) is, how will the respond when the light bulb comes on.

    The longer it takes, the more unlikely changes will be possible at the ballot box. Voting in America is already barely functioning (solder votes don’t get counted and massive voter fraud in Democrat strongholds). With organizations like ACORN, “community organizers” and the MSM acting as the propaganda arm of Democrats/Liberals, the masses are being manipulated the way that mimics the beginnings of regimes of Hitler, Lenin and Chavez. I chose those names carefully because they all started out with the masses literally worshiping them as they forfeited their individual liberties.

    The similarities to today’s political environment, the Obama Administration’s flagrant and openly disregard for the Constitution and laws on the books coupled with the hero worship by the MSM is simply a repeat of the historical evolution of Hitler, Lenin, and Chavez totalitarian regimes.

    We know how Hitler and Stalin turned out and I suspect America’s future (based on current trends) will continue to follow Chavez’s model by a decade or two. We do indeed live in interesting times.

    • Barberian says:

      Good morining Vinnster,many Americans have woken up. Unfortunately it is too late to undo the divergence away from our founding principles of “self governance” through a national referendum ie. voters rebellion on the national scale. Too many “voters” have too much to lose from a major push to a much smaller, less intrusive federal government.

      • B, Once the ecomomy tanks, which it will at some point, those voters with too much to lose will suddenly be on the other side of the fence, having already lost everything. It’s just a matter of time.


        • Barberian says:

          Hello G, I agree that the economy will tank and there will be a significant number being placed on the “other side of the fence”. But this will also be spun as the “private sector” being the cause as we have seen in the complete villianizing (sp)of Wall Street getting all the blame for our current economic woes. The country will be further divided and further away from conventional reform. Interesting times ahead indeed!

          • Vinnster says:

            Morning Barberian and G-Man. Your points may well be the trigger to an awakening. Few Americans understand or know what is coming economically. Even many “economic experts” on the business channels truly understand what is coming.

            I have the good fortune of working from home and my work performance is based on getting a finite amount of work done. My employer does not care when or how I get the work done, only that it gets done properly. That opened the door to tailor my work around my interest.

            About eight years ago I got interested in Economics, how the Federal Reserve worked, currency exchange and associated investments. When I worked out I watched the business channels. When I read books, I read books on the subjects (except with a few SciFi books thrown in). To indicate how few business channel experts really understand what was/is going on you have to look no further than finding out how many of them predicted the housing/credit meltdown. Add to that, how many of them can accurately state the causes of the meltdown.

            There were a few that understood and knew what was coming and they were literally laughed at to their faces by the business expert pundits. They are now enjoying a big “I told you so”.

            This same group that that got it right and was sounding the alarm are again at odds with the business channel expert pundits. To put it in simple terms the Obama Admistration/MSM are painting a rosy upbeat economic future, the business channel experts are repeating old historical principles to predict the future as slowly recovering, but it is still rosy and positive. The ones that got the housing/credit/financial meltdown right are predicting a different economic future altogether, and it is not pretty.

            Obama, Congress (both Parties) and the Federal Reserve are doing exactingly the opposite of what should be done and I agree with both of you the American economy will tank on a scale not seen since The Great Depression.

            Maybe then Americans will finally wake up and understand our current group of elected leaders need to be thrown out as USW advocates.

            I advise folks to prepare for the tanking…if it does, they will fair better than most , if it does not tank, they would have lost nothing.

            • Vinnster says:

              First submission has an error.

              Morning Barberian and G-Man. Your points may well be the trigger to an awakening. Few Americans understand or know what is coming economically. Even many “economic experts” on the business channels truly do not understand what is coming.

              I have the good fortune of working from home and my work performance is based on getting a finite amount of work done. My employer does not care when or how I get the work done, only that it gets done properly. That opened the door to tailor my work around my interest.

              About eight years ago I got interested in Economics, how the Federal Reserve worked, currency exchange and associated investments. When I worked out I watched the business channels. When I read books, I read books on the subjects (except with a few SciFi books thrown in). To indicate how few business channel experts really understand what was/is going on you have to look no further than finding out how many of them predicted the housing/credit meltdown. Add to that, how many of them can accurately state the causes of the meltdown.

              There were a few that understood and knew what was coming and they were literally laughed at to their faces by the business expert pundits. They are now enjoying a big “I told you so”.

              This same group that that got it right and was sounding the alarm are again at odds with the business channel expert pundits. To put it in simple terms the Obama Admistration/MSM are painting a rosy upbeat economic future, the business channel experts are repeating old historical principles to predict the future as slowly recovering, but it is still rosy and positive. The ones that got the housing/credit/financial meltdown right are predicting a different economic future altogether, and it is not pretty.

              Obama, Congress (both Parties) and the Federal Reserve are doing exactingly the opposite of what should be done and I agree with both of you the American economy will tank on a scale not seen since The Great Depression.

              Maybe then Americans will finally wake up and understand our current group of elected leaders need to be thrown out as USW advocates.

              I advise folks to prepare for the tanking…if it does, they will fair better than most , if it does not tank, they would have lost nothing.

              • Barberian says:

                Another tragic outcome of the start of WWII was that all this would have played out during FDR’s administration. These failed policies that started with his presidency would have been clearly exposed as failures had we not had to deal with the war. The gearing up of wartime industry and the industrial surge postwar masked what FDR’s policies would have done in the longterm; perpetuated the depression. Now unfortunately, we will experience that misery on a much grander scale.

            • This has been repeated a few times over the last few months. I don’t think it will be an accident either!

    • Over a month ago I chatted with a young (relatively) MD from Venezuela who lives now in the US for the past 2-3 years. He was in Mid-west for 8 years during his residency – returned to Caracus (his family, brothers, still live there) and after 2 years had to come back to the US to “earn a living” (even as a MD) – didn;t get a chance to explore that further.

      I asked him about Chavez and what he thought about Obama and he responded that Chavez started out making statements very much like Obama’s election promises. Then he readily started to take over everything so that now the elections are completely bogus.

  3. I ahd an interesting conversation with my neighbor yesterday. He is in his late 50’s and generally quiet when it comes to political discussion. As our talk proceded, out of the blue, he simply said he is ready for a “Revolution”! We need to fire everyone in government, and put in regular Americans who give a damn about freedom. All he’s waiting for is for a leader to emerge, to lead this cause.

    That leader has not yet been heard from, and don’t know it’s him or her yet. Our found our conversation enjoyable, mainly for the fact that America is waking up! The quiet are coming out of the woodwork and starting to chirp, and the chirps are getting more frequent and louder each day.

    I smiled alot last night thinking of our conversation. The elitist assholes have grown old, and our patience has wore very thin. Their abuse of their positions is out of control and needs to be corrected. As far as Senator Boxer, she can kiss my American a$$!


    • Danak13 says:

      Sorry…Senator Boxer, aka “maam”…is not worthy of comment. She added to my list of one that makes two now….Jane Fonda being the first and now Boxer….of people that I would not walk across the street to piss on them if they were on fire.

      Sorry USW….if I am out of line and need to clean up my act…just say so. I will apologize to you and others on this blog but I will not apologize for how I feel.

      • Bama dad says:

        I’m with you. Waste of good urine.

        • Put me in that category. I mortally despise Hanoi Jane. And You can also add Barby Boxer and Nancy Pelochio. As a matter of fact, let’s just make a list.

          The 3 above
          Harry Reid
          Barney Frank
          Maxine Waters
          Robert Gibbs
          Barack Obama

          These are just the few I can think of right now. Given a little time, I could come up with many more. These lying, deceitful idiots, are simply a waste of good fecal material. They would probably even poison any crops they were put on.

          • Chris Devine says:

            Feel the hate.

            • Danak13 says:

              Chris….I will truly say, and I know it is wrong, that there is HATE for Jane Fonda. She will never be forgiven by me for what she did and I wish it were different but it is not….as to Boxer, it is not hate…it is her attitude. I do not hate her at all from the standpoint of Fonda but this too, is another subject.

            • Oh No Chris! Not Hate. Just Despise. After what Hanoi Jane did to people like my father for going to Vietnam, I have no use whatsoever for her or anyone like her.

              As for the rest of them, why should I have any use for a bunch of elitist liberal morons who could care less about the people they alledgedly represent.

              And I can add a few more you might even agree with

              Aw Hell. Let’s just put the whole dang Government on the list. There is not one that I can think of that’s worth the gunpowder it would take to blow their noses.

              I’m sure there are some out there. I just don’t know them right now.

              Surely out of several hundred officials there must be 1 or 2. 😉

              • Actually that might be a good ‘open mike’ topic – list current congresspersons you’d like to stay in DC and why. Heck that could become a book!

            • Yes, I am still allowed to hate, just not allowed to shoot them.

          • bama dad says:

            It really hurts me to say this but I’ll have remove Barack Obama from your list. As much as I hate the man’s policies, he is our President. Side note, sure was hot out picking beans a minute ago.

            • He is just too slick to say ANYTHING that you can directly pin on him! Just the end result is that if we don’t get rid or counterbalance his policies, we’re in deep trouble.

            • Bama. I worked on my Washing Machine in my shop today, so I feel for you with the heat in the direct sun.

              I’m gonna keep Obamarama on my list for a few reasons that I will not hijack USW’s blog to state. Just suffice for now that he has already given me reason to despise him.

              President or not, I’m officially fed up with the whole damn bunch. Him included.

          • Amazed1 says:

            Esom, The problem with our not liking these people is that they have become what our founding fathers wanted no part of “Elitist”. They all believe they are above the law because we have allowed them to be above the law. The act like they have earned their postion in life, not that we have elected them to that position. They are above our health care, they are above our retirement, they are above our laws.
            They vote themselves raises. They vote themselves retirement. They vote themselves health care and everything else they want. Most of them can’t even pay their taxes correctly or fairly…what makes us think they will spend our tax money fairly.
            When we start treating them like “PUBLIC SERVANTS” maybe they will start acting like one. What part of Public Servant do you think the COngressional elite understands? None of it!
            USW is 100% correct on this one. Where I come from respect is earned…not given as a title….this is America, least we forget.

            • I agree with you Amazed. I am fed up with the whole dang bunch. I would say let’s vote every dang one of them out, but that won’t happen.

              So how do we get their attention? We have people out there who are actually happy with what’s going on.

              If we who have functioning brains say anything, we are accused of having sour grapes. Of just being mad because we lost.

              Well hey! Newsflash! I am not just pissed at Obama and the Liberal Democraps. I’m pissed at ALL of them!!!!!!!!!

              They just do not get it. They do indeed think they are above all of us peons. And it ain’t just the Dems either. The Republicans, unless they have a serious come to Jesus experience, will be no different if they recover and get back in charge.

              Well I’m going to jump up on my soapbox for just a second here.
              Republicans. Stop focusing on trying to come up with unimportant crap to get on the democrats. Your constituents (us) are about to screwed royally by Obama and his moron cronies on a variety of issues including UHC, taking over businesses and banks, borrowing and spending money that we do not have. Our economy is going to collapse.

              And you bunch of morons in the Federal Government are arguing like a lot of school children!! You do not care that the people that you are supposed to represent are the ones who will pay for all this inept, moronic bullcrap!

              If the republicans really cared about their folks, then they would never have been voted out of power to begin with. This is a lesson that the Democrats will learn eventually. If they’re not careful, the whole government is going to learn it.

              Because more and more of us are getting fed up. I wonder what Obama will do when we start seeing scenes like we are seeing in Iran right now in our own streets?

              Will he call in the National Guard on us? Or maybe his new Americorps militia? Times sure will get interesting won’t they?

              • Amazed1 says:

                Most people are to busy making a living to worry about what Congress is doing. They will wake up when it hits their pocket book. When the jobs are gone, when welfare is gone, when food is gone…people will awaken to what our government is doing. The people who do try to keep up with government are on over load…things are moving so fast even congress can not keep up with what is going on. We are like a snowball on a downhill run.

              • Yeah they are.

                Pitiful isn’t it?

            • Esom – good points and I agree except for “if republicans really cared about their folks” point. It wouldn’t have mattered, what the repub or any dem thought, they had to cowtow to the media. I truly believe that the media controls the country, but they also don’t have any responsibility, which is what makes it scary – control no responsibility for the results. remind you of teenagers? What I think of most dem plans. LOL

              This actually has been my position since the 80’s and u saw the result in ’92! It’s not a planned conspiracy but part of the ebb and flow of influence. I also noticed and said that after ’92 the media got a little scared since they realized they influenced the previous election, thus they were reasonably fair and open about reporting the repub 10 points etc (Gingrich) in ’94. THEN what a surprise – you could see it on the faces of EVERY media heavy hitter on election nite – OMG we went too far, we let the other side out. I said the day after the election that they wouldn’t let that happen again.

              let me state its not a back room conspiracy but a political perspective conspiracy. The regular folks have no chance to not be influenced by the subtle tone & choice words of the media influencers.

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            Hi Esom,

            I didn’t see any notation of the master puppeteer, “Rahm Emmanuel”. The puppeteers need recognition as they have played an important role in making their puppets “appeal” to the masses. The puppeteers are responsible for the organization behind it all.

            The puppeteers “bite, kick, spit” to make the policy “workable”.



  4. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    The sad fact is, there are an alarming number of people who just don’t care what goes on in Washington, and there are an equally alarming number of people who see what is currently going on in Washington and are OK with it.

    How sensible human beings are to overcome the combination of pro-government forces and apathy of the masses is a daunting task.

    I firmly believe that this is exactly why the public “education” system was designed the way it was. The outcome of the public education system is either people who are for what the government is doing, or people who do not give a crap what the government does. We are now seeing the outcome of that.

    I would love to see a massive survey done on everyone in the country who is under 40 years old. Make it really simple- just ask if they are in favor of what the government is doing and give 3 possible answers (yes, no, and I don’t give a @$#!). I bet we would all be depressed at the sheer number of people that answered with “yes” or “I don’t give a @$#!”.

    I have to agree with USWeapon here. If a person actually believes that the government is a benevolent institution with the intention of bettering the lives of the people, the person who believes that has either been successfully brainwashed or is simply delusional. I am not singling out any one person in this statement, because it applies to an alarmingly huge number of people in this country.

  5. Chris Devine says:

    An Obama “scandal” as phony as Whitewater:


    • Chris, Salon is no different than HuffPo and KOS. That’s your source for accuracy?

      I would like to hear how, in your own words, not a link, you think this is OK.

      Haven’t you even begun to wonder, after all this time, about the funnelling of money to ACORN and these other “community” groups? Aren’t you even a little suspicious about the way this was handled and the first ladies involvement?

      • Chris Devine says:

        Did you read the article or just ignore it because of the source?

        In my own words:

        Walpin overstepped his authority by publicizing details of an ongoing investigation.

        But perhaps the words of another Bush appointee, U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown, would be more helpful:


      • Chris Devine says:

        Should I just ignore all the links posted here from Fox News, WorldNetDaily, and other conservative sites?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Chris, you usually do make the comment that anything from those so-called conservative sites is not reliable information….

        • Amazed1 says:

          Does this negate the fact that the man was fired illegally? If you make a law..you better be able to uphold it for yourself if you expect everyone else to uphold it. It was wrong no matter who does it….if you do not like the law change it….dont break it. No man is above the law I don’t care who they are. You play, you pay…..what part of that do the Elitist not understand?

    • “It is true that Walpin found evidence of misuse and waste of Americorps funds by St. Hope Academy, a nonprofit community group started by Johnson after he retired from the NBA. It is true that Johnson and St. Hope have acknowledged that they must refund roughly half of the money that the group received from Washington. But it is also true that Walpin, a Republican activist attorney and trustee of the Federalist Society before Bush appointed him as inspector general, went well beyond his official mandate last year by publicizing supposed “criminal” wrongdoing by Johnson in the days before the Sacramento mayoral election.” – Right on! Just because he’s a criminal now and yesterday doesn’t mean you should look into his being one last year! That’s water under the bridge! Free Rod Blagojevich! Free Rod Blagojevich! Free Rod Blagojevich!

      “And it is true as well that Lawrence Brown, the United States attorney in Northern California who received Walpin’s findings, decided not to bring any criminal charges against Johnson and instead reached a settlement with him and St. Hope.” – Wow what a forgiving guy… no wait! Is that the same Lawrence G. Brown involved here http://www.federalcrimeslawyers.com/news/June09/15a.html damned! Didn’t these guys know to donate a portion of their ill gotten gains to Obama’s getting elected? I guess not looking at what Mr Brown is looking at doing to them. Maybe they didn’t pay the protection money and this is the message being sent to the others? American justice confuses me.

      Its much easier to draw comparisons to what’s gone on most recently with regard to ACORN than any other situation in actuality. Saying its Whitewater all over again is merely an attempt at shifting blame and minimizing the results. The commonality of both, they are part and parcel of Barack Hussein Obama and his political dealings in the cesspool of “me too” community activism.

      “Walpin had investigated and reported $75 million in federal money misused by AmeriCorps and St. Hope – founded by Kevin Johnson, Sacramento mayor and one time NBA star. Johnson is an Obama supporter and donor. Michelle Obama seems to be involved in the hiring going on at the corporation that Walpin works out of. Michelle’s chief of staff recently left her White House office to take a position at that corporation.” – Wow that didn’t hit the main stream media but its also not been openly discounted by them either.

      “Johnson and St. HOPE Academy were removed from the suspension list in April after agreeing to repay half the $847,673 in grants the nonprofit had received over a three-year period.” – What happened to the $75,000,000? No mention of the findings by Lawrence G. Brown either on this subject but plenty for other cases he was involved with. Damned that’s one big rug you guys are sweeping things under down there in America! The broom must be HUGE!!!

      • “Damned that’s one big rug you guys are sweeping things under down there in America!”

        Hey! Watch who you accuse of sweeping under rugs Hoss! You mean, those Government guys, don’t you? 😀

        • Alan F. says:

          I’d never accuse “you the people” of anything underhanded outside of maybe propagating the worldwide acceptance of “reality television” as entertainment and the creation of that lowliest of celebrities the “reality star”.

          • USWeapon says:

            Yes the American people should be held responsible for that. And the penalty should be harsh.

          • Oh Lord how I agree with that. How in the crap Reality TV ever got popular is beyond me. Thank you Lord for more than 1 TV in the house. (my WIFE is a BIG fan.)

            The only reality TV I watch is History or Discovery Channel programs. I like to actually learn from the TV.

          • Wait a minute – I think it was Japan with a whole bunch of crazy shows !

            • You’re right. Japan started the reality shows. But they sure took off in the US. Some of them are so ridiculous that I can’t believe they can possibly be so popular.

              But as my wife continuously proves, they are never to ridiculous for her to watch them.

            • Seriously? I’d say from what’s been pouring in from Japan TV wise, you put a camera in front of them and the surreal is guaranteed to be what you’ll see.

            • It must be an age thing! I have to say that I haven’t spent more than a minute (it seems much less) watching any of them to determine that they are quite ……. shallow, ickey, i don’t know.. have the term \

    • Bama dad says:
    • Birdman says:

      Chris Devine:

      The point is that he did not follow the law! If he had a basis to fire him, then he was obliged to provide 30 days notice to Congress and explain why he was firing him. It’s an illegal discharge. If we had a press, they would jump all over this.

  6. Chris Devine says:

    From “U.S. Army Pamphlet 600-60” (aka Army Protocol Manual)

    United States Senator
    Official The Honorable John Doe
    United States Senate
    Washington, DC 20510
    Social The Honorable John Doe and Mrs. Doe
    Salutation Dear Senator Doe
    Complimentary Close Sincerely
    Invitations Senator (and Mrs.) Doe
    Place card Senator Doe
    Mrs. Doe
    Introductions Senator Doe or The Honorable John
    Doe, United States Senator from (State)
    Conversation Senator Doe or Senator
    When the senator is a woman: Use Senator

    • Danak13 says:

      You are quite correct in the protocol, sir. It is also correct that she be called “maam”. In Texas, we are still taught to be respectful of gender and females…it is an old time Western Philosophy….we take care of our women. But that is changing. As an Army Officer I would address Boxer as Senator in a formal hearing but I would not respond, “yes, senator” to a question….I would say maam or sir…and have on the four occasions that I have testified in senate and house hearings on behalf of the United States Army on budget requirements. There is written protocol for guidance but there is also common courtesy protocol as well and it has been readily accepted. I have never seen anyone “called” down because of this. As a Colonel, I do not expect my subordinates (in rank)..to say Yes, Colonel. I expect them to say yes sir. So while you are correct in quoting protocol manuals…it goes further than that.

      • Chris Devine says:

        Can you find the manual that states where it is appropriate to refer to a senator as ma’am? I couldn’t. I bet Chuck Devore couldn’t find it either even though he supposedly quoted from it. When you are in a court of law you refer to the judge as your honor, not sir or ma’am.

        Do you think this would have garnered any attention if the roles were reversed (say, Senator Inhofe asked the general to call him ‘senator’ instead of ‘sir’)? Why is it when a female politician demands respect she’s considered snippy or bitchy, but when a man does the same thing he’s considered firm or strict?

        • Well stated Chris and there is no protocol manual for the use of the term maam or sir….so quit looking. The short 24 month miserable time that I spent on staff at the Pentagon working on combat budget and training requirements, I had to go to “protocol” classes to learn how to speak and talk. Imagine that…I am a field officer…spent 32 of 40 years doing so…however, I still had to play the game. My point….When addressing a Senator or Congressman in formal writing or formal setting, it is protocol to acknowledge Senator Tentpeg or Representative Oilcan for their office. Once a hearing in Congress or Senate started, it was readily accepted to use the term “sir” or “maam”…and used quite often.

          It is what Ms. Boxer said…but how she said it. It was said, and I have seen the actual c span footage of that, with the intent of disparaging a General. And, those of us in the actual “know” of things all understand that Ms.(Senator) Boxer has despised the military and still does. The General was quite correct in his response to her. He simply responded Yes Senator and went on his way. This particular incident was a power trip. Can she do it? Yes and did. Did he respond correctly…yes and did. Is it petty? Yes it is. Was she wrong? No she was not. Did she damage herself? Yes she did…( I know..you want back up here…she only damaged her reputation. She is a laughing stock in Washington anyway…even among some of the dems.) I have had the displeasure of meeting her only once…as I have had the displeasure of meeting some male Senators only once…but I still formerly gave them the respect of their office…but when in dialogue…it was yes sir or yes maam after acknowledgment of their position.

          “Do you think this would have garnered any attention if the roles were reversed (say, Senator Inhofe asked the general to call him ’senator’ instead of ’sir’)? Why is it when a female politician demands respect she’s considered snippy or bitchy, but when a man does the same thing he’s considered firm or strict?”

          Were the 60’s good to you? This is from the 60’s. I deal with this crap on a daily basis and this discrimination issue is time worn (man vs woman)and simply does not exist anymore. Like the term of the use of slavery and discrimination on race….time worn and not worthy any longer. I like your posts because they are enlightening but, please, the 60’s are dead.

          But to answer your question….Yes..if and male Senator addresses or calls down someone with the intent to disparage….it would get the same attention.

          • Gee…sorry for some of the misspelled words…need to slow down and proof read better.

            • When I was in the Military, Sir or Ma’am was the correct answer. Throwing your rank around and pulling shit like Malibu Barby did to the General was known as “Chickenshit”.

              I realize what the Protocol language book says, but really. Give the power trip shit a rest lady.

          • Chris Devine says:

            Do you think that male senator would be called ‘snippy?’

            Sexual discrimination is non-existent? Racial discrimination doesn’t occur anymore? That’s a relief. I guess I’ll just ignore everything that says differently.

            • No…did not say it does not exist anymore…I said that they are time worn excuses… I will agree that there are isolated incidents and usually are dealt with….however, institutionalized racism and sex discrimination are things of the past….but that is discussion for another topic.

              As to snippy….hmmmm….I have been referred to as ” A bit snippy this morning, Colonel?” My response was usually..yes, I am…but I will also admit that this was reserved for my Sgt Major whom used this term to remind me that I was a bit short or custic in my comments.

          • Bama dad says:

            Gee I thought the whole thread of this discussion was whether the General was correct in calling her Ma’am. D13 has been there done that (had the classes) and answered the question, “yes he was”. Any rebuttal besides going in a different direction?

            • Chris Devine says:

              I thought the fact that I cited the actual manual shows my position to be more correct. Everybody who’s trying to play this ma’am stuff as proper protocol (rather than tolerated variance) is in the wrong here. When I was in the military I was always referred to by my rank unless it was someone I worked with on a daily basis. Senator Boxer and General Walsh are not coworkers and this was a formal hearing. If she wishes to be addressed according to the strict rules of protocol that is her prerogative.

              Besides, how many people saw this live on C-Span as opposed to the replay on Fox? I’d say the conservative talking heads are making a bigger deal out of this than anyone. They’re stirring up the pot against one of their favorite targets.

              • Black Flag says:


                I was instructed to call my superiors by “Sir” or “Ma’am” and my subordinates by their rank. “Sgt. Cpl.”

                I suppose, then, that by demanding herself to be called by her position, she felt herself a subordinate.

              • Danak13 says:

                BF…interesting comment and was a point that I was trying to make albeit I guess I did not. Personalities in Congress are quite something to watch…even down through the aides. This was a “little big man” scenario. It played out…it was handled.. it is over. But point well taken on her feeling subordinate…in her own mind.

              • Danak13 says:

                Chris…I will agree with you that the talking heads are blowing this up. The General handled it perfectly and those in the know and who know the personality of Boxer also understand. It was not what she said, it was the how and the reason for it. That is all. It is over and should now die on the vine.

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            Hi Danak,

            I agree…it was the power trip that I find offensive.

            All “real” leaders know that you should pick your battles carefully. She meant to antagonize the General and as a real leader, he didn’t bite the bait.

            I hope that everytime she thinks of this, she gets red in the face for her lame attempts at trying to belittle this man.


        • Amazed1 says:

          I spent years in different court rooms…..never once had a Judge stop court and called down a witness or attorney for calling him Sir in a respectful way. Lots of questions were answered “yes or no sir”.

    • You’re right he should have used her “title” and I’m so glad all the BS you guys are wading through is all over and done with to be paying any lip service to this distraction.

    • USWeapon says:


      I am well aware of the protocol statutes in the Army field manuals. I am also well aware of what is expected common practice. If a judge gets referred to as your honor 9 times and mimics Boxer’s response on the tenth time when he is called sir, I would absolutely say the same thing.

      Did you watch the clip of this happening? If so do you deny the fact that the General was acting in a respectful way? Was he using ma’am as a sign of disrespect? Was Boxer saying what she said a minor correction of protocol or was she acting like a child and looking to put a general in his place? Why are you looking to justify this type of elitist behavior? Can’t you simply acknowledge that many members of Congress are elitist jerks. For that matter so are many judges.

      You sure do pick some silly points to try to argue. She was being an asshole. That is a plain fact for all to see. If you don’t see that then I submit that you are a lost cause. If you can see that and still want to argue my point that she was being an asshole, then I am not sure where your point is.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Well – hang on a second here – in the first part of the post we’re carping about a law not being followed and now we’re saying it is okay for the General to not follow established protocol (or – in his eyes – law)? I believe Peter offered quite well that the rules are the rules no? Help me out here?

        • Bama dad says:

          From D13
          “Protocol classes to learn how to speak and talk.”
          “Once a hearing in Congress or Senate started, it was readily accepted to use the term “sir” or “ma’am”…and used quite often.”

          He was there for 2 years; don’t you think he knew proper protocol? Or do we just dismiss his opinion.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Bama – I’m not dismissing his opinion – but ‘practice’ or ‘protocol’ does not necessarily equal law does it? That’s what I am asking. If it were protocol for IGs to be dismissed with or without 30 days notice does that make it ok?

            • USWeapon says:

              It does not make it Ok, because there were laws put in place that require otherwise. Is there a law somewhere that a Senator be addressed as Senator?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                There is no such law – but I guess I am asking where you’re drawing the line in this:

                If its law it must be followed 100% of the time, regardless if the law was written yesterday or 200 years ago, regardless if it governing IG dismissal or sodomy in Hazard County, Georgia – okay – fair enough – I am good with that.

                If it is not a law but it written down as expected behavior, practice, process, policy, standard, etc – what criteria are you using to determine when it is okay to apply or not apply said behavior, practice, process, policy, etc? Is it situational? Does it depend on the actors involved?

                The title of your post is “when rules are no longer rules”. My question again is this (and I am basing this on Chris’ prior post) – if the codified expectation is the Senator be addressed as Senator by the good General, then are you suggesting that based on ‘practice’ it is okay for him not to address her as such and ma’am, miss, or whatever he may choose that gives the appearance of formality? You state it as “protocol” – my understanding, which could be wrong, is that when something is referred to as protocol in the military then it is ‘the law’, calling something ‘practice’ may or may not be the same thing.

                In my other example I was disciplined at work because I initially refused to file an SF-86 that was not needed for my job. My company at the time violated their own policy which they may have had a ‘practice’ of doing – that still does not make it right.

        • USWeapon says:

          First there is a big difference between protocol and law Ray. To try to link the two is silly.

          Second, the point is that the General was not out of line, and was not being disrespectful.

          Do you deny that this was Senator Boxer being petty. Do yo udeny that those in Washington today feel that they are above us and have an elitist attitude?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            The difference is in the eye of the person expected to carry out said law or protocol. I thought in the military that calling something protocol was akin to calling it law. Maybe I am wrong.

            I don’t suggest or accept that he was being disrespectful

            Was Sen. Boxer being petty? Perhaps so – I’m never a fan of folks throwing titles around.

            Do I feel everyone in Washington feels they are above me/us and have an elitist attitude? No, not everyone. The perception sure feels that why from time to time, some times more than others. I don’t think most enter public service looking to raise themselves a notch above everyone – many I guess end up that way. I think they become Jekyll and Hyde types – there is a kernel of concern somewhere in most of them, usually hidden under layers of shit.

            • No Ray, we have law, protocol, custom and tradition. Having been in the service I am familiar with yes sir/ma’am, no sir/ma’am, no excuse sir/ma’am. All were acceptable under custom and tradition. On the civilian side, I have testified in court on many occasions under male and female judges. I have been questioned by those judges and would estimate I have used sir/ma’am eighty to ninety percent of the time. I have also worked for a number of male and female commissioners whom I have addressed as Commissioner or sir/ma’am.

              While a person may be elected to the esteemed office of Senator by their peers, they should
              d not ever forget that they are not in a hereditary senate like that of Rome.

              Barbara Boxer and others should learn that a true leader does not dress down subordinates in Public, that violates protocol, custom and tradition. It also shows lack of class and from a psychological viewpoint, a certain insecurity.

              The Army pamphlet refers to “conversation” . Conversation, over a martini at a reception is quite different from direct testimony. Do I have to pull out my Websters on this or my 1942 and 1951 Sr. ROTC Manuals?

              • Chris Devine says:

                Does it make any sense that conversational protocol would be more formal than a Congressional hearing?

              • USWeapon says:

                Does it make any sense that someone on the left would make this much effort to legitimize such a blatant display of pettiness? I mean really? She was being petty and childish. I can admit when O’Reilly acts like an idiot or Rush says something stupid. Why can’t those on the left simply admit that Boxer is an idealogue and petty and was out of line to attempt to dress down a General in the US Army on TV in front of everyone. I welcome her doing so, it exposed the arrogance that those in Congress have.

              • That’s what the pamphlet says. It does not address the issue of how to say yes or no to a question at a hearing. One would think that at a social setting one would defer to another’s rank initially. If they then proceeded to question you on an issue, your answers would probably also switch to a yes sir/ma’am oir a no sir/ma’am.

                Have you never been to an occasion where you addressed a person as Mr. X and they told you to call them “Bob”. That’s where formal slides into informality. I wonder what Emily Post has to say on the subject. In any event, it is the end of my conversation on the subject.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Was it not supposed “common practice” to not adhere to the 30 day window and to not have to state explicitly reasons for termination?

        • USWeapon says:

          As a matter of fact Ray, it was common practice. And because of the abuse of that common practice, the Democrats in the Senate decided that they needed to introduce, debate, and pass a law to protect IG’s from that common practice. So last year they did just that. And then the guy that co-sponsored that law, used the common practice he sponsored a bill to stop. Are you not getting that?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            I totally get that. But is it also common practice for a General to refer to a Senator as ma’am when policy says he is not supposed to?

            • Danak13 says:

              Ray…maybe I can answer this….Protocol is not law that is to be followed like Thou shalt not kill, etc. It is, however, deemed necessary and proper to have a standard operation procedure for addressing members of the House and Senate. Your point is not lost on me about following protocol..however, like contract law between labor and management….common practice, if allowed unchecked, becomes “law” and supercedes the language of the contract. However, in the Military and in dealing with Congressional members, it is the same when dealing with the President in a conference. He is Mr. President…but when asked a direct question, it is quite common to say sir and drop the Yes, Mr. President in a lengthy conversation. However, when unsure, protocol reigns supreme and to that extent it is a rule to use. I can guarantee you that the General will never use the word maam again…he will not subject himself to that. She corrected him, he responded in the affirmative and that is all. But your point is not lost… but protocol is also dictated by common and past practice. And, there were plenty of times I was referred to as MR…instead of Colonel and many times referred to as SIR instead of Colonel but I would have never thought of correcting a Congressional representative in a formal hearing. Usually an aide would say something at a break. Her actions, albeit correct, were inexcusable in the forum presented.

    • Bama dad says:

      As someone who has testified as an Expert Witness in Court on more than one occasion. I always acknowledged You Honor to begin my testimony, but say yes sir and yes ma’am when asked a question by the Judge. Now if that was wrong, I have never been reprimanded for such.

      • Chris Devine says:

        Wouldn’t a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ do? Why is ‘sir’ or ‘maam’ even necessary in that case?

        • Bama dad says:

          Chris said:
          “When you are in a court of law you refer to the judge as your honor, not sir or ma’am.”
          Responding to your statement.

          • I was taught when I was a youngster to say Sir and Ma’am to your elders and as a term of respect. I was also taught to say it in the Military to Officers.

            I absolutely do not see what the big frickin’ deal is. So the GENERAL called the Liberal whiny bitch “Ma’am”! Who gives a shit? What is her malfunction? It is nothing but petty chickenshit for her to have said anything. She made herself look like exactly what she is. An arrogant elitist asshole.

        • JayDickB says:

          Then she’d probably give him hell for being disrespectful.

          Face it. She was looking to pick a fight and, since she doesn’t like the military much anyhow, chose a general.

          Have you been in the military? If so, you’ll know that appending “sir” or “maam” to every “yes” and “no” when talking to a superior becomes automatic after about a week.

          USW had it right. She’s an A-hole (as are most of the other senators, party affiliation notwithstanding).

        • Kristian says:

          Simple respect. That would be the reason for the sir or ma’am. She should have been referred to as Senator first, recognizing her title, after that ma’am should have been sufficient. That it wasn’t says to me that this woman has a confidence problem that she took out on a General.

          • USWeapon says:

            And he did refer to her as Senator first. the ma’am came a few questions later. She was just looking to demean a military officer.

  7. I thought it was fishy when I first heard the story. I had heard about the situation with Kevin Johnson sometime ago. So I believe that the IG has been a thorn in someone’s side by doing his job. Plus, another thing I have been hearing is that Kevin Johnson is known to throw political elbows in the mayors office. I am trying to get a story that looks into this to show everyone. My question is would anyone do that if they didnt have something larger standing behind them?

  8. Danak13 says:

    USW, fire for effect. Your on target. However, I think you are being benevolent. I have been voting in elections since the (ahem!) Nixon era. I have seen the abuses of power since that time. Admittedly, I did not delve into politics to the extent today because at that time I was not really old enough to understand what I do now. I voted the sound bites and listened to opinions of my father. However, with Watergate, it did open my eyes and I have been watching ever since. I have read about the Kennedy era as well and several other Presidents and power politics. I will have to say that I cannot see a more open grab for power than I have now. I would like for several of your respondents to correct me or you on this because I do not think that they can. Federal prosecutors, attorney’s General, and the like serve “at the discretion of the President”. To that extent, if the President does not like the color of his socks….he can be fired. That said…..I do not feel as if this is your point. He was fired because he was doing his job and he blew the whistle on one of the President’s and party favored sons. In other words this man actually went to Washington to do a job. ONE OF THE FEW BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE AS SOME DO THAT MOST POLITICIANS ARE THERE TO SERVE THEIR CONSTITUENTS. Potomac fever is alive and well. He was fired because he told the truth.

    Regardless of what past President’s have done. The “blame Bush crowd” is now a fringe element. Yes, Bush did things I did not like. But Bush did not bring the problems that we face. Not alone….it is a continuation of power grabbing politics from way back. What makes this more prevalent and scary today is the fact that Obama and his cronies are now creating CSARS (TSARS) whatever the spelling, (you get the point)..that are responsible to no one, including Congress, except the President. This administration is and has strong armed more people and organizations in a short time rivaling that of Iran today. The only difference that I am seeing is we do not have hundred’s of thousands in the streets protesting. We have millions of lemmings afraid to get involved….at least until THEIR ox gets gored. It is beyond my level of comprehension why there is this mentality of following blindly. You are trying to do your part as am I. I am furthering my part by not buying a GM product, nor their bonds, nor supporting their employees. (Please, no diatribe from others about the employees rights or what the long term effect down the line would have been. Let the business’ falter and die through bankruptcy or foreclosure. Life is tough.)The market place will survive.

    I pride myself in not being a democrat (especially) nor a republican. I do not like labels. Unlike some that claim the “vote” does not count…..BUNK!!!! It still does. You may have the right to criticize what is happening but those that have not and do not vote are no better than the Lemmings that blindly follow to their deaths. I have NEVER voted a straight ticket. I do not believe that a “party” is right. I also vote in the down ticket elections. To vote without conscience is the same as a no vote. WE CAN AND MUST CONTROL THE BALLOT BOXES. We can still do this. It is the only way to fight before this right is taken away and it is being eroded to this very day. ACORN and the like are doing just that through intimidation and election and voter fraud and I defy anyone to say other wise and back it up. So, until we get off our collective BUTTS and do something, we are no better than the fly speck on the wall or the bug on the windshield or the lemming running to the sea.

    As stated before, I do not care that there are some that do not think the “ballot box” will work. So far, it still does. As a people, we have become weak and indecisive. We have become a Nation of “I deserve this” and lost the “I earned this”. I hope that I piss some off with this statement because the first question I will ask is if they voted. If they say, no. then I will say…please shut up. The second question that I will ask is if they voted a “party line”. I will answer that to do so blindly is not the way to go but at least they are elevated above “lemming” status because they did vote. If they did not vote a straight ticket, I would ask if they voted the down ballot and did they do their research. Even J.P.’s have a record of politics and it can be found out. THIS IS THE WAY TO CHANGE. It still is so far but this administration….all of it….Dems and Repubs are not statesmen and they do not have country first and I say that with conviction. THEY DO NOT HAVE COUNTRY FIRST. And that is the way it should be…

    Time for my morning Dr. Pepper.

    Good morn all…


    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      The main question is, even if we can and DO control the ballot boxes, what is going to be the end result? The Republicans are pretty darn near as bad as the Democrats when it comes to overspending and taking away individual liberties, and we are not presented with any viable alternatives due to the choke-hold on the government by these 2 parties.

      For every election since I reached voting age, it has always been the choice of “the lesser of two evils”. There has NEVER been a “good” choice. Unless and until this changes, voting MIGHT slow the growth of government down a little bit, but it is very unlikely to ever stop or reverse the process.

      I am coming to agree with BF when he says that voting (for either party) simply legitimizes the government and allows them to continue doing what they are doing.

      I don’t really know what the solution is yet, but hopefully we will be moving towards that set of topics soon on this very site 🙂

      • Danak13 says:

        Right you are here, Peter. But I cannot agree with BF on this…although I have only been on here a short time and have not had the opportunity to see his whole philosophy yet…but until BF can come up with a better alternative short of anarchy and revolution ( storming the streets )….not voting even if for the lessor of two evils, is worse. To not vote…I believe you are voluntarily giving up your right. To cut one’s nose off to spite his/her face is, in my most humble (bowing low to BF, out of respect, but looking him in the eye) may pleasing in the interim but not the long run. YOU are quite correct. We need a viable alternative and I believe that it is coming….but how to combat Potomac Fever….even the strongest statesman succumbs to this….is beyond me. Power corrupts…absolute power corrupts absolutely.

        One other thing that I have noticed. When a viable third party does run ( key word “Viable” ) ….this is the one time I see Repubs and Dems…band together. THEY do not want a three party system.

    • D13,

      “I will have to say that I cannot see a more open grab for power than I have now.” Total agreement! I have come to the conclusion that the reason for the fast pace on all their agenda’s is to have it all completed before 2010.
      There is a good chance they will lose control of the house, and therefore the budget.

      And that may answer Peter, our first priority should be control of the house, which is won at the local level.

      • It does seem to me that they are fast tracking everything like they only have till 2010 to get it done. Maybe that’s a good sign. If the bastards can be held off for another year before they destroy the Nation entirely, Maybe we can vote the present a-holes out and stop the madness. 😈

  9. I found this timeline about the Saint Hope charity. Well now!

    Reported by:David Bienick

    St. HOPE Timeline


    Johnson founds non-profit St. HOPE corporation in Oak Park, focusing on education, economic development, civic leadership and arts.


    St. HOPE takes over Johnson’s alma mater, Sacramento High School, and converts it to charter school.

    March 5, 2008:

    Johnson announces his candidacy for mayor.

    April 25, 2008:

    The Sacramento Bee reports that St. HOPE program known has Hood Corps is under investigation for possible misuse of federal funding and failure to report a claim of sexual abuse against Johnson.

    Aug. 2008:

    Inspector General Gerald Walpin completes investigation and sends it to U.S. attorney in Sacramento.

    Sept. 25, 2008:

    Walpin releases report saying Hood Corps volunteers were used to run personal errands for Johnson, wash his car and campaign for school board candidates. Johnson and St. HOPE are placed on list barring them from receiving federal funding. Johnson says the problems are nothing more than “administrative mistakes.”

    Nov. 4, 2008:

    Johnson defeats incumbent Heather Fargo.

    March 21, 2009:

    The Sacramento Bee reports that an independent attorney has warned that the city’s federal stimulus funding may be at risk because of Johnson’s status.

    March 23, 2009:

    Acting U.S. Attorney Larry Brown tells KCRA 3 his office is negotiating a civil settlement with Johnson and St. HOPE and expects resolution within a matter of weeks.

    April 3, 2009:

    St. HOPE Executive Director Rick Maya resigns and accuses a board member of erasing Johnson e-mails during the St. HOPE investigation. Later, Maya will receive a severance package of $98,916.

    April 9, 2009:

    Acting U.S. Attorney Larry Brown announces he has reached a civil settlement with St. HOPE and Johnson. The mayor and St. HOPE will repay roughly half the misused money in exchange for being allowed to receive future federal funding.

    June 10, 2009:

    Inspector General Gerald Walpin is informed by a White House official that he is being terminated by the White House. Walpin says, “I was fired because I did my job.”

    June 12, 2009:

    Sen. Charley Grassley, R-Iowa, writes a letter to the agency overseeing Americorps saying he is “very concerned” about Walpin’s dismissal. Grassley asks administration officials to provide e-mails and other documents.

    June 16, 2009:

    Johnson says Walpin’s dismissal was “100 percent within the purview of the administration. … Obviously I was not consulted in that decision.”

    June 17, 2009:

    The U.S. attorney’s office in Sacramento says that the FBI has begun an investigation into allegations of deleted e-mails at ST HOPE.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The real travesty here is that St. Hope was by most accounts an organization that was actually making a difference in the Sacramento area. It is unfortunate that greed overcame the desire to improve the community. I am not saying that I personally agree with everything that St. Hope was doing, but it certainly appears that the program has been a positive overall.

      It is just this sort of cascade from something that could have been a very small issue that is going to snowball into the downfall of the Obama administration. When people see the government wasting TRILLIONS it does not even register, but when people see a friend of the President and the First Lady misusing about $850,000 in federal funds and then the President illegally firing the IG that reported the misuse, that is something that the average person can actually relate to and become outraged over. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Obama’s approval numbers take a pretty big hit as this matter is investigated further.

      • Chris Devine says:

        I’d say as soon as this issue is investigated further it will fizzle out as the tempest in a teapot it is. The real problem is that the Republicans have no idea which of their attempts to discredit the Democrats will work, so they just try everything until something sticks.

        • Yes sir….the repubs have learned from the master…..sad day for our politics, isn’t it?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I think you will be surprised at the effort it takes by the government and by the media to get this particular issue to “fizzle out”, but that is simply my prediction based on the fact that the average person has a fairly easy time relating to this particular story. I am sure both the administration and the media will be doing their darndest to quash the whole thing as quickly as possible, and since the American public has the attention span of a gnat, they may well succeed in helping the issue to fizzle out, but we will see.

          • Peter, Peter, Peter…..a gnat? Sigh…I am afraid you are giving the benefit of the doubt here. But, it has already started dying out except for a few of us “die hards” here. The most common response that I have been hearing is ” what the hell, this happens every administration”. Sad.

        • USWeapon says:

          And fortunately for the Republicans, this administration is providing them with ample opportunities to try different strategies. It is awful hard figuring out what tactic will work to show the Messiah for a fraud.

        • Its either a case of wrong doing or not. The resulting “settlement” puts the exclamation point on the black and white issue of guilt. Its the light handed result that I think is at issue. The firing looks far too obviously like a payback and sets a precedence for the next president to fire away if the appointee is from the other camp.

          Same old politics in a shiny new wrapper.

  10. USW,

    In principal, this is an outrage. The president, presented by the media as a constitutional law scholar, a lawyer with impressive national credentials, breaks a law he co-sponsored. But the other day I agreed with Ray, that I don’t want his head for this, just an apology. Trying to take a look at myself here, am I a hypocrite? Its not that I feel this is not wrong, nor am I unwilling to fight, just that I see this as a battle we will not win, and fighting it may cost us more than we gain. The way the Republicans went after Clinton cost millions, and hurt their image worse than his. It also appears Gerald Walpin is willing and able to fight his own battles.

    So I am looking at this as a time to gather our ammo, wait to fight the battle we can win. Consider how the Supreme Court set aside established law allowing the government to NOT pay off the auto bondholders first. At this time, Obama could rape a girl scout on the front lawn, and the only media comments would be how good he looks, and that is the luckiest 15 yr. old in the world, etc.

    And I must disagree with your statement ” the best 535 criminals in America”.
    Congressman Jason Chaffetz (not from my state)stands out as someone trying to bring ethics and principal back to the DC hellhole. Hopefully there are others.
    Suggestion, how about a hall of fame, or these guys don’t suck listing, of the few who share our desire to return America to its core values.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I would have to say that Mike Pence from Indiana SEEMS to have his head screwed on fairly straight as well for a Congressman. He ain’t perfect by any means, but he is VERY fiscally conservative and has a decent amount of common sense.

      I am sure that we could come up with a list of maybe 20-30 people in the House that are actually worthy of support, but 20-30 out of 435 is a daunting minority.

      • Danak13 says:

        You know, Peter…you are also correct. However, our educations system has been hijacked as well….got to figure out a way to combat the bias there so our young persons can make up their own minds….

    • Danak13 says:

      LOI………oh my…I am laughing so hard I can’t stand it. What an analogy…

      “So I am looking at this as a time to gather our ammo, wait to fight the battle we can win. Consider how the Supreme Court set aside established law allowing the government to NOT pay off the auto bondholders first. At this time, Obama could rape a girl scout on the front lawn, and the only media comments would be how good he looks, and that is the luckiest 15 yr. old in the world, etc.”

      May I have your permission to use this on my website….it is beyond words and says it all.

      Laughing hysterically but understanding you are correct, I remain..


      • D13,

        I would be honored to be on your website. Please include a link as your thoughts have been interesting.

        • Will do….the site will be finished today and when it is..it will be linked here. I would like to have comments. Your statement hit me pretty neat…sorta like “STOP THE PRESSES”….it cuts to the chase of one of the articles that will be there.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      LOI – much as I may be an Obama nuthugger I would expect ‘the right thing’ to be done here. A few years ago I was completely screwed by a company I had set a lot of blood and sweat down for – I was a rainmaker and busted my ass for them. A ‘policy-issue’ came up and I was told the policy was not going to apply to me at that time since it was a bug client with a lot of revenue on the line (I was being forced to fill out on SF-86 for a project I was not an appropriate resource for and this was in violation of well-established policy). Rules are rules so follow them (esp when you write/sponsor the things). We may find out Obama had no idea this was happening or it flew under the radar because he was too busy with too many other things. Does not make it right.

      • Ummmmm….Obama nuthugger?????

      • Ray,

        “then follow the process that is establishment and play it according to the law. If there was something in his performance that merited immediate termination then document as such and don’t hide behind lawyer-ese or legalese – it just makes you look guilty when you may or may not be so”

        The point is they ignored the legal process. Instead of saying “oops’, they say ” Obama argued the agency’s chief watchdog was so “confused” and “disoriented”. It does not matter their reasons for firing, they may be legally able to fire him. What matters is they violated the legal procedure to do so, and have not answered why they did this. I would also like to point out suspension or re-assignment should have been considered. Even IF he screwed up, his history and record deserves respect, as well as demonstrating
        to other Inspector Generals, that they are free to do their jobs without fear of being punished for political reasons.

        I am not much of a name caller, I did call Chris D.”comrade” when he stated we should support people unwilling to support themselves.
        (comrade means “friend”), so self abasement is not needed.

      • Or you can use fanboy to PG things.

    • USWeapon says:

      I do readily admit that there are some in Congress that are good people with good intentions. The question that we have to ask ourselves is how long will this last? Amazingly almost all of the good ones are new ones, which means that often they simply have not turned yet.

      And we have to look at ALL their votes not just the few that show them to be good. Did any of the folks we are holding up as good toe the party line and vote for the stimulus?

      • JayDickB says:

        USW – Just the point I tried to make a while back regarding term limits. Power (and time in congress) corrupts. The longer they are there, the more likely they are to be corrupt and the more corrupt they become.

        • USWeapon says:


          And to that end I can agree with term limits. Did you understand BF’s legitimate argument against them? I felt like it won the debate (much to my chagrine 😉 )

          • JayDickB says:

            I understood it, but I don’t find it persuasive. Of course, BF thinks much bigger than I do.

            I still think term limits would be helpful. They certainly would shake up the political establishment, which would be a good thing.

            • USWeapon says:

              I would not say he thinks much bigger than anyone, just differently. And his conclusions are generally not of the flippant or emotional variety. Not saying that anyone else’s are, just giving hiim his credit where due.

              I am interested at some point in hearing why his argument was not persuasive, but that is for another day.

    • A secondary consideration about Walpingate – is that the Obama administration is so full of their power that they know that they can do anything they want, legal or not and not fear the repercussions. This will become the primary concern eventually.

      I saw it happen several times when democrat reformers got the power, then immediately used that power in petty ways.

      Clinton did it with the travel office, etc .

  11. Ray Hawkins says:

    If anything is clear it is that there is more to the story than what has been reported in the press (any press) as well as this site. Walpin was not as ‘good, clean and wholesome’ as he may be portrayed but is known to be deeply deeply partisan. This then brings up the interesting point and angle of what has happened to/with him. I’ve read the law, I’ve read the letters – if he did something (or didn’t do soemthing) that merits termination, then follow the process that is establishment and play it according to the law. If there was something in his performance that merited immediate termination then document as such and don’t hide behind lawyer-ese or legalese – it just makes you look guilty when you may or may not be so. The situation also tells me that some hack in the White House made this call and not President Obama (Rahm maybe? Gergen?) – does not absolve responsibility – just making the point, this type of things happens ALL THE TIME EVERYWHERE – the White House does not have a monopoly on improper firing processes or not following established law/policy/procedure – I’ve been nipped by that in my career before.

    And – “It certainly seems as though the Obama administration has less regard for the law and less concern for the Constitution than any administration previously, at least in my lifetime” – HUH? Please explain. If the Walpin incident is what supports this view as the final straw, that is a mighty weak straw – would seem more like the ‘black helicopter’ mentality (sorry for the Chris Mathews ref). I’ll carp on this time and time again – a lack of a robust conservative position does not become strengthened by solely attacking the ‘other guy’ – this is not the tip of the spear but that does mean there is no explaining to be had.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The common “explanation” for this event that I see from people that are attempting to support the President on the Walpin issue is ALWAYS, “clearly there is more going on here than what we have been told”.

      I personally strongly doubt that. To me, it seems pretty clear that Obama did not like the fact that IG Walpin called out one of his friends and supporters for misuse of federal funds, so Obama attempted to fire him, thus disregarding the law that he himself had co-sponsored back in 2007.

      There COULD be more to it than that, but the simplest explanation is quite often the best explanation, and one must remember that Obama is a Chicago politician. If you are in the government and want to keep your job, NEVER cross a Chicago politician.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        You doubt there is more to this story? Really? C’mon Peter – I’m actually offering out here that I think the guy may have been hacked for political reasons now they’re trying to wrap this down with half baked answers that a 5 year old could do better with. My bs flag goes up when I see stuff like this – my guess is there are some dirty memos or emails somewhere which is why the personnel part of this is so cloudy.

        • USWeapon says:

          I will agree Ray. There is always more to the story. But he didn’t follow the law that he wrote. There is the rub. As for explaining my comments that he has ignored the law more than other Presidents, I have to get to work, but will take the time to explain it during my lunch break.

          • JayDickB says:

            Maybe, maybe not. Bottom line, he was a thorn in Obama’s side. But why did they have to be so obvious about it. There are other quieter ways of getting it done. Why look for trouble? Arrogance?

            • Absolute arrogance! They won, we lost, get over it. It’s Obama’s country to do with what he pleases now, just ask him.

            • USWeapon says:

              It almost sounds as if you would have preferred that this one was done behind closed doors, shady and out of the view of the public?

              I don’t think the person making this decision thought it all through. I don’t think it was arrogance that made it happen in broad daylight. They just didn’t think the conservative parts of the media would blow it up like this.

              And that is an area of contention for me right now. There are certainly a lot of what I deem as mistakes being made, more than I expected. Perhaps the claims that he wasn’t ready for this were accurate? Although I am sure he is making the same or less number of mistakes than I would make if I were suddenly made President.

              • JayDickB says:

                I am not suggesting they should have done this deed differently. I find the controversy they created delightful.

                But, I think they COULD have done it differently, to their own advantage. If this decision wasn’t made at the highest levels, that too is a mistake.

    • Ray, an example of admitting a mistake.

      David Letterman.”

      “I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke,” Letterman said. “It’s not your fault that it was misunderstood. It’s my fault that it was misunderstood.”

      He apologized to Palin’s oldest daughter, Bristol, at whom he said the joke was directed. Letterman went on to apologize, “to the governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke. I’m sorry about it, and I’ll try to do better in the future.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        In my post yesterday I also offered that the 2nd letter sent was pure b.s. written by a lawyer.

        • Ray,

          And I agree with you that is most likely the case. With N. Korea, Iran, this health care push, Obama should not have time to fire an IG. But after one of his white house staffers stepped in it, should he not make a genuine effort to clean this up? I respect you supporting him on issues, but has he handled this as you would have expected when he campaigned for “change”? It goes to personal character or values, does David Letterman have better ethics than the President?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            I’m not going to expect perfection – if he is human then I would expect some mistakes to be made – just ack the mistake or wrong and make it right. In his role he must delegate and do so effectively – but that does not take him off the hook.

      • Chris Devine says:

        Perhaps a few more apologies are in order:


        • Ray Hawkins says:

          A good chuckle – thanks Chris!

        • Chris,

          Could the liberal media not generate enough outrage to force said apologies? Its good that there are all these special interest groups that demand equal respect for all their members, no racial slander, no gay bashing, and especially be respectful of women.

          On Wednesday night’s O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly circled around the David Letterman teen-got-knocked-up crack against the Palins, noticing that the Women’s Media Center, founded by uber-feminists Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda, harangued O’Reilly for mocking Helen Thomas for having a voice like the “Wicked Witch of the East,” but made no protest on Palin’s behalf to the Letterman show:

          BILL O’REILLY: Now, women’s groups. As you know, Sarah Palin and David Letterman. Not one woman’s group — no, NOW said something. I’m sorry. The National Organization for Women said, “Dave.” OK. But no protests, no anything like that. But remember when I made fun of Helen Thomas, what happened?

          The Women’s Media Center statement on O’Reilly in February insisted they were the type of feminists who stuck up for all women:

          It was an attack no woman deserves–including this accomplished, award winning journalist. The Women’s Media Center demonstrated that sexist remarks went unchecked by networks during the primary season. Now, as then, the WMC demands accountability.

          An immediate public apology is required.


          • Alan F. says:

            Illegal use of deeper issues! Quit that and stick to the surface.

          • Chris Devine says:

            OK, you found one example. Find nine more. Find one more.

            Keep in mind that Letterman isn’t on a news network. Does that make a difference to this matter? I think it does. Has O’Reilly or Limbaugh ever apologized for any of their BS?

            This was an isolated incident as far as Letterman is concerned. I think the link I posted should be enough evidence that guys like O’Reilly and Limbaugh have a long track record of hateful words and have gone way further than Letterman has in this single incident.

            You’re gonna have to do better.

            • Chris,
              Without research, Janeane Garofalo called tax tea party protesters “racist”. She was very un-apologetic.

              I cannot comment on Limbaugh, as I have never listened to him. O’Reilly strikes me as being outspoken, but will back what he says. Pinhead is not hateful compared to slut. Now Anne Coulter, I would agree crosses over to a level that is hateful.

              Oh, and that was one example. Would eight more have any effect on how you see this? Picturing you as Eddie Murphy in Beverly Hills Cop locker room scene, “fingers in ears, na na na I am not listening to Jeffery”, you saying na na na, not hearing Illusion.

              • Chris Devine says:

                This world isn’t short of blowhards. Janeane is certainly opinionated, but without a link I wont comment one way or the other.

                This may or may not matter to you, but all of the people mentioned in the link I posted have shows of their own. Guys like O’Reilly, Limbaugh and Savage have millions of fans who tune in daily for a dose of right-wing vitriol. Bill, Rush and Michael never disappoint.

              • KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: Well, the teabagging is all over, except for the cleanup.
                about some Americans who just hate the president of the United States.

                OLBERMANN: Congratulations, Pensacola teabaggers. You got spunked.
                But teabagging is now petered out, taint what it used to be. On a more serious note, we’re now joined by actor, activist Janeane Garofalo. Good to see you.

                JANEANE GAROFALO: Thank you. You know, there’s nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they’re not quite certain what he’s saying


                “daily for a dose of right-wing vitriol” yes,
                I see OLBERMANN’s real big on Kumbaya, give peace a chance, turn the other cheek,You got spunked, But teabagging is now petered out

              • Chris Devine says:

                I won’t dispute that what she said was off the deep end. But she’s a comedian, just like Letterman. They make their living exaggerating. That’s how comedy works.

                If Garofalo and Letterman want to do this stuff on the left then I have no problem with Dennis Miller doing the same on the right. Fair’s fair and funny is funny.

                As laughable as Limbaugh and friends are, they aren’t comedians. They pose as legitimate political commentators. So I’d say there’s a big difference.

                Once again, I don’t agree with Letterman of Garofalo, but they aren’t even in the same league as the right wing hate mongers.

              • Chris Devine says:

                Double post dammit!

              • USWeapon says:

                Reply Below

              • Chris Devine says:

                I won’t dispute that what she said was off the deep end. But she’s a comedian, just like Letterman. They make their living exaggerating. That’s how comedy works.

                If Garofalo and Letterman want to do this stuff on the left then I have no problem with Dennis Miller doing the same on the right. Fair’s fair and funny is funny.

                As laughable as Limbaugh and friends are, they aren’t comedians. They pose as legitimate political commentators. So I’d say there’s a big difference.

                Once again, I don’t agree with Letterman or Garofalo, but they aren’t even in the same league as the right wing hate mongers.

              • Just for the hell of it, when has O’Reilly NOT had a person doing the counterpoint to him when he covers an issue. At the beginning of “talking points” every show, he states an opinion. He then usually has TWO guests, who almost always disagree with him and starts out by saying,”Now tell me where I’m going wrong?” So, while you and I may disagree with Bill, and I admit I think he is woefully uninformed on some issues, he makes it a point to offer intelligent, highly placed people to argue with.

                Rush, you may consider a blowhard, but Hate? I don’t think so.

                Letterman said something that was slimy, no other way to describe it. Had I been the father of Palin’s daughter, in another time, I would have slapped the son of a bitch silly. Come to think of it, if he said it about my daughter, regardless of the current turn the other cheek vogue, I would have slapped him silly. Bad behavior has consequences. It should have that even for the scumbags in the audience who laughed.

              • Chris Devine says:

                O’Reilly is well known for shouting down anybody who doesn’t agree with him. He invites people with opposing viewpoints on his show so he can have someone to shout at, not to give the other side a fair chance to explain. He doesn’t “argue with” anybody—he argues at them.

                Here’s a little info on Rush:
                Let me know if you still think he’s not hateful after seeing some of his finer moments.

                “Current turn the other cheek vogue?” Are you referring to Jesus’ sermon on the mount? That was written around 2,000 years ago. And I’d say it’s hardly ‘in vogue’ given comments like yours about slapping Letterman silly.

            • Amazed1 says:

              We can sit around all night finding comments about people old enough to defend their selves….but to pick on a 14 year old with those kinds of comments? Give me a break. I on’t care who does it, it is wrong to make comments like that about anyones kids…..I wonder what the result would have been if that kind of comment was made about a President’s child. Letterman was way out of line for even thinking it much less putting it on TV as funny. Adults, companies ect are big enough to take care of them selves….but my goodness picking on a defensely child? Surely there is none that condones or upholds that for any reason. It was WRONG regardless of who else said what.

              • Chris Devine says:

                That’s why he apologized.

              • Chris Devine says:

                “On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, “Did you know there’s a White House dog?” Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time and as far as I know had never done any harm to anyone.

                When viewers objected, he claimed, in typical Limbaugh fashion, that the gag was an accident and that without his permission some technician had put up the picture of Chelsea–which I found as disgusting as his original attempt at humor.”


              • I saw the first show after the event, there was no apology. The man is politics driven and on the side of righteousness like some freaky old testament prophet. He did not apologize until the numbers started coming in. Then, to save his skinny ass, he did.

              • Agreed, however, it was not sexual and that, to me makes a difference. Shall we go back through history and talk about what the press and commentators have said about Alice Roosevelt Longworth, Margaret Truman, Amy Carter or the Bush Twins? Bad taste is bad taste, but there are degrees of bad taste. Letterman, the comedian should no that better than anyone. I suspect he did. That was no mistake. Harry Truman I believe threatened to take his walking stick and thrash the reporter who commented on his daughters looks and talent on the piano. That was probably one of the reasons the man became so popular. What was it?, Give em hell Harry?

        • Alan F. says:

          Wow who’d have thought a lefty blog actually leans to the left in what it writes too. Good catch.

          • Chris Devine says:


            • Alan F. says:

              You posted that link as an example of something other than what one can do with a left handed keyboard? Or was that merely to perk up Ray’s spirits? The real trick is to get a laugh without having to resort to slighting someone else. Listen to Bill Maher’s latest attempt at humor then dig up either of Russel Peters shows. One of them is hysterical, the other is a white guy.

              • Chris Devine says:

                I’m not a big fan of Branson, MO. I like my comedy blue.

                Russell Peters is pretty funny:

              • Chris Thanks for the links as an ole mayflower white guy I not only ended watching him but also don simmons LOL

  12. Good points, Ray.

  13. Bama dad says:
  14. Bama dad says:
    • I wonder what gives Obama all this power to hire and fire for both the Government AND Business AND Financial Markets?

      One thing I can say about Obama. I don’t recall any other President exercising so much power over the hiring and firing of people when he should have NO authority to do so.

      Maybe he can fire IGs, but Bank and Insurance CEOs? GM and Chrysler? Who defines the limits of his power?

  15. JayDickB says:

    The whole concept of independent Inspector Generals is flawed. They are always pressured to suppress unfavorable information. If nothing else, their budgets are controlled by the executive branch. They are pressured in a variety of other ways as well.

    The most independent of the auditors, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (nee General Accounting Office), is an agency of the Congress, so is not subject to direct executive branch pressures. Its budget is included in the overall government budget for convenience, but the executive branch has no say about it except for approving (or vetoing) the legislative branch appropriations bill.

    The head of GAO, the Comptroller General, is appointed for a 15-year term and can be removed only by impeachment (in theory).

    Even GAO, however, gets some political pressure. In the early 1960s, a Comptroller General was probably forced out for being too hard (really hard) on defense contractors. He was not impeached; he said he retired early for undisclosed health reasons. His health problems mysteriously appeared at the same time key congressmen got upset with him (both Republicans and Democrats). Ulcers?

    With the Dems fully in control of Congress, there seems to be no really independent watchdog.

    As for Walpin, of course he was canned because he was reporting things Obama didn’t want to hear. Anyone who has been around DC for more than a year or two can see that. I just don’t understand why Obama was so blunt and open about it. There are much subtler ways to do it. I guess it’s his inexperience showing. Or maybe his arrogance.

  16. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    One thing that I can honestly say that I have a HUGE problem with is the whole “stuff that is wrong happens all the time, whether it be in the federal government or the private sector.”

    What is that supposed to be? A continuing excuse for improper behavior? “Everyone else does it, so it must be OK”?

    If that is a common moral foundation for people these days, our society definitely has a bad case of moral swine flu.

    If “Everyone else does it so it must be OK” is a valid moral or legal argument, why don’t we simply abolish all laws that “everyone” does not comply with? Wouldn’t THAT solve the problem? “Everyone” cheats on their taxes, so lets start with abolishing all tax laws and go from there!

    • JayDickB says:

      Peter – It’s not that it’s OK because everyone does it. But if some raise hell when someone else does it after they have done it themselves, it’s gross hypocrisy. What we need to understand is the extent of the corruption, moral, intellectual, and sometimes legal. Our government is about 80% corrupt. And its hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys sometimes.

      A pox on all their houses.

  17. What I want to know is who is the Inspector General for Fannie Mae?

    Who is the Inspector General for Freddie Mac? With their 210 million bonuses!
    Chris Dodd and Barney Franks are looking out for us.

  18. All;

    It seems that you folks are missing the main point USW was making, at least as I understood his position. He was using the Walpi and Boxer events as examples of indignant polititions running amuck because they have grown to believe they are superior, and can’t be bothered by what the people say. Let’s face it from their perspective we are all stupid and don’t have the intelligence, or moxy, to run our own lives. At least that’s how I feel it got started, however it has since moved to a greater degree of arrogance. In their eyes we are not only too stupid to manage ourselves, but as a result, and because it has been progressing since FDR, we as a general populations, are to inepit to do anything about it. In short, they not only believe they are superior, but because they are superior they are acting in what they believe is our own best interest.

    Gay rights, Public Education, Constitutional violations, the wars, swine flu, Civil rights, Acorn, Fairness Doctrin, Gun Laws, Welfair Reform, public service, and any number of other activities that stir up organizations and/or individuals is a smoke screen. It’s all about divide and concour. If the population can’t come together on a single pertinant issue, then these maniacal men and women don’t have to worry about the population garnering enough forward progress to effect change.


    Look at what has been happening these past months. Every time we figure out what is going on they have cooked up another event. It has been a constant shell game for the past five and a half months. We keep trying to guess which shell holds the pea, but in reality there is no pea; all the shells are empty.

    I alluded to this in my publication “My Mantra Going Forward”, It is not about representing a certain majority, special interest group, or global cause, it is about power and the control of that power. They have it and they intend to use it until they are stopped

    • JayDickB says:

      CM – You hit the nail on the head – POWER. Politicians want power more than anything else. And they’ll do almost anything (anything they think they can get away with) to get it, keep it, and expand it.

      As for politicians thinking the people are stupid, you’ll have to admit that their belief is not exactly groundless. Look what we let them get away with.

      • Alan F. says:

        I believe they count on too many being kept busy by life itself to catch on. There are a host of Americans I know personally who, unlike my spoiled arse, are pulling one full time and another part time all the while trying their best to keep the kids in their thoughts and not disappoint them every damned day. When you have little time for your spouse, the blathering on the idiot box is only going to get a “whatever” in passing.

        The powers that be can be as unproductive an adult as is humanly possible (barring those either deceased or in a coma) without seeing it affect their bottom line. When doing less damage than the other guy is something to be proud of, oh man you’ve got it made and that’s why they’ll do whatever it takes to stay right where they are. The middle class politicians are after the income and benefits and the rich ones are after the power over other rich people.

    • Black Flag says:

      …slowly realization of the “Game” enlightens another mind….

      But be wary, good sir, of the concept of “until they are stopped”.

      They are mere cogs in a system – ants in a nest. Stop one, the rest carry on undisturbed. That is why the focus is not “Obama” or “Bush” or any other government flake – it is the WHOLE SYSTEM – one must view the ‘nest’, not merely the largest or most colorful hand-full of ants.

      It is in the best interest of the system that the people flail around crushing individual ants until the people are exhausted – for it distracts the people from the systemic evil of the whole system (the ‘nest’).

      Henry David Thoreau There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

      • JudyS.NV. says:

        Here is another H.D. Thoreau Quote ( Civil Disobedience )

        I heartily accept the motto ” That the government is best which governs least. ” And I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe. ” That government is best which governs not at all, and when men are prepared for it, that it will be the kind of government which they will have.”

        I saw that you had put one up, so I thought I would add this if you don’t mind.

        Good Day

    • USWeapon says:


      Thanks for getting my point Common Man!

  19. Black Flag says:

    Too bad you weren’t that General, USWep – I’d have loved to read that in a newspaper.

    • JayDickB says:

      There are so many times I have thought that kind of response would be entirely appropriate and enormously entertaining. Most senators would be speechless because its not in their pre-prepared scripts.

  20. Black Flag says:


    The U.S. military is planning to intercept a flagged North Korean ship suspected of proliferating weapons material in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution passed last Friday, FOX News has learned.

    The USS John McCain, a navy destroyer, will intercept the ship Kang Nam as soon as it leaves the vicinity off the coast of China, according to a senior U.S. defense official. The order to inderdict has not been given yet, but the ship is getting into position.

    The ship left a port in North Korea Wednesday and appears to be heading toward Singapore, according to a senior U.S. military source. The vessel, which the military has been tracking since its departure, could be carrying weaponry, missile parts or nuclear materials, a violation of U.N. Resolution 1874, which put sanctions in place against Pyongyang.

    • Chris Devine says:

      All we need is another U.S.S. Maine or Ticonderoga.

    • BF aside to your aside, I’m reading more and more about the possibility of deflation. Will you share your thoughts on this topic? please and thank you c

    • Seems our concern is getting deeper!


    • Damn but I am feeling psychotic, er psychic. Just what I advocated on handling N. Korea weeks back here. If this blows up, will Obama blame
      me? Sorry all, didn’t mean to start WW3.

      Funny also that many are really pressing for us to but in on Iran’s elections.

    • USWeapon says:

      Yeah but it is the USS McCain. Won’t it tire out before it gets there? Won’t it put up a good showing only to fall short again in the end?

      I crack me up

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Yeah – but the McCain will have a sidekick – a sleek newer ship, looks good on the outside but lacking adequate weaponry and generally empty inside. She’ll attract lots of attention, but lacking substance will quickly be dismissed as a gimmick of a ship. She’ll return to port and who knows – maybe she gets stocked up for another fight or turns into a fancy-looking artificial reef.

        • Alan F. says:

          Better that than the USS Obama whose rudder is stuck turning left and merely turns in circles.

          • But no one seems able to catch it or stop it – why is that??? 🙂

            • With that throttle stuck wide open and the captain lashed to the wheel all they can do for now is wait for it to run dry and tow what’s left back into port for repairs.

        • USWeapon says:

          That was funny Ray!

    • USWeapon says:

      So what is your take on this BF? Should we be intercepting a ship in International Waters? I tend to think your answer would be “no” unless there is stolen US merchandise or Us property on that ship.

      • Black Flag says:

        Interception will push up the likelihood of war.

        If the ship falls into the “Clear and Present Danger”, then yes, intercept. Such a ship sailing is tantamount to NK declaring war – thus, war is not avoidable.

        If it is to ‘Make a Point’ – prepare for an avoidable war. Those always are “bad”.

        • Alan F. says:

          Can always convince the French its a Greenpeace vessel and they’ll instinctively scuttle it.

    • JayDickB says:

      I don’t have enough information to know if interdiction is warranted or not. But, I don’t think Obama has the backbone (to oppose his left-wing supporters) to order interdiction even if it is warranted.

    • Danak13 says:

      BF…..We have two choices. Ignore the ship and let it do whatever it wants and not care about NK’s nuclear ambitions or interdict to send a message that we do care about it.

      I would call NK’s bluff. They will not fire on S Korea. No one wins but one will survive and China will stay out of it. I would ask for voluntary interdiction..first. If they say no, then stop it. Sanctions do not work and negotiations are useless against this regime and no matter how persuasive our new Pied Piper is….NK will not follow the flutist. History is the best teacher.

      You must then follow it up with a shoot down of their rocket, if it is launched towards any US territory…regardless if it falls 500 miles short and regardless of intent. Let them shoot it into the isolated areas of China.

      I do not subscribe to the theory to wait until our nose is bloodied before responding. I fought under “rules of engagement” that says do not fire unless fired upon. This is a crock and will continue to get men and women killed.


  21. Just a few weeks ago most of you were defending the Bush administration’s torture policies. Now you’re all worked up because Obama fired some right-wing hack without the proper 30 day notice?

    Is that hypocrisy?

    Or lack of a moral compass?

    Or just the partisan politics that most of you claim not to have?

    Take your pick…

    • Alan F. says:

      Bush cosigned a bill recognizing water boarding as being torture and banning such? When? Where? Link???

      President Obama can’t possibly lay claim to the same without copping to either a “that was then, this is now” attitude or showing early signs of Alzheimer’s. Why don’t you pick for him or better yet head off into an “illegal war” rant and avoid the issue altogether?

    • I recall the torture discussion. There were many questions as to whether the methods used (waterboarding) constitute torture. I don’t believe it is, and I think torture has a purpose (to save lives). Torture, just to cause agony, is very wrong.

      When the highest elected official in our country can’t follow the law (that he co-sponsored), don’t you find that hypocritical?

      There is quite a difference between National Security and firing a government employee without following the legal procedures required.

      Personnally, I think our entire government stinks to high heaven, and I do mean all of them. They have failed the American people for decades.


    • Bama dad says:

      Let’s see – Bush gets a Justice Department memo stating that harsh interrogation was within the law. We debated whether in our opinion it was torture or not. Obammer sponsors law last year, and then breaks said law this year. You sure you want to defend your man with hypocrisy, moral compass and partisan politics drool. Hanging on to all the leftwing slogans there aren’t we. Pretty weak.

    • USWeapon says:

      Well… before anyone gets too upset with Todd. Take a moment and think about the argument that each of you made during the interrogation debate. Does his claim have merit. I am not saying that it does or does not. But pointing out hypocrisy isn’t a trait that the right alone has.

      A good point Todd. I am unsure how founded it is. I intend to go back and read my article tonight and see if I fit the hypocrisy label. If I do, I will admit so.

    • Todd,

      Is that hypocrisy? No, wrong word whatever else.

      Or lack of a moral compass? Fair question. Ask again in eight years after we have or have not been attacked. Strange the four released to the Bahamas state that Gitmo was much better to live in than China. How bad were they really treated?

      Or just the partisan politics that most of you claim not to have? My claim is that I look at issues and values.

      Now you’re all worked up because Obama fired some right-wing hack without the proper 30 day notice? No, not very worked up, but the issue is not the firing, its 1. he did not follow the law he co-sponsored. 2. He has not given a reasonable account of his mistake.

      right-wing hack??????? Whatever else, I see no reason for you to give insult to a man who has earned the right to be respected. Is it possible to make your point without petty insults? When I am insulting, its at least funny. BTW, are you an Obama nuthugger also?

      • LOI,

        “Obama nuthugger”

        I have just coined the “Obamatron” word, I think – but with my luck 40million others got there first!

        “Obamatron” = One who follows Obamaisms to the max irregardless of how much it sends the U.S. deeper into “Sociofascism”!

        • Rays response to me on #10,
          Ray Hawkins said
          June 19, 2009 at 10:02 am

          LOI – much as I may be an Obama nuthugger

          Would never have said that, and just asking Todd an innocent question.

    • Todd,

      Politics do not belong in law enforcement – yet unfortunately it exists very much so as I have been the “victim” of just that very sort of politics that IG Walpin has been a victim of. Political favoritism is rampant throughout this and many other administrations in the past.

      We do not live in a perfect world, but it could be a lot better than it is.

      The currant bunch of nitwits in DC are screwing things up so bad and so fast that many of us feel that the damage is irreparable.

      Is that hypocrisy? or are you being the hypocrite here?

      Don’t get me wrong, witchin about the wrongs being done in DC without a clear plan of action to make it right doesn’t sit well with me at all, but I do not try and criticize those who are trying to get ole John Q Public to open his eyes to those lunatics we are all responsible for electing!

    • JayDickB says:

      I spent 35 years working for the Federal Government in DC and I can tell you, it is rotten at the top. This firing is a small but representative example of what goes on.

      The government is morally, intellectually, and often legally corrupt. Providing effective government is the last thing on their minds. Power is the first thing.

    • I am not defending the Obama administration’s actions. This was handled extremely poorly. If they have a reason to remove him from office, spell it out and notify Congress as the law dictates.

      The “right-wing hack” was intentional to elitist a response. Read many of the comments above – there is much worse there, but it’s directed at Obama and the Democrats, so it’s Ok.

      Bush broke the law when he approved torture.
      Obama broke the law when he fired an Inspector General.

      It doesn’t matter who sponsored or passed the law – a law is a law.
      I suppose you could argue Bush didn’t know torture was illegal…
      Is one worse than the other?

      Many of you defended Bush and now attach Obama.

      That’s hypocrisy – at least too me.

      Sure, you can call me an Obama Nuthugger – or anything else you’d like. Doesn’t bother me.

      • Danak13 says:

        Boy…wish I had been around on the torture debate.

      • bama dad says:

        Todd said:
        “Bush broke the law when he approved torture.”
        What law?
        Bush consulted with the Justice Department and they issued a memo stating that harsh interrogation was within the law. Granted now there is a debate about whether the Justice Department’s memo was correct. Please cite the law he broke.

        • The memos are legal opinions. They are not laws themselves and do not make the “enhanced interrogation techniques” legal.

          Laws against torture:

          The 8th Amendment.

          TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113C, s2340

          The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
          The United States ratified the Convention against Torture in October 1994.
          The Convention entered into force for the United States on November 20, 1994.

          • JayDickB says:

            The Justice department said harsh interrogation of the subject persons was legal under U.S Law. You can disagree with this opinion if you want, but why should your opinion override the Justice Department’s in making the relevant decisions? If the president and others acted consistent with the best legal advice they had available, how were the actions illegal? They were not illegal just because you and others say so.

            Until the courts decide otherwise, the administration’s actions were legal. For the executive branch, the Justice Department is the highest legal authority. Only the courts can override the Justice Department. Congress has no real authority here.

      • Alan F. says:

        You’re still ignoring that president Obama had a direct hand in the bill he tossed aside. Will you then say president Bush drafted a similar bill condemning water boarding then tossed it aside too? That’s the only way this board’s earlier topics conflict with this one. None that defended water boarding said it was directly against anything president Bush had a hand in writing and believe it so. Had you known of a bill in which he did just that I’m certain it would not have been withheld by yourself. You’d have been swinging away with it.

        I for one certainly won’t condemn president Obama for being directly involved in a bill meant to make firing based upon political leanings more difficult as that’s a laudable position to take. It works for both sides of this coin equally and equality is what you guys are supposed to be all about so its all good. I do see it as hypocrisy when that same bill is cast aside when it plays against him and forces this subject into the light of day for a full month. President Obama knows all too well most of the American public either hasn’t the time to give a crap or the attention span. Slowing down is not in his game plan for a reason which is by no means “if we don’t we’re dead by tomorrow” and this bill that he knows intimately in this instance does just that.

        • It doesn’t matter who authored, wrote, sponsored, voted for, or signed the law.
          A law is a law.

          As I said above, I am not defending the Obama administration’s actions. This was handled extremely poorly.

      • Todd,

        a good response.

        The “right-wing hack” was intentional to elitist a response. Read many of the comments above – there is much worse there, but it’s directed at Obama and the Democrats, so it’s Ok. It was mean. He has spoken with class and restraint. Should be treated the same. Fire him if deserved, but do it right.

        Bush broke the law when he approved torture.
        Obama broke the law when he fired an Inspector General. And the Supreme court broke the law when they overruled paying the auto bondholders first.
        We all might agree the law doesn’t mean much to the government.

        Name calling, I asked if you were. Are you a tree hugger?

        • Tree Hugger?

          Sure, when I see a big Oak, Maple, or Ash, I walk up to it and give it a hug and think “this would make a nice desk, end table, dresser…”

      • USWeapon says:

        If you mean it is Ok with me… I guess so. I don’t mind that you called him a right wing hack either. My only concern is if the name calling starts to get applied to those writing here.

        It doesn’t matter who sponsored or passed the law – a law is a law.
        I suppose you could argue Bush didn’t know torture was illegal…
        Is one worse than the other?

        Yes… the torture is worse. But there wasn’t a clear cut answer on the torture as there is on this, hence why I bring it up. He was clearly given the answer that it WAS legal before he approved it. I don’t know of anyone claiming otherwise. I won’t get into the whole torture debate again, but I don’t think the same criteria applies to both. I was clear at the beginning of my article that all politicians are my target, the left just provides me with so many more opportunities these days. 😉

        Sure, you can call me an Obama Nuthugger – or anything else you’d like. Doesn’t bother me.

        I hope that you saw the discussion with Ray above so that you know that he was not using nuthugger as a derogatory term. More fun than anything else. If I am wrong then I will stand corrected but I don’t think he was trying to be demeaning.

        • Wow Obama Nuthugger ! I’m making it a twitter hashtag Obama #nuthugger – fantastic. lol

          BTW – did no one break the ‘law’ with bailout tarp or not paying the GM bond holders? I’m resolved to expect to live in a USA banana republic, and I’ll bet that if one action become the fulcrum of economic defeat, it will be the failure to uphold the law regarding bondholders. (unless there’s some facts that I don;t know! ) That’ll be the last straw.

        • Yes, I saw Ray’s comment. I was just playing along. 🙂

    • Amazed1 says:

      It is non of the above…you are mixing water and oil while trying to make bread.
      Todd is king…he makes a rule that it is now a law you can not juggle apples…if caught juggling apples, off with your head. All his people think playing shells is wrong but there is no law against it. So the king says off with the shell players head while the king juggles apples. The shell players may not be inside society’s moral compass but he is doing nothing that deserves his head….the king on the other hand should lose his head.

  22. Black Flag says:

    Deflation is a reduction of the money supply in the economy.

    So, let’s briefly review the past circumstances up to day.

    1) FED flooded the economy with cheap, fiat currency by artificially holding interest rates down (<5%).

    2) Cheap money created a Dot-Net, Stocks and Housing bubbles.

    3) Bubbles all popped. FED flooded the economy with bailout money – given to banks.

    So all of this money into the economy should have shown up in massive inflation. But it did not. Why?

    Big Banks got recapitalized – but instead of using that money to lend, they 'banked' their money into their 'bank' – the FED as Reserves. So the hundreds of billions given to the bank ended up in the FED bank's accounts – earning 1.5% interest.

    On top of that, the banks have closed off credit lines and stopped borrowing.

    This has frozen the money supply.

    Money that would have been used to buy or invest is now being used to pay down debt. But the banks are not taking this cash influx and re-lending it to better borrowers. They are holding on to this cash as well.

    Thus, there is a decrease in the amount of money in circulation – ie: deflation.

    If we stop our analysis here, then your pundits are correct – the economy will continue to deflate as cash earned continues to be used to pay down past debt – at the same time banks stop lending.

    This happens to be the exact strategy for you, as an individual, to do. It is also the ONLY strategy that will save the Nation’s economy.

    This strategy will mean large layoffs and unemployment (up to 30% – 40%) and business failures. It will mean that the suffering may last as long as 24 to 36 months. It will mean after 36 months, the economy will recover, and without any influx of fiat money will begin to grow again @ 3%-5% per year (very healthy).

    However, we cannot stop our analysis here.

    This scenario is unpalatable to government. 40% unemployment – though necessary – is political suicide.

    Government will force the FED to force the banks to start lending again. They will do this by charging 0% or even ‘negative’ interest on the banks reserves held by the FED.

    This will force the banks to use the funds currently held in reserve. The fractional system of banking will allow the banks to loan over 9 times their reserves – currently at $900 billion…. meaning new loans of up to $8 trillion could be made.

    This amount of cash thrust into the economy will cause a massive inflationary explosion.

    Add on top of this:
    The Government is spending (sit down now) over $1 trillion every 3 months. To put this in perspective,

    Carter’s entire ANNUAL budget 1980 – $531.6 billion

    Reagan’s entire ANNUAL budget 1983 – $719 billion

    Clinton’s entire ANNUAL budget 1993 – $1.61 trillion.

    Obama is spending like three Clinton’s, or six Jimmies.

    There is no avenue, anywhere, that can absorb this much currency into the US economy. None. It will all be trapped inside the USA and will explode – on top of renewed lending – more inflation.

    We are seeing deflationary pressures on the economy due to the stark-naked fear of the banks regarding the economy. They would rather earn 1% from the Fed, then loan to the market @ 5% to 20% (credit cards). This is a huge statement on the state of how bad the economy actually is.

    Government will not allow the banks to risk a depression. “Not on our watch” is their mantra. They will force the banks to lend. The only question is ‘when will they act’.

    Government is spending at a level never seen by any nation in history. What consequence this will reap can only be surmised by the consequences of similar – though smaller – such fiat creation. Historically, those past examples have been total disasters.

    Therefore, use the deflationary period to build/earn cash – cash is king right now. Use this cash to buy solid goods and stores on sale (as these prices are falling) and pay down short-term debt (credit cards). Renegotiate mortgage or long term longs on favorable terms (as long as you have excellent credit scores).

    Prepare for an inflationary explosion. The signal will be the day the Fed announces a change to the Reserve Rate Interest. That will start the 60-day inflation clock.

    When inflation is ‘announced’ to be 5% – it will be the time you begin get out of currency completely. Buy goods that have good resale value. Limit the amount of currency on hand. By 10% the rest of America will start doing the same, and it will be too late for you – you cannot compete with 300 million people. By 20% there will be panic.
    By 100%, the Fed will have lost all control….

  23. Wild Wind says:

    Many years ago, I was traveling through Ontario and it was quite evident at that time that there was an election campaign going on in the providence because every so often there would appear a bill board that pictured a big broom and the words “Clean Sweep”. I would suggests we do the same come 2010.

  24. Judy S. says:

    June 19th, 2009 10:28 AM Eastern
    YOU DECIDE: Toasted Oats… or a Drug?

    Cheerios — America’s most popular cereal could be forced to clean up its act — after the FDA took the manufacturer to task for boastful labels they say ’cause it to be a drug.’ For more on this story, click here.

    YOU DECIDE: Are Cheerios just toasted oats… or a drug?! Share your thoughts. Click on “Leave a Comment” below.

    Have any of you seen this article? This has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I read. Now I guess they’re taking over Cheerios.

  25. USWeapon says:

    Chris Devine said
    June 19, 2009 at 5:57 pm e
    I won’t dispute that what she said was off the deep end. But she’s a comedian, just like Letterman. They make their living exaggerating. That’s how comedy works.

    If Garofalo and Letterman want to do this stuff on the left then I have no problem with Dennis Miller doing the same on the right. Fair’s fair and funny is funny.

    And I would agree but Garofalo was not in comedian mode when she made those comments. She was being nasty and ignorant. And that is who she is. Do not compare her to Dennis Miller. He has far more respect than that. Just do a quick google video search for her on Olberman with the key words racist redneck. You can watch the interview for yourself. I wrote extensively about the left tea party coverage and their nasty comments in an article on April 20 that you can read here:


    There are a few more examples for you. For you to say that the right is hateful and Letterman doesn’t count is dishonest. The left is just as hateful and ignorant. And it is their folks with their own shows like Mathews and Olberman as well.

    Once again, I don’t agree with Letterman of Garofalo, but they aren’t even in the same league as the right wing hate mongers.

    Talk about seeing what you want to see. I can clearly see the hate on the right. It is a shame that you can’t see it is equal on the left. I am stunned to silence for now.

    • US, all I hear is Chris saying la la la, can’t hear you
      This makes three Chris. And how about the REPORTS that Palin’s child was actually her daughters? Naw, that’s not hateful.


      Randi Rhodes Suspended From Air America For Clinton Comment
      Thursday Apr 3rd, 2008

      Me? I think it – and it was a radio show reference to Hillary as a major uh… um… whore – was over the top even if you (unlike me) are not inclined to feel that the definition of a politician is someone who likes to screw with some really ODD bedfellows.

      I’m not liking how nasty this campaign has become just among Democrats when it’s the tighty righty we need to focus our energies on defeating.

      Matthews’ openly sexist streak extends only to Democratic and liberal women, and that’s another reason the press plays dumb. Because media elites would never anoint
      Matthews the Hot Journalist if he went on and on about how Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) was too ambitious, or how Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was “witchy,” or how the voice of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) sounded like fingernails being run across a chalkboard, or how Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) had “cold eyes.”

      That would be considered offensive and out of bounds. But to suggest Clinton’s a “witchy,” “anti-male” Nurse Ratched? That’s deemed by the Beltway elites to be shrewd, astute, and fearless.

    • Chris Devine says:

      I thought I made it abundantly clear that I realize that hate exists on the left. But can you seriously argue that there is anybody who comes close to having the audience and daily impact of Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Savage?

      • I don’t know the figures for NPR, but since my SO has it on, for the last 8 years I’ve listened and slowly became aware of how insidious and subtle the bias projected in their productions. Drip, drip drip – constantly using humor, satire, tone of voice to belittle any non-liberal idea or viewpoint.

        And just like any production, even when they say they have people from the other side, there are plenty to pick from, and they only pick ones that are easy to control.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Yeah, I know. “A Prairie Home Companion” is just a thinly veiled cheerleading program for the impending socialist state. “Car Talk” hosts, Click and Clack Tappet, are the NPR equivalent of Sacco and Vanzetti.

          You have got to be kidding me. Listen to Pacifica for a while and see ho innocuous NPR sounds in comparison.

        • I’ll do a search for pacific, I know I don;t have the technique to express opinion well, but I was referring to the subtle use of words that indicate bias that is almost 100% liberal on NPR. I think they have a greater audience, and I bet an even larger percentage of folks who vote.

          I wasn’t referring to such things as only using a sentence or two of an “objective” analyst that fit the liberal (anti-repub) instead of using the full report which was exactly the opposite, but the choice of words such as using negative adjectives for a conservative position even before discussing it!

      • I meant to post that even tho I rarely listen to Limbaugh, Oreilly, never savage – that they are clear where they’re coming from, and you can listen and evaluate their position. But with the MSM that’s not the case, they cloak their bias in telling you the news.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Of course, that makes sense. All those people who call themselves ‘Dittoheads’ must really be the most critical listeners out there.

          • U know that really just P#$%^& me off – that you connect me with Limbaugh , that I just want to get my 20 – aoughgt 40 and come over to ur house and show u that I’m even tempered and intelligent b4 I act like my brethren in Iran.

            • USWeapon says:

              Wooooow Dude. I understand not liking to be linked to Limbaugh. But no threats please. You know I like to keep a nice place. I don’t need people breakin chairs and and stuff, spillin the liquor and messing up the card games.

            • Chris Devine says:

              Where did I connect you with Limbaugh?

            • Sorry – poor tongue in magnum humor..

            • That’s the result of some nice Bordeaux and a couple pigoulet..

      • So, everybody who listens to Rush and O’Reilly and Savage are haters. Gee, I guess that means all those rumors about a racist hateful anti-Semitic America must be true…. because all those people listening are haters. Do you find anything wrong with this logic?

        One must always ask the question why these folks have the numbers they do. I don’t think it’s because the listeners are haters. Everytime (always) I disagree with you Chris, I am not being a hater. I just think that my positions make more sense in the real world than yours do.

        • Chris Devine says:

          That’s quite a jump to say that because I accuse Limbaugh and friends of hateful speech that I accuse all their listeners of being hateful. I imagine the reason people listen to them is because they somehow makes them feel better. Limbaugh and his colleagues have been very successful at taking a caricature of liberal behavior and blaming everything that is wrong with this country on those who supposedly fit that caricature.

          But, I’d say a significant portion of their listeners like it when he relies on stereotypes (whether they are racist, sexist, or any other stereotype). Even if they won’t admit it.

          So why do you think they have such large audiences?

          • Again, with such a big audience I guess people must agree with him. If they agree then they must be racists or sexists according to your logic. Why else would so many be listening to them?

            • Chris Devine says:

              I want to hear your reasons, not your opinions about mine. I’ll tell you isn’t listening: feminazis.

              • And you are the guy who says you like your humor edgy. The people who are listening, in my humble opinion, are the ones who find him spot on in pointing out absurdity and those who find him funny. Rush exaggerates, that I think, according to you, is the basis of humor. Mr Limbaugh is among other things a humorist which Websters defines as a person being witty, whimsical or otherwise humorous.

                Outside of his desire to make liberals or progressives always look stupid, he comes from the same tradition as Will Rogers.

                You would disagree based on the fact that it is your ox getting gored 95% of the time. I agree because I watched what the left tried to do to Bill Buckley throughout the 1960’s.

                Feminazis are funny as hell, I worked for one. They tend to blather and take themselves way too serious.

                If you don’t like my answer, then you could just go back to calling me a sexist/racist which is probably what you really think any way.

                Back to O’Reilly. He shouts folks down? I have never seen him cut a Mike off and have seen him throw only one person off the air, a 9/11 denier. There have been times he has gotten as good as he gives which anyone who regularly watches or listened to the radio show has seen and heard.

              • Chris Devine says:


          • I’ve asked b4, I don’t have the time or energy to find out, but I think that the statistics for Limbaugh and the fox commentary vs a vi the MSM plus CNN. MSNBC etc is minuscule.

  26. As an aside; why is no one talking about the 134 billion dollars in bonds that the 2 Japanese dudes were trying to sneak into Switzerland? Is it for some reason unimportant? Why is no one reporting anything about it?

    • Sorry. For some reason my computer keeps changing my name.

    • USWeapon says:

      Apparently the bonds were fake. We were talking about it on open mic on Tuesday

      • Sorry. Since I’ve been on Summer Vacation I’m having a hard time getting here. I have nothing at home but dial-up.

        On a related note though, I would like to apologize to you USW for blowing up at Chris the other day. Calling me no better than the 9\11 terrorists got under my skin pretty bad.

        I apologize to you for blowing up on your site. I do not however apologize to him. I meant what I said to him.

        • Chris Devine says:

          I’m sorry if you misunderstood my comment. I didn’t mean to imply that you were a terrorist. I was trying to say that the inability to differentiate between the actions of a government and those of its citizens is what justified the attacks in the terrorists’ minds.

    • Today, 12:39 AM
      by Karl Denninger
      The Market Ticker

      The Bond Saga: It Gets More Odd

      Well, just when you thought that the Bearer Bond story was finished, it gets twisted yet again.

      Remember, this was the claim:

      “They’re clearly fakes,” said Stephen Meyerhardt, a spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of the Public Debt in Washington.

      Uh, Bloomberg….. how about an accurate quote?

      “Based on the photograph we’ve seen online, they are clearly fake. And not even good fakes,” said Stephen Meyerhardt, a spokesman for the Treasury’s Bureau of the Public Debt.

      Online? You mean that the Treasury Department hasn’t been sent a high-resolution digital photo of what was seized? A week after the fact?

      I don’t believe you Stephen.

      In the last two years, Italian authorities have seized some $800 million of U.S. bonds in the Como area in northern Italy.

      Those would be real bonds, I assume? But I thought Stephen said….

      He added that there is only $105 million in Treasury bearer bond securities outstanding, so the $134 billion amount seized far exceeds the universe of outstanding securites.

      Wait a second…… $800 million in real bonds have been seized, but there are only $105 million outstanding? There may be some confusion here as to whether all these bonds are “bearer” instruments or not, but even if not, a registered paper bond is worthless if stolen, as its purchaser is known and before anyone is going to redeem it for you they’re going to verify not only its authenticity but that you’re the rightful owner.

      Another U.S. official said the seized bonds were purported to be issued during the Kennedy administration in the early 1960s, but the certificates showed a picture of a space shuttle on it — a spacecraft that first flew in 1981. Some of the bonds were purportedly issued in a $500 billion denomination that never existed.

      If there’s a picture of a shuttle on the bond with an issue during the Kennedy Administration, its definitely fake of course. But… where are the actual pictures of these seized bonds?

      And are they still seized? That’s an even better question; there appear to be (at least) two different stories there too:

      Under Italian law when law enforcement agencies seize fake bonds or counterfeit money they are under the obligation to arrest the bearers. And in order to avoid misappropriation, the agency seizing the material, in this case the financial police, must quickly proceed to its destruction (i.e. incineration).

      However, in case of real securities, after the securities holders are identified, the financial police must release them immediately after issuing a statement of confiscation and imposing a fine valued in this case at € 38 billion (US$ 53.4 billion). In this case, why were the two men released right away without any fine imposed?

      It doesn’t end there:

      If what Meyerhardt says is true, some major financial institutions have been deceived by the securities carried by the two Asian men. This would be a bombshell and raise serious questions as to how many bank assets are actually made up of securities that for Meyerhardt are “clearly fakes.”

      If counterfeit securities of such high quality are in circulation the world’s monetary system, let alone that of the United States, is in danger. International trade and exchanges could come to a halt.

      Hmmmm… sensationalist conclusion without foundation? Maybe.

      Now for the somewhat-tin side of things – or maybe, a LOT of tin. Warning – this “source” isn’t someone I’d trust to bring me a cup of coffee. Read and believe at your own risk:

      (Turner Radio Network) — Two Japanese men arrested by Italian Police while trying to smuggle $134 Billion in U.S. Treasury Bonds concealed in suitcases, out of Italy into Switzerland, are employees of the Finance Ministry of Japan.

      Turner Radio Network has now confirmed the two men arrested by Italy were trying to secretly dump Bonds that were previously held by the nation of Japan. The men arrested have told Italian police they were ordered to move the Bonds by the government of Japan because the Japanese government has lost faith in the ability of the U.S. government to repay its debts.

      And attached to this post are a few pictures and a Youtube link, all but one of which I’ve seen before. The close-up I have not, but unfortunately the detail is insufficient for me to do anything more than observe that it looks rather odd compared to what I’ve seen as specimens, and does NOT match the apparent paper on the table picture. Heh, whatever. IMHO Turner has nothing and may have been fed a bunch of garbage (which he immediate regurgitated); certainly his “pictures” and “video” are NOT a scoop.

      It gets even more strange (back from the tin brigade – I think?) – this time with a claim that the mafia (yes, the real one over in Sicily) is involved, and the bonds are fake:

      Whether the men are really Japanese, as their passports declare, is unclear but Italian and US secret services working together soon concluded that the bills and accompanying bank documents were most probably counterfeit, the latest handiwork of the Italian Mafia.


      The mystery deepened on Thursday as an Italian blog quoted Colonel Rodolfo Mecarelli of the Como provincial finance police as saying the two men had been released. The colonel and police headquarters in Rome both declined to respond to questions from the Financial Times.


      So let’s see if we can try to sort out what we’re “learning”:

      The bonds are declared fake by the Treasury, stating that there’s only $100 million outstanding and obviously $134 billion have to be fake.
      Italy claims to have seized $800 million in real US Bonds in the last year.
      The last legitimate issue of paper US Treasuries (that is publicly admitted to) was in the early 1980s when bearer instruments were outlawed. All are now stated to be electronic (just a serial number and amount.)
      The two gentlemen are allegedly Japanese, and there are various stories about who they really are – from notorious counterfeiters who have served hard time for previous offenses to Japanese finance officials. Most notably, there has been no public statement from Italy about these gentlemen’s actual identities.
      It appears from all reports that these two were detained but not arrested, with some reports that they were not only released but took the allegedly-fake instruments with them, even though Italian law precludes both your release and return of your fake instruments if you are caught with fake securities or currency.

      This is stuff out of a Tom Clancy novel, and the longer it goes on and the more twisted the “explanations”, the less sense it makes.

      I find it incomprehensible that the Italian government released these two if they were actually caught in a massive counterfeiting operation with $134 billion in fake US Securities.

      I find it equally incomprehensible that there was not an immediate indictment out of a US Prosecutor coming from such an event and a demand for extradition back to the United States.

      And further, I find it equally incomprehensible that if the securities are in fact real, and Treasury is lying, that Italy would not impose the fine.

      Only the latter scenario, however, covers what apparently has happened – the two “couriers”, whoever they are, have been released and, according to some accounts, they took the allegedly “fake” instruments with them, and there has been no US indictment issued for counterfeiting the instruments.

      Uh, can we have some truth here folks, because none of what is being reported adds up and my BS detector is ringing off the hook.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        This is what I was Talking about above. Why is no one reporting anything. This little scenario makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.

        Fake or not, the best the US can do is look at internet pics of 134 BILLION DOLLARS is securities?

        So our Government can spend $300K to take picures of Air Force One over the Statue of Liberty, but they can’t buy a plane ticket to go see these fake bonds? Give me a serious break here!

  27. Anyone out there who has ever worked in government at the level where you make any decisions can probably tell a story or two or three for that matter of when they were told that they would be seeing a contract awarded to a person or group whom they knew should not get it. They then made this known and were told to shut up and get with the program.

    The fun part comes later. The awardee, at some point will be operating under a different administration. Then, if you are still there, you can make their life interesting.

    Please note, this only works if you are Civil Service, provisionals will be fired at the first hint of disloyalty.

  28. Ot OT OT

  29. ooops OT OT

    I don’t know about everyone else, but doesn’t anyone know wordpress configuration so that you can advise USW how to adjust the format of comments to not use up so much space shifting to the right on each response? It has to be a default figure – if it only shifts a character or two, it would be grand. There are many posts that for some reason I just can’t read when they get too long on the right with only a word or two in length. Thanks

%d bloggers like this: