When Barack Obama fired Gerald Walpin he thought that it was going to be business as usual. He thought that he could just do whatever the hell he wanted to and nobody would question him, but the Gerald Walpin story is not going away.

  Barack Obama fired Gerald Walpin because he had uncovered corruption in one of Obama favorite organizations– AmeriCorps. This organization was also being run by one of Barack Obama’s friends and donor– former NBA star and current mayor of Sacramento Kevin Johnson. He fired him for clearly political reasons. Gerald Walpin was doing his job but when that job found that a Barack Obama friend and donor  was corrupt Obama decided to punish the messenger instead of the criminal.

  Barack Obama fired Gerald Walpin without the proper 30 day notice required under the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008– a bill that he was a co-sponsor of as senator. He also did not give a detailed reason to congress about the firing– also required by law. He basically said he fired Gerald Walpin for being a senile old man.

  Yesterday a congressional report was released that confirms Barack Obama may  used his position as president to help a political ally when he fired Gerald Walpin. These charges must be examined, there must be an investigation. Surely if the president has done nothing wrong he will welcome an investigation to clear his name.

  Gerald Walpin has asked for a congressional hearing on his firing and hopefully this congressional report will be the first step towards providing justice for Gerald Walpin.

  In a move that proves Walpin was right, AmeriCorp is in the process of paying back SOME of the money that he uncovered had been misused. But Walpin is still without his job and AmeriCorps is still not on the hook for the whole amount and nobody has been held accountable for the corruption–other that Gerald Walpin.

  The more the global warming alarmists speak, the more irrelevant they become. By attributing every catastrophe under the sun to global warming they have marginalized their effectiveness. So much so that I haven’t even bothered to write about some of their more ludicrous, asinine, and outrageous claims. But along came this story, it is so asinine that I just can’t help but write about it.

  According to the story, global warming is going to turn women into prostitutes. Women of the Philippines and other poor countries will be forced into prostitution because the rising seas will destroy the farmland, so women will have to find work elsewhere, many will turn to prostitution.

  In an effort to convince the world that the effects of global warming are far reaching and that the very existence of mankind is in jeopardy the global warming alarmists have over-played their hand. They are now bordering on insane.

  There were many people out there who were still undecided about the effects of global warming, but with the claims of the alarmists getting more and more outrageous they are actually driving undecided people away from the movement. The alarmists just don’t know when to shut up.

  The global warming alarmists feel that the more disasters and calamities that they pin on global warming the more people they will win over to their movement, but recent polls how us just the opposite. Global warming skepticism is growing and the alarmists have nobody to blame but themselves.

  The alarmists have pushed the envelope too far and have driven people away from their movement. More and more people are beginning to realize that the alarmists are nothing more than a bunch of fear mongers.

    I started writing this post before it was known that Mary Landrieu had accepted a $100 million bribe for her vote on healthcare reform. While it now seems pointless to fight this legislation anymore because the end result will be passage no matter how much bribe money Harry Reid has to offer I have decided to post in anyway.

  The one and only victory that conservatives can claim in the battle over the healthcare reform bill that came out of the House of non-Representatives was on the issue of federal funds being used for abortions. Other than that victory the battle was a complete failure and now Harry Reid is attempting to take that one victory away from conservatives.

  The senate version of the bill has language in it that will provide federal money for abortions. So much for trying to work in a bipartisan manner. The senate version of the bill states that at least one public option must contain federal subsidies for abortions.

The relevant language says: “The Secretary shall assure that with respect to qualified health plans offered in any Exchange established pursuant to this title—(I) there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B); and (II) there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).”

The clause “(i)” of “subparagraph (B)” referred to in this passage defines those types of abortions currently banned from receiving federal funding under the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment bans federal funding for all abortions except those done in cases of rape, incest and a threat to the life of the mother. So, the language of Sen. Reid’s health care bill mandates that at least one health insurance plan available to people buying health insurance with federal subsidies cover those abortions that are currently prohibited from receiving federal funding under the Hyde Amendment.

  But the news doesn’t get any better when you read that under the senate version of the bill anybody who enrolls in a government run plan– which will be the only option once the government completes the total takeover of the healthcare industry– will be required to pay a monthly abortion fee to subsidize abortions.

  This means that people who are opposed to abortion will be forced to pay for the abortions of others. For some reason the senate and the House find it meaningful that all Americans have to fund abortions, I am not sure why the healthcare reform bill took on this issue in the first place but it seems evident that they are adamant that abortions should be federally funded.

  While, under the senate version of this bill, elective surgery such as Botox will be taxable it seems to me that elective surgery such as abortions should also be taxed. Let the people who get abortions pay a tax on the abortions. But instead, the people who want the abortions will get them for free while many people who oppose abortion will have to pay for them.

  Is it just me or is this a major contradiction?