Blog for New Hampshire

Provided by WorldNetDaily.com

Former Inspector General Gerald Walpin
An updated investigation report on the scandal known as “Walpingate” adds fuel to the suspicion that President Obama may have fired Gerald Walpin, an independent inspector general, as an illegal act of political cronyism and revenge.

“Throughout our investigation of Mr. Walpin’s removal, the White House has repeatedly communicated that the president was not motivated by inappropriate political reasons,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., one of the authors of the updated report. “The fact is Gerald Walpin led an aggressive investigation of a political ally of President Obama that successfully recovered taxpayer dollars. While firing an investigator who uncovered the abuse of funds by a political ally might be considered an act of ‘political courage’ in Chicago politics, for most Americans it raises troubling questions.” Read more

Would you speak with the Chief of Staff, your Chief Economics Adviser, and your Senior Adviser with your feet up on the Resolute Desk – a gift from Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880?

We should inundate the White House with emails demanding he keep his feet off of our furniture.

This arrogant, immature & self-centered man has no sense of honor, or of simple decency.

While this posture is disrespectful in any culture, it is absolutely never done in any executive setting.

Further, in over half of the cultures of the world, it is recognized not only as disrespectful, but as an extreme insult.

From a friend in Salina:

“I took the ‘Oath’ to defend the Constitution of the United States from ALL
ENEMIES, foreign and DOMESTIC, 1st, not to the President of the United States.

“UNTIL IT IS DETERMINED BY A FEDERAL COURT, preferably the U.S. Supreme
Court, I do not consider Barrack Hussein Obama, the President of the United
States nor the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military.

“From what I have seen, Obama is NOT a natural born. Place of birth does not
matter. He was born to a British Subject, and by British Law, is a British Subject/
Citizen, no matter where he was born. By US Law, his mother was a few months short of

giving him US Citizenship.

“His second father made him a Citizen of Indonesia, and that is what
is shown on Obama’s Indonesia School registration, religion – Islam. When he went
to Pakistan in the 1980’s, he could not have traveled on a US Passport, because
Pakistan was a NO TRAVEL area for US Citizens. Therefore, he traveled on a British or
Indonesian Passport.

“I want to KNOW WHEN he became a US Citizen?? He can not be a natural US Citizen !!

“If he is an ILLEGAL ALIEN, the Joint Chiefs ARE committing treason !!

“THIS IS A CRITICAL QUESTION, which needs to be answered !!

“Kris Koback agrees that Obama was not certified correctly by the DNC to be on
the Kansas 2008 Presidential Ballot. The Kansas law is to be MODIFIED after the 2010
Election, to correct the problem. As KS Secretary of State, I asked Kris Koback
if he would have put Obama on the 2008 Presidential Ballot, and it was my
understanding that he would not have.”

This issue MUST BE the “litmus test” for any candidate in any race anywhere in the country. The “sovereign citizens” DEMAND the truth from our servant government.

Ladies & Gentlemen, this is the singular most important issue of our time! This is no dress rehearsal!! Its time to decide on which side of the line you’re going to stand on.
As my friend from Salina indicates, he’s been in contact with our secretary of state, with any luck he may “review” the filings of the DNC and “decertify” Obama’s 2008 placement on the Kansas ballots. If any other state follows suit, this will FORCE the SCOTUS to hear, and rule on the case once and for all.
–
Rhonda Lee Welsch- 386-690-7814

http://www.bikeweekfreedomrally.com

http://fr2010.blogspot.com

http://americanlibertyriders.ning.com/video/daytona-bike-week-freedom

http://www.illinoisblogspot.com/profile/rhondaleewelsch

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/09/if-we-do-nothing

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/04/can-you-hear-us-now

The folowing article is from the Union Leader Online….

CONCORD – Democrats in the House and Senate voted yesterday to bar firearms and other deadly or dangerous weapons from the State House and two other buildings.

A special committee that oversees legislative facilities voted to reinstate a gun ban that had been in effect from 1996 to 2006. The new ban includes the Legislative Office Building, the nearby Upham Walker House and a connecting tunnel.

Republicans complained that the new policy was introduced at the last minute and gave them no opportunity to study it for flaws.

Guns at the State House became a concern last year when a number of armed individuals stood and shouted at lawmakers from the House gallery during debate and votes on state’s rights issues.

The new policy states that no one except law enforcement officers “shall carry a firearm or other dangerous or deadly weapon or an explosive, open or concealed,” in the buildings and tunnels. Armed law enforcement officers must produce “sufficient identification” if security staff request it.

Senate President Sylvia Larsen, D-Concord, said a Republican no-weapons policy that was in place for a decade was revoked under Senate President Ted Gatsas in 2006. The reason given for the change at the time was that the policy did not adequately define the “State House complex” from which weapons were barred, Larsen said. The new policy specifically defines buildings and areas it covers.

“We are not recommending and have no intent to put in metal detectors, but we do want to see a return to civility where civil discourse occurs in this building,” she said. “That was the rule during 10 years of Republican control.”

Speaker of the House Terie Norelli, D-Portsmouth, said in a statement, “For many years deadly weapons were not allowed in the State House … As elected leaders, we have a responsibility to protect citizens who come to witness the democratic process first hand.”

The vote left in place a rule that says a person can leave the buildings rather than submit to a security screening.

Senate minority leader Peter Bragdon, R-Milford, said the proposal came up at a morning meeting yesterday with no notice. He said it’s not clear what an elected official is supposed to do if they arrive in Concord with a weapon. There is no provision for storage on-site, he said.

“Rushing things like this through at the last minute, whether they are a good idea or not, leads to mistakes,” he said. My biggest complaint is about the process … This is really an issue of transparency, which Democrats said they would take seriously.”

Larsen recalled the disruption in the House last year, saying, “Many House members felt they’d be more secure if we had the policy back in place.”

Gun owners began calling yesterday to complain, he said.

Sen. Sharon Carson, R-Londonderry, said the new rule leaves her feeling vulnerable. She argued the ban goes beyond guns and knives, and would apply to pepper spray or mace.

“Many of us are here late at night after security has gone home. It sounds like now we will not be able to have anything to protect ourselves,” she said.

Four Democrats have proposed a bill, HB 1654 that would make it a felony to carry firearms or deadly weapons into the State House or adjacent office building.