Truth Over Firing Of I.G. Exposes More Obama Thuggery


When the firing of former Inspector General Gerald Walpin was suddenly announced, something just didn’t seem right about it to me… and it’s now starting to look like I had good reason to wonder about it. If, in fact, what is starting to come forward is true, Obama may be in direct violation of federal law requiring a 30-day notice to Congress when firing an I.G.  Irony of ironies: When he was in Congress, Obama sponsored the legislation.

If we had a non-partisan Congress, we could even see action taken against the President. But hey, when has Obama ever worried about trampling laws and the Constitution? All he needs to justify his actions (in his mind, anyway) is to smirk and say, We won. So sit down and shut up!” 

Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent for the Washington Examiner, writes in his column that former IG Walpin’s determination to investigate further the alleged misuse of AmeriCorps funds may have led President Obama to fire him. His source is an unnamed Republican member of the board overseeing the volunteer agency. 

This, of course, completely contradicts the explanation given by the White House, which described Walpin as being “disoriented and confused” at a recent board meeting, as well as being “engaged in other troubling and inapprorpiate conduct.” Mr. Walpin subsequently appeared on the Glenn Beck show and proved to the audience that he is neither disoriented nor confused.

According to the article, here’s how it played out:

On the evening of Wednesday, June 10, an official of the White House counsel’s office called Walpin to tell him he had one hour to resign or be fired.  The action flew in the face of a law (sponsored by Barack Obama when he was a senator) that requires the president to give Congress 30 days’ notice, plus cause, when he intends to fire an IG.  In this case, the White House apparently wanted to dispatch Walpin quickly by pushing him to resign, which would not have required the president to go through the congressional notification process.  Instead, Walpin refused to quit, and only then did the White House tell Congress.

Since this is being written on June 25th, it’s fair to say the 30 day notice was not adhered to. So why the bum’s rush to get rid of Walpin? It would appear that the board of directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service (which oversees AmeriCorps) was not happy with Walpin’s aggressive investigation into the alleged misuse of AmeriCorps funds former NBA star Kevin Johnson. Johnson, a big supporter of Obama, is also the current mayor of Sacramento, CA.

The real reason Obama took his “resign or be fired” position? According to the article:

Prior to his election as mayor, Johnson ran an educational organization called St. HOPE, which received $850,000 in AmeriCorps money.  Walpin discovered that Johnson and St. HOPE had failed to use the federal money for the purposes specified in the grant and had also used federally-funded AmeriCorps staff for, among other things, “driving [Johnson] to personal appointments, washing his car, and running personal errands.”

Walpin recommended that Johnson be banned from ever receiving any more federal funds.  But after the passage of the $787 billion stimulus bill, amid worries that such a ban on the mayor would keep Sacramento from receiving its share of the stimulus cash, the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service reached an agreement with the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento under which Johnson would repay some of the mis-spent money and also be eligible to receive new federal grants in the future.  Walpin strongly objected to the agreement.  (Knowing his opposition, the board excluded him from the negotiations.) 

Meanwhile, a former counsel to President Clinton along with four former U.S. attorneys, three former federal judges and one former attorney general drafted a letter to the Senate in which they vouch for Walpin’s  competence and integrity.

I would encourage you to read York’s entire article here.  The bottom line is, once again Obama’s arrogance is the real issue. He continues to act as a dictator with complete disregard for regulations that even the President is required to follow. He does so knowing that a gutless “do-nothing-but-support-Obama” Congress and press corps will not hold him accountable for his bullying tactics against anyone who checks into his own improprieties or those of his friends.

This is just more proof that America’s  system of checks and balances required by the Constitution has been declared out of order and it would appear the repair service can’t get here until 2012.

That said, folks, those mid-term elections are looking mighty important to stopping the Obama  Express. The time to start preparing by locating quality non-Democrat candidates is now. If Obama can dispense with anyone in the Federal Government that doesn’t see eye-to-eye with him, just how long will it take for him to completely convert Washington DC into “Thug Central?”

Gerry Ashley


3 Responses to Truth Over Firing Of I.G. Exposes More Obama Thuggery

  1. Scott says:

    So….I suppose Bush’s firing of the group of seven US Attorneys was okey dokey? The below is from Wikipedia.

    The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is a United States political scandal initiated by the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006 by the George W. Bush administration’s Department of Justice. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.[2][3] The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization.[4][5][6][7][8]

    • Stoutcat says:

      Ah, Wikipedia. Note the cautious “Allegations were…” with no follow-up to report what the findings actually were. And as you probably well know, it is entirely within the purview of the President to fire AGs when he wishes–heck, I think Clinton fired all the AGs when he came into office. It only causes an outcry when there’s an (R) after your name, apparently.

      Inspectors General are another story, however. They are hired by Congress, and if the President wants one out, he must prove to Congress that the IG needs to be removed–not just “You have an hour to resign or else you’re fired.” To me, that smacks of the “We won, you lost, get over it” arrogance of the current President. But that’s just me.

      • Gerry Ashley says:

        …and me. And, if we still had a bi-partisan Congress, I’m certain they would back us up on that.

        But hey… people wanted change. Be careful out there. You might just (have gotten)what you ask for.

        I wonder if this is what the last days of the Roman Empire were like…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s