@Mark L Harvey (aka Snooper): @Hawk:
Next thing you know they will call us terrorists for thinking The Constitution means something.

OOOps they already did

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Aye Chihuahua:

Wish whoever signs the permission slips would talk me into going somewhere else, where there is no clean up after guests, no laundering gazillions of sheets and towels, no weeds and the mulch is already spread. Thanks for the nice side note!

Eye witness to the meeting:

“By all accounts, the May 20 meeting was contentious. It was then that Mr. Walpin chastised the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service for failing to exercise enough oversight over AmeriCorps grants. Our witness, a staff member, said the board was hostile and rude. He said the board repeatedly interrupted Mr. Walpin and peppered him with questions on multiple issues. He fully confirmed Mr. Walpin’s account that the board excused Mr. Walpin for 15 minutes and that when Mr. Walpin returned to find his notepapers out of order, the board refused to give him time to get them straight.

Mr. Walpin says he had been working around the clock and was becoming ill at the meeting. Still, any confusion, the witness said, stemmed at least as much from the board’s hectoring behavior as from Mr. Walpin’s own doing. Either way, a charge that “disorientation” is enough to “question” an independent official’s “capacity to serve” should rest on more than one incident. Nobody has claimed that Mr. Walpin has shown any confusion, not the slightest bit, before or since that meeting. ”

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/18/a-witness-to-walpin-gate/?feat=home_editorials

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Hawk…I do believe that I have told you many times to stop using facts and history. The Leftinistra do not appreciate it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Wait. Let me get this straight.
Bush fired attorneys that served at ‘his pleasure’ (12 if I recall) and the left went ape over it. (Clinton fired all but 1 if memory serves me). The left decried it and demanded Bush’s resignation, impeachment and everything else under the sun.

Obama clearly breaks the law that HE voted FOR (maybe he was for it before he will be against it *grin*) and not a peep from the hypocrites democraps?

Imagine my surprise!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Obama fired an IG. Stop. Obama violated the law. Stop. The law Obama violated is the same law he voted for. Stop. There can be no mistake about the fact that Obama did in fact break the law. Stop. The law he broke was a federal law. Stop. The Constitution is clear. Stop.

Article II, Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Stop.

The key words are “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Stop.

End of discussion. Stop.

Message ends.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Missy:

And Biden too.

In fact, Mr. Walpin made that point himself in his Fox interview today:

“I would never say President Obama doesn’t have the capacity to continue to serve because of his (statement) that there are 56 states,” Walpin said, adding that the same holds for Vice President Biden and his “many express confusions that have been highlighted by the media.” Obama mistakenly said once on the campaign trail that he had traveled to 57 states.

Heh.

As a side note Missy….I am not sure who keeps signing your permission slip to be away from here but I don’t like it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Aye Chihuahua:

They could just as well say that about Obama without his teleprompter.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

My post is in the hopper, P&T.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Buckeye:

I totally agree with your analysis. Another point, I’ve been in Missouri off and on for over a month northwest of the KC area. McCaskill is taking heat for the obsessive Obama cheerleading, thus, she kills two birds with one stone. She’s smart and just as devious.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

That McCaskill is a key Obama ally just makes me skeptical about her intentions. She might be useful to the Obama administration as a faux stalking pony. McCaskill also acted like she was really concered about Chrsyler dealergate, except that the most important question – what criteria were used and how were they applied? – was allowed to be ignored. Her “concerns” about an issue contribute to the appearance of bipartisan accountability even as the substance is left unexposed.

Just like in the dealergate case, regarding this IG matter McCaskill is stressing the need to address PROCEDURAL issues rather than the need to investigate any underlying CORRUPTION. She complains that Obama “failed to follow procedure” and he’s hoping that he’ll “provide a more substantive rationale” for the firing. Well, Obama now claims that the man is senile, as the 30 day clock ticks (never mind that they tried to intimidate Walpin into resigning at first). Poof, rationale offered = problem fixed! Obama listens to criticisms from his own party, proof yet again of his belief in open, accoutable government.

McCaskill is like a honorable golfer calling penatly shots (or infractions) on her own leadership. Do we believe that?

Like or Dislike: 0  0