The Firing Of Our Inspector Generals By Obama & The Silence From The Left


Inspector Generals in this government are for one job, to work independently to ensure that the taxpayer is protected from government corruption and abuse.

Not in Obama’s government it seems. Three IG’s have been fired in the last week and some pushback has started. First in this list is Gerald Walpin. He reported to Congress about the settlement of 400 grand paid by Obama cohort Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, St. HOPE academy (a pet of Johnson) and former executive director Dana Gonzalez. He reported that Johnson was not being required to repay all the money he misused AND he would once again be able to manage federal funds…even after he has shown his true stripes.

Walpin’s audit found that the program could not prove it was doing criminal background checks, had taken more money than it was due, didn’t follow certain Americorps rules, failed to regularly file required forms, and did some sloppy record-keeping.

In all, Walpin questioned awards to the program of $16.1 million and $773,000, mostly on administrative grounds. He also says the government should stop the program and recover $75 million spent over the past six years.

CUNY pledged to make changes, according to the audit, but didn’t go all the way. It also refused to return any money, and defended its policy of accepting background checks supplied by the city Department of Education. The Corporation for National and Community Service — the official name of the agency Walpin oversees — refused to ask for any of the money back from CUNY.

In a letter [pdf] to CUNY president Matthew Goldstein, Walpin in essence says that the money CUNY gets from Americorps is redundant. Basically, CUNY doesn’t need it:

“The program doesn’t work because it adds no service to the community which is not already provided by the Fellows program,” Walpin writes. “Therefore, taxpayers are not getting their money’s worth. The [government] could accomplish its goals more effectively if the funds for these grants were used . . . in communities where the need exists.”

Now there are accusations of deleted emails:

The FBI’s Sacramento division is investigating a former St. HOPE executive’s allegations of obstruction of justice, Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence G. Brown confirmed Tuesday.

The news fuels the controversy that has followed Mayor Kevin Johnson since 2008, when his brainchild St. HOPE Academy first was investigated for misuse of public funds.

That investigation appeared to end in April when Brown’s office announced a settlement with Johnson, St. HOPE and former executive director Dana Gonzalez.

The settlement, hotly contested by the office of the inspector general for the federal Corporation for National and Community Service, required the repayment of more than $400,000 in misused grants for AmeriCorps volunteers.

However, Rick Maya, who officially left his position as executive director with St. HOPE last week, alleged in an April resignation letter that a member of the charter schools’ board deleted Johnson’s e-mails during the federal investigation. Those claims, uncovered by a public records request by The Bee, caught the interest of Brown’s office, who asked the FBI’s Sacramento division to look into it.

So Obama fired him stating the man was incompetent and suggested he was senile. Walpin fought back tho:

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.

Now that’s the type of IG we need. Not someone who will lay down and give up when pressed to the bidding of those in power. To prove the man wasn’t senile Beck even gave him a senility test:

Link: Walpin

And now Dan Riehl reports that two more IG’s have been fired:

This is interesting. I looked around and perhaps I missed it on another blog, but the Chicago Tribune reports that it isn’t just Walpin’s firing over which Senator Grassley wants some answers. He’s worried about a pattern, as no fewer than three IG’s have recently been fired, all while investigating so-called sensitive issues. See Michelle for the latest on Walpin.

The dispute comes as Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is looking into the abrupt firings within the last week of two other inspectors general one of whom was fired by the White House and the other by the chair of the International Trade Commission.

Both inspectors general had investigated sensitive subjects at the time of their firings.

Grassley is now concerned about whether a pattern is emerging in which the independence of the government’s top watchdogs — whose jobs were authorized by Congress to look out for waste, fraud and abuse — is being put at risk.

One of the other IGs is Neil Barofsky, tasked with watching over the financial stimulus spending. The article raises questions as to whether or not the Obama administration is trying to stymie an investigation with dubious claims of attorney-client privilege.

Check out Dan’s post to learn all about the other two in more detail. Also check out Hot Air for a video that proves Kevin Johnson, the Sacramento Mayor is nothing but a crony for Obama.

Either way you look at this the MSM and the left should be screeching from the hilltops about the corruption, as they did when Bush fired three political appointed Federal Prosecutors. But noooooooo. We get half-assed reporting jobs like this one from the New York Times which Ed Morrissey posted on:

But what did Neil Lewis and the Times forget to include in the story?

The White House said Wednesday that President Obama had dismissed a government agency’s internal watchdog because he was incompetent and had behaved bizarrely, disputing accusations that he was fired because he had uncovered embarrassing problems in the AmeriCorps program.

Last week, Mr. Obama abruptly fired the watchdog, Gerald Walpin, the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, who was a holdover from the Bush administration, saying little except that he had lost confidence in Mr. Walpin.

But the president quickly encountered resistance from the Senate, including from a fellow Democrat, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who said Mr. Obama had not provided sufficient reason for the dismissal, as required under a recent law intended to protect the independence of the corps of inspectors general.

Lewis and the Times forgot to include in this entire article two very salient facts about Walpin’s termination:

  • The law governing the IGs require the White House to not just provide reasonable cause, but also a 30-day notice to Congress before taking any action.
  • Lewis neglects to mention anywhere in this article that the White House called Walpin first in an attempt to intimidate him into resigning.
  • Both of these points are key to understanding the abuse of power attempted by the White House with Walpin. The White House wanted Walpin out, as well as discredited, as quickly as possible so that he could not interfere with a sweetheart deal to let a political ally off the hook for fraud. This became especially important when Walpin began communicating to Congress about his opposition to the deal with Kevin Johnson in Sacramento. They needed him out, and fast.

    Instead of using the process that Barack Obama sponsored himself in the Senate, the White House tried to bully Walpin into quitting.

This kind of non-reaction by the left and our media proves once again that they’re nothing but hypocrites.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Obama should be ashamed of himself. This is disgusting, and it would be no matter who is in the Oval Office.

This kind of non-reaction by the left and our media proves once again that they’re nothing but hypocrites.

They’re not the only ones. My dad wouldn’t shut up about Bush and the attorneys. This? He admits what Obama did was wrong, but he’s been noticably subdued in his criticism. (Do I have to tell you who he voted for, by the way?)

It’s funny how the liberals and the media harassed Bush and constantly “reported” on the “politicization” of the the Justice Dept. based on absolutely no evidence or made up facts, and now, in spite of blatant political thuggery, the liberal and the media are silent.

This is outrageous. Media bias is one thing, but what the media and obama are doing now is purely criminal and autocratic. I genuinely fear the collapse of democracy and freedom in the US under obama. What is happening to the US now is akin to the soviets taking over the eastern bloc. God help us all.

Obama broke the law. According to the US Constitution, that is an impeachable offense. Now word breaks out that Walpin is the THIRD such illegal firing of an IG.

It just gets betterer and betterer and betterer:

White House refuses to answer Senate questions on AmeriCorps IG firing
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
06/17/09 6:10 PM EDT

Norman Eisen, the White House Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, met with investigators on the staff of Republican Sen. Charles Grassley at Grassley’s offices Wednesday morning. The investigators wanted to learn more about the circumstances surrounding the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin. According to Grassley, Eisen revealed very, very little, refusing to answer many questions of fact put to him. And now Grassley has written a letter to the White House counsel asking for answers.

Emphasis added.

It’s the libtard way. Ignore something for long enough and the issue will go away. After a period of time, “they” say something like, “That was then, this is now. We have more important issues to worry about.”

Now you see why he created all the czars. They answer to him and not to the people. Nice little taste of fascism.

It is more than a taste of Fascism. It is a bite with very sharp teeth. When you increase the wolf population and decrease the sheepdog population the sheep will eventually figure out the outcome. Sack the IGs and the sheepdogs are gone. Waste, fraud, abuse, corruption and theft will be the rule.

Integrity is gone when the watchdogs are dismissed by whim or political mischief by an Administration with an Agenda that is self serving and in Their self interest, not that of the Nation.

America stands idly by while We are being hustled big time. It is a power play pure and simple. By the time that the 53% of American Foolish Voters that elected these Punks and Thugs realize what happened, the remedy will be ugly, violent and very destructive.

Those of Us that live rural and by need are more self sufficient in some respects but like the Socialists said “elections have consequences”. I wish to remind them that tyranny and betrayal of public trust has severe consequences. GITMO did not create Terrorists. Tyranny exercised by an Oppressive Government does create Patriots. As Freedoms go away, taxes rise, the economy is owned by the State, health care is rationed and quality of life declines Americans will miss what they had and want it back.

The folks in DC are playing with Fire. If You are a Student of History you can recall what happened when Americans had enough over two Centuries ago. Then it will be serious business and there will be accountability.

I’m w the Old Trooper here. Bit by bit, day by day, Obama and Dems are abusing their power, proving-beyond ANY DOUBT-that their years of whining, alleging, protesting, etc were all baseless tools to get power. Think of it this way, everyone has one issue or another that drives how they vote. It might be how a candidate looks, talks, or so something like gay marriage, Iraq, deficit spending, whatever. Every day Obama walks into a door, or tries to open a window that he thinks is a door, or fubars a teleprompter speech, the person who voted for him because of the way he looks and talks questions their vote more and more. Every day that he fails to order withdrawal from Iraq makes an anti-war voter wonder more and more. Every day that he tells people the economy will take time, and they should be patient…every day he and Dems say that, the 16,000 people who lost their jobs on that day become less patient/less supportive. His approval ratings may be high, but they’re really just popularity ratings-NOT APPROVAL ratings. Look at the issues, and he’s falling across the board. So are Congressional Dems (the people who REALLY need to worry).

I watched an Iranian protest video this morning. There weren’t just students. It was older women, businessmen, older men, people of all ages, and description. They’d had enough of their govt taking their money and fubarin’ it.

2010 Midterms loom large in this country. It’s like the shadow of an approaching thunderstorm. Dems and Obama literally have MONTHS to make things better because if they don’t:
1) they will have not a single substantial accomplishment to boast about/run on
2) the wrath of a nation will be out there. Tea parties will look like nutin, and even the far left will have no reason to stand up for their Dems ’cause the Dems will have lied one too many times.

Presidents rarely have their party win the midterms. Unless redistricting in 2010 locks them in, Democrats are setting themselves up to be called ma’am instead of senator.

Republican Congressional Candidate strategy 101
1) my opponent promised to
-end the war in Iraq
-cut spending
-end deficits
-bring us pay-as-you-go spending in Congress
-lower gas prices
-bring jobs to our district
-end corruption in DC
-fight earmarks

c’mon, what Dem in Congress can POSSIBLY defend those broken promises?!

2) if elected, I’ll
-vote to repeal the trillion dollar porkulus
-support the troops AND THEIR EFFORTS TO SUCCEED in Iraq and Afghanistan
-I won’t try to cut off funding/supplies to troops in combat to make arbitrary, false, political points
-I’ll vote to repeal the President’s Obamacare program that cost $1 TRILLION to insure 15million people at best
-I’ll vote to repeal the 9000 earmarks the President signed into his 2009 budget and the 10-15000 earmarks in the 2010 budget
-I’ll oppose ANY new taxes-PERIOD
-I’ll vote to immediately sell govt shares in the banks, insurance companies and auto companies to the private sector
-I will not support any government bailouts of any company because no company is too big to fail
-Pres Obama quadrupled the Federal budget, then vowed to cut it in half, I will work to reduce the budget to pre-Obama Admin levels and even further if possible
-Like President Obama, I support the pay-as-you-go budget spending, states decisions on gay marriage, a ban on “torture”, and I support the closing of Gitmo (there’s a nice little slab of ice near the Arctic Circle in Alaska that I’ve got my eye on instead).

Throw in some YouTube vids of the Dem opponent making promises in 2006….and all that needs be done then is to get the word out. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, websites like FA, those will offset Dem spending hardcore.

The American people will not stand for the Dems’ lies in 2010


There are clear undeniable reasons why there must be checks and balances on government. Obama has been trying to evade the checks and balances.

By creating unprecedented numbers of Czar positions, Obama violates the Constitution. (yes, I know other Presidents created Czars, and I didn’t support them doing so either.)

Even his SCOTUS Nominee was selected as one who does not uphold and enforce the Constitution, (as the SCOTUS is charged to do,) but one who would change the most basic bedrock foundation of the courts system (impartiality) and who would dare to change the Constitution through application of “empathy” over upholding the Constitutional Covenant. (Not that Bush was any better in regards to the 4th Amendment.) To interpret the Constitution, based on the methodology of Sodomayor, the SCOTUS would hold the power to rewrite the Constitution without check, balance or input from the other two branches or through ratification by the states, via revisionist interpretation of what the Constitution means. This is the danger of placing activist Judges as appointments fo Supreme Court Justices.

The firing of Inspector Generals (in violation of the law he himself supported) is an additional warning sign of the direction this administration is headed. I think Republicans and independents need to start figuring out just where that is.