Rule of law? No thanks, maybe later.

[Cuba]

Obama has illegally fired an inspector general who was successfully investigating a strong Obama supporter for fraud and misuse of federal grant money. The man in question, Kevin Johnson, is a mayor and has agreed to pay back $400,000 of the $850,000 in federal grants awarded through Americorps. Misuse of these funds included personal purchases, services, and illegal political donations and activities.

Interesting that Obama fired him without cause, and without the required 30 days notice. It is ILLEGAL to fired an IG without citing the specific reasons as well as providing at least 30 days notice. I find this interesting because a) the fact that Mr. Johnson settled out of court for $400,000 strongly implies that this particular IG was doing his job effectively (i.e. protecting OUR tax dollars from fraud and misuse), but also because b) the LAW making such an action ILLEGAL was designed to eliminate the firing of IG's for political reasons and was cosigned in 2007 by... BARACK OBAMA.

Do as I say, ignore what I do.

I ask again to all the Obama supporters: How far is too far? Is there any hypocracy, any blatant lie, any destruction of law or elimination of your own personal rights by this man that will cause you to question him? Please draw the line in the sand so we can better understand what you were thinking.

 

[dark_isz]

That's a very brief summary of a long, complicated series of events. Here is a much more thorough account of the events surrounding the suspension of Gerald Walpin.

Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
President Obama Fires Controversial Inspector General
June 12, 2009 1:49 PM

With little public notice, President Obama Thursday fired the Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service, Gerald Walpin.

Saying he was “exercising my power as president,” Mr. Obama suspended Walpin with pay, saying his termination would be “effective 30 days from now.”

The president wrote that “it is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General. That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector general.”

The decision was announced, such as it was, in letters the president wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Vice President Joe Biden in his role as president of the Senate.

White House counsel Greg Craig, responding to a letter of concern about Walpin’s termination from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, noted that the “Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, a career prosecutor who was appointed to his post during the Bush Administration, has referred Mr. Walpin’s conduct for review by the Integrity Committee of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.”

Craig said that the White House was “aware of the circumstances leading to that referral and of Mr. Walpin’s conduct throughout his tenure and can assure you that that the president’s decision was carefully considered.” He noted that Walpin’s termination “is fully supported by the Chair of the Corporation (a Democrat) and the Vice-Chair (a Republican).”

Exactly what conduct issues necessitated review was unclear; the White House and the office of the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California would not comment.

A source familiar with the president’s thinking told ABC News that “Mr. Walpin’s overall conduct in a variety of circumstances -- well beyond the scope of the Assistant U.S. Attorney’s referral -- led the president to conclude that Mr. Walpin should be replaced by someone who could effectively provide the kind of independent oversight that the president values.”

Walpin had been criticized for the way he handled an investigation into Kevin Johnson, former point guard of the Phoenix Suns, who was elected Mayor of Sacramento last November and is an ally of the president’s.

Johnson helped found a community group called St. HOPE Academy, and Walpin investigated how $847,673 in grant funds from AmeriCorps, a division of the Corporation for National and Community Service, were used by St. HOPE.

The funds were approved for St. HOPE to manage one-on-one tutoring for elementary and high school students; managing the redevelopment of one building a year in the Oak Park neighborhood; and for work surrounding Guild Theater and Art Gallery events.

The goals were to improve the reading and math for 100 elementary and high school students, to stimulate economic growth in Oak Park, to increase local arts programming and to recruit and train 500 volunteers to complete 10,000 hours of service.

But in the thick of Johnson’s mayoral run last September, Walpin announced that Johnson, St. HOPE Academy, and former St. HOPE executive director Dana Gonzalez, were suspended from participating in federal contracts or grants until the investigation was complete.

Walpin said in a statement at the time that his initial report "cited numerous potential criminal and grant violations, including diversion of federal grant funds, misuse of AmeriCorps members and false claims made against a taxpayer-supported Federal agency."

The Inspector General investigated whether any of the AmeriCorps funds had been diverted and misused, among them: that AmeriCorps members had been used to recruit students for St. HOPE Academy, for non-AmeriCorps clerical and other services, and for political activities in connection with the Sacramento Board of Education election. AmeriCorps members performed services “personally benefiting… Johnson,” such as “driving [him] to personal appointments, washing [his] car, and running personal errands.”

Grant-funded AmeriCorps members were taken “to New York to promote the expansion of St. HOPE operations in Harlem,” Walpin charged.

"When you instead take the AmeriCorps members to New York for a purpose not within the grant, you are misusing the members and diverting the funds from the purposes intended," Walpin told The New York Sun’s Josh Gerstein.

Johnson called the announcement “politically motivated.” His campaign pointed out that in 2005 Walpin introduced Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at an event in Washington, DC, as the governor of a state run by the "modern-day KKK ... the Kennedy-Kerry Klan."

Johnson’s campaign issued a statement saying, "we have said all along that there may have been administrative errors, much like the hundreds of other small nonprofits that have been investigated in the past. We are confident that the U.S. Attorney will decide not to proceed when it conducts a nonpolitical review of the allegations."

Johnson’s attorney Bill Portanova told reporters that “volunteer organizations are staffed by people with good hearts and intentions and, as a rule, are not accountants by trade.”

Johnson in November won the mayoral race, defeating the incumbent.

In spring of this year, questions began being asked about whether Mayor Johnson could receive stimulus dollars given his suspension from being able to received federal grants.

Johnson's lawyer, Matthew G. Jacobs, wrote to AmeriCorps asking for Mayor Johnson’s suspension to be lifted. ''The idea that somehow these regulations were supposed to apply to a private individual or bar an entire public entity or the Sacramento region on the basis of the private activities of an individual who just happened to become mayor strains credulity,'' Jacobs wrote.

In April of this year, the new Acting Attorney General, Lawrence Brown, settled the case, requiring St. HOPE Academy to pay $423,836.50 -- $72,836.50 of which would be paid personally by Mayor Johnson. Walpin complained that he had not been consulted on the settlement.

“The agreement reached strikes a proper balance between accountability and finality,” Brown said in a statement. “St. HOPE Academy must pay a significant amount for its improper handling of AmeriCorps funds. The lifting of the suspension against all parties, including Mayor Johnson, removes any cloud whether the City of Sacramento will be prevented from receiving much-needed federal stimulus funds.”

The settlement included St. HOPE formally acknowledging that it did not adequately document a portion of its expenditures of the grant awards. In addition Johnson and Gonzalez were to register to take an online course offered by Management Concepts titled “Cost Principles.”

On May 6, Walpin expressed disagreement with the decision to settle.

“The only circumstance that changed was the sudden media and political pressure to settle the matter monetarily and lift the suspension,” Walpin wrote. “These pressures had the desired effect.”

Walpin charged that AmeriCorps made a “180-degree turnaround” on the circumstances in the case “based on the change of circumstances of Respondent Johnson, who had, after directing St. HOPE’s misuse of the grant funds provided to it and receiving the suspension notice, become Mayor of Sacramento. The suspension was lifted because, as one Corporation official put it, the Corporation could not ‘stand in the way of Sacramento’ -- thereby effectively stating that, while Respondent Johnson was not sufficiently responsible to receive further Federal funds in his management position as a grantee, he suddenly became sufficiently responsible when elected Mayor of a city receiving substantially more federal funds…”

Walpin said this was “akin to deciding that, while one should not put a fox in a small chicken coop, it is fine to do so in a large chicken coop!”

Walpin charged that the settlement “(s)ends the signal that acceptance of a grantee or its principal as 'responsible' can be purchased in a monetary settlement, overriding all evidence of wrongdoing previously found to warrant a suspension, without the presentation of any contradicting evidence."

He said arguments that the settlement is in the government's interest "is an attempt to pull the wool over the public's eyes.”

Yesterday, Walpin was told to clear out his desk immediately.

Grassley said Walpin needed to be given 30-days notice, which he said is required by the 2008 Inspector General Reform Act that President Bush signed into law and then-Sen. Obama co-sponsored.

Specifically, Section 3 of the law requires that, “the president shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.”

“No such notice was provided to Congress in this instance,” Grassley wrote in a letter to the president.

“Given that you were a cosponsor of this vital legislation I am deeply troubled to learn of the ultimatum given Inspector General Walpin absent Congressional notification,” Grassley wrote.

Grassley wrote that the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency had not produced any negative findings against Walpin, and “he has identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds either wasted outright or spent in violation of established guidelines. In other words, it appears he has been doing his job.”

Noting recent “massive increases in federal spending of late,” Grassley said that “it is more critical than ever that we have an Inspector General community that is vigorous, independent, and active in rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. I urge you to review the Inspector General Reform Act you cosponsored and to follow the letter of the law should you have cause to remove any Inspector General.”

Craig disagreed, saying that Walpin’s termination -- being suspended for 30 days with pay -- was “fully consistent with the Inspector General Act.”

-- jpt

 

[Cuba]

Thank you for the update, as of last week this was NOT the case. It was an immediate firing without cause, followed by backpedalling by the administration, followed by the situation you posted. Here it is in your quote:

Yesterday, Walpin was told to clear out his desk immediately.

Grassley said Walpin needed to be given 30-days notice, which he said is required by the 2008 Inspector General Reform Act that President Bush signed into law and then-Sen. Obama co-sponsored.

Specifically, Section 3 of the law requires that, “the president shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.”

“No such notice was provided to Congress in this instance,” Grassley wrote in a letter to the president.

So what is your take on this? A man guilty of misuse of funds, over $400K, and of that over $70K was his personal gain, is having the entire issue resolved by paying it back? No investigation? So that he can quickly get access to millions more in "stimulus" dollars? And the guy that caught him is being removed for reasons that remain totally unclear? As your reference put it:

Exactly what conduct issues necessitated review was unclear; the White House and the office of the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California would not comment.

That seems pretty suspect doesn't it? He did his job, it was a friend of Obama guilty of fraud, so he gets fired for not covering up the crime?

 

[dark_isz]

That seems pretty suspect doesn't it? He did his job, it was a friend of Obama guilty of fraud, so he gets fired for not covering up the crime?

As the article states, he was suspended because President Obama did not have faith in his ability to do his assigned job.

in 2005 Walpin introduced Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at an event in Washington, DC, as the governor of a state run by the "modern-day KKK ... the Kennedy-Kerry Klan."

I would lose faith in any public servant that thinks it's acceptable to reference the KKK as a joke.

 

[Cuba]

So since he made a reference to the KKK 4 years ago he must be fired? Obama made a reference desparaging retarded people not long ago, should he be fired for it? Or is it only racist comments that matter? Like saying Latinas are better decision makers than white men? Just what is your point?

WHY doesn't Obama believe he can do his job, when he just found over $400K in fraud that is being returned to government coffers? He doesn't say why he isn't confident, why is that?

So you believe this isn't strange? You don't see ANY conflict of interest?

 

[wrightme43]

Obama can do no wrong. No matter what its ok. The only really good thing he has done so far is drive guns, CCDW lic. and ammo sales thru the roof. People vote with thier dollars. If huge number of non gun owners/non CCDW holders feel the need to arm themselves to protect themselves from a popular leader wouldnt you think that says something??

Just the fact that any comment asking to see a copy of his actual certificate of live birth are laughed away while millions of dollars have been spent fighting lawsuits requesting it is of ZERO intrest to his pravda news corps. He is the liberal Messiah. They have less than two years of control in the house and senate. Less than 4 in the White House.

 

[dark_isz]

Obama can do no wrong. No matter what its ok. The only really good thing he has done so far is drive guns, CCDW lic. and ammo sales thru the roof. People vote with thier dollars. If huge number of non gun owners/non CCDW holders feel the need to arm themselves to protect themselves from a popular leader wouldnt you think that says something??

I think it does say something, but not about wanting to "protect themselves". It says something about what happens when you live you life enclosed in a world of perpetual fear and hate generated by right-wing extremists.

(Pennsylvania Cop Killer) Poplawski frequented right-wing Web sites


Abortion Doctor Gunned Down at Kansas Church, Suspect in Custody


Holocaust Museum Shooting Suspect Had Been Growing More Hateful and Desperate

It is a very sad time for our great country when Americans kill other Americans because of their fear of each other. Aren't we supposed to be tolerant of others? Shouldn't we be proud to live in a country where we are all free to have our own opinions and beliefs?

Just the fact that any comment asking to see a copy of his actual certificate of live birth are laughed away while millions of dollars have been spent fighting lawsuits requesting it is of ZERO intrest to his pravda news corps. He is the liberal Messiah. They have less than two years of control in the house and senate. Less than 4 in the White House.

You mean the birth certificate pictured here?

Photo

Here is the article on factcheck.org

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.

and snopes.com

snopes.com: Barack Obama Birth Certificate

Neither of those sites are "pravda news" sites, by the way.

 

[Cuba]

Back on track, here is today's update. Democrats are crying foul on this, as well as republicans. The reasons provided after the fact provide no references, dates, or specific instances, with no documentation, nothing other than a meeting on May 20th where it sounds like he was tired. Also, Michelle Obama has taken a strong interest in this and is beleived by some to have been involved in this illegal ousting of a long serving and successful IG that happens to be the watchdog for her beloved Americorps.


WASHINGTON -- Responding to criticism from a Senate Democratic ally, President Obama explained why he fired the Inspector General of the AmeriCorps without the 30-day notification required by law, calling Gerald Walpin so "confused" and "disoriented" that there was reason to question "his capacity to serve."

In a letter to the bipartisan leaders of the Senate Committee that oversees AmeriCorps, Obama listed these alleged defects in Walpin's leadership as an Inspector General.

Removed after unanimous request from the AmeriCorps board of directors
At May, 20, 2009, board meeting Walpin "was confused, disoriented and unable to answer questions and exhibited behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve."
The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California complained about Walpin's conduct to the IG oversight board and alleged he withheld exculpatory evidence.
Walpin had "been absent from the Corporation's headquarters, insisting upon working from his home in New York over the objection" of the board.
He "exhibited a lack of candor in providing material information to decision makers."
He "engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct."
He "had become unduly disruptive to agency operations, impairing his effectiveness."
The letter, authored by Norman Eisen, Special Counsel to the President for ethics, concluded: "It was for these reasons that Mr. Walpin was removed."

Hours before, Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat, criticized Obama for failing to specify why he fired Walpin.

"The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service," McCaskill said in a statement. "The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal. 'Loss of confidence' is not a sufficient reason. I'm hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible."

Obama voted for the legislation requiring specific notification to Congress of the reasons to dismiss an inspector general. Any move to fire an inspector general requires 30-days notice. Obama voted for the law to strengthen the independence of inspectors general.

Walpin led a 2008 investigation into allegations of misused taxpayer funds distributed by AmeriCorps to the St. HOPE Academy of Sacramento, founded in 1989 by Obama supporter and former NBA player Kevin Johnson. Walpin said Johnson, now mayor of Sacramento, misused roughly $850,000 in AmeriCorps funds. His referral to the U.S. Attorney's Office did not result in the filing of criminal charges. But St. HOPE officials agreed, via a settlement, to repay half of its AmeriCorps grants.

On Tuesday, Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican, sought all White House information Walpin's firing. That followed a request from Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, that AmeriCorps provide "any and all records, e-mail, memoranda, documents, communications, or other information" related to Walpin's firing. Issa and Grassley are minority members of congressional oversight panels.

Republicans also have asked what role, if any, First Lady Michelle Obama played in Walpin's firing. The White House denies she had any voice in Walpin's future with the agency.

Republicans began to question Michelle Obama's role after press reports indicated she was taking a strong interest in AmeriCorps activities and when her former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, became a "senior adviser" to the Corporation for National and Community Service, also known as AmeriCorps.


Also, as usual, my questions have gone unanswered. I suppose that means the worst.

 

[dark_isz]

It's obvious there is more to this story than the press has access to. So everything we, as lowly news readers, say about what really happened is pure speculation. As long as we are just speculating, this is my take.

His described behavior

"was confused, disoriented and unable to answer questions and exhibited behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve." and "been absent from the Corporation's headquarters, insisting upon working from his home in New York over the objection" of the board. He "engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct."

leads me to believe he may have a serious chemical dependancy or mental illness issue. Many times, a gentle approach is taken with folks suffering from these conditions, so as not to plaster their behavior all over the headlines. This explanation makes more sense, to me, than your speculation about the First Lady having anything to do with it.

I'm not saying I'm right, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying right now, we don't know what exactly what caused Obama to lose confidence in Mr. Walpin. Hopefully the demands to know the entire truth won't damage Mr. Walpin's reputation any worse.

I believe I have speculated enough about this particular incident. When, and if, the whole truth comes out, I may revisit this topic.

 

[Cuba]

Further update and response from the man himself:

The government watchdog President Obama canned for allegedly being "confused" and "disoriented" fired back sharply Wednesday, saying the White House explanation for removing him was "insufficient," "baseless" and "absolutely wild."

Gerald Walpin, who until last week was the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, told FOXNews.com that part of Obama's explanation was a "total lie" and that he feels he's got a target on his back for political reasons.

"I am now the target of the most powerful man in this country, with an army of aides whose major responsibility today seems to be to attack me and get rid of me," Walpin said.

Facing bipartisan criticism for the firing, Obama sought to allay congressional concerns with a letter to Senate leaders Tuesday evening explaining his decision. In the letter, White House Special Counsel Norman Eisen wrote that Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented" at a May board meeting, was "unduly disruptive," and exhibited a "lack of candor" in providing information to decision makers.

"That's a total lie," Walpin said of the latter charge. And he said the accusation that he was dazed and confused at one meeting out of many was not only false, but poor rationale for his ouster.

"It appears to suggest that I was removed because I was disabled -- based on one occasion out of hundreds," he said.

"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.

Walpin concluded that his firing stems from bad blood between him and the board, as well as with Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson -- an Obama supporter whom he had investigated for alleged misuse of federal funds. He said his performance at the May meeting drew criticism because he issued two reports critical of the board. In one, he criticized the settlement reached in the Johnson case; in the other, he criticized the use of millions of dollars for a program at the City University of New York.

"The board at that meeting was clearly angry at my temerity," he said.

The White House, in its rationale for giving Walpin the boot, also complained that Walpin was "absent" from the corporation's headquarters, "insisting" on working from home in New York over the "objections" of the board.

Walpin, though, said he reached an agreement with the agency early this year that would allow him to work from home. The former inspector general, who was appointed by George W. Bush, said he originally was going to resign before Obama took office because his wife of 52 years was not happy with their "commuting marriage" -- he was commuting weekly from New York to Washington. He notified Bush of his intention to leave, but said his staff convinced him to reconsider.

In the end, Walpin said he worked out an agreement with corporation leaders under which he would travel to Washington two or more times a week, and spend the rest of the time working from home in New York. He said some board members had initial reservations, but they were resolved.

"I never had a single objection" before reading Tuesday's letter from the White House, he said.

 

[Wavex]

Cuba > Obama


buahahahahaha

 

[Cuba]

Cuba > Obama


buahahahahaha

Well Obama certianly has shares some similarities with the style of government found in Cuba. Nationalized banking, healthcare, the power to seize privately owned financial institutions, setting salaries of private citizens, blaming others for the problems it has created, greatly expanding welfare systems that leave millions totally dependant on government handouts for survival, paying off political cronies with government cash, redistribution of private property to political cronies (Chrysler bondholders vs. the UAW), attacking opposing views as evil and subversive, a very strong propaganda arm, the need for control of every aspect of the economy, etc.- but don't worry it's not socialism!

 

[Cuba]

An update to the story bipartisan character reports, and calls that this man was fired for political reasons to cover up any further investigation into this missuse of funds:

Report: AmeriCorps Feared IG’s Push for Further Probe into Case Involving Obama Supporter - Political News - FOXNews.com

Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of officials -- including four former U.S. attorneys, three former federal judges, one former attorney general and a former counsel to President Clinton -- sent a letter to the Senate Wednesday defending the integrity and competence of Walpin.

Imagine if I fired an employee, whom I've never met or spoken to, that works hundreds of miles away, based on unsubstantiated claims that he/she was disoriented at one meeting... that I didn't attend. I would be sued for wrongful termination and I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Cuba]

Here is a video from WSJ on this, the columnist is from Sacremento and knows the parties involved:

Obama Fires a Watchdog - WSJ.com

The interesting bit is that the FBI has opened an investigation into obstruction of justice over this, and the president of the charter school involved resigned the day Walpin was fired citing illegal ethics violations by Johnson, and destruction of emails and other evidense. It's starting to look A LOT like a cover up.