Posted on 11/25/2009 8:56:16 AM PST by jazusamo
Even as congressional investigators demolish White House explanations for its firing last summer of a key inspector general, new documents show that an entire second area of misleading administration statements has gone largely unexplored. Each new revelation in the case suggests that Gerald Walpin, the fired IG for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), ought to be reinstated to his job.
We'll get to that second area of dispute in a few moments; it's a doozy. First, though, because this is all rather confusing, a review of the particulars is in order.
~snip~
Yet just two days after Mr. Walpin was removed from his job, as the administration hustled to try to find retroactive justification for the firing, CNCS press aide Ranit Schmelzer drafted, for distribution to all CNCS board members, a memo of "suggested guidance in the event you get press calls on IG Walpin." At that time, all reports on the matter had focused on the Sacramento case alone. Yet the Schmelzer memo, in a strange fit of defensiveness, included this talking point: "If asked whether this was connected to Walpin's action in the CUNY case, say no. The decision was made before Walpin's reports on CUNY were issued."
That is false. On April 2, Mr. Walpin's office issued its draft report on CUNY, which was critical of both CUNY and of the CNCS board for lax oversight. On April 30, CUNY responded. On May 4, the CNCS management responded. On May 5, Mr. Walpin told Senate staff that he feared CNCS management would "retaliate" against him. On May 20, before Mr. Walpin supposedly became "disoriented" at the board meeting, the major reason for the contentiousness of the meeting was that Mr. Walpin excoriated the board for its failures related to CUNY.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Obama and his thugs came into the White House thinking they could do whatever they wanted and when there was some oversight, either by an IG (Walpin) or by Senators (Grassley & Issa) that required Obama to do things legally, Obama resorts to lies and attempted destruction of an honorable man, (Walpin).
Saying Walpin was disoriented is ridiculous.
If anyone ever doubted the integrity of the Democrats and how they would rule if left to their devices, look no further than this.
Thank you Washington Times
Thank you Washington Times
Thats the Washington Times, not the Washington Post...
The Washington Post is AWOL on any tough reporting on the Obama administration
Yes, the majority of the enemedia is ignoring or playing down this fiasco. If George Bush would have tried something like this every MSM outlet would have trumpeted him breaking the law for weeks. Of course the big difference is that Bush would not have allowed this to happen.
Mr. Walpin should get his job back and Obama should be impeached.
Agree on both points but it’s unlikely on the first point, won’t even try to guess the odds on the second.
I seem to remember that the CUNY case also involves a diplomatic post for a FOO (Friend of Obama). This is Watergate X 100.
Looks like?
I dunno. I would think that putting an honest man in the midst of Obama’s people could very well be somewhat disorienting. “Love is hate, war is peace,” etc., etc.
Are you referring to Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson? I’ve read he and Obama are friends and there was a rumor and I emphasize rumor that Michelle’s brother and Johnson are friends.
I had forgotten the name and had to do a search...it’s Alan Solomont, Americorps (not CUNY). Solomont was a big Dem fundraiser appointed to the Americorps job then nominated to be ambassador to Spain. Apparently, Sen. Grassley has put a hold on that nomination.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2345351/posts
Thanks...I had read that Sen Grassley had put a hold on someone but didn’t associate it with Solomont or an ambassadorship, as time passes so does my memory. :-)
We saw a preview with Slick Willie. He fired all 93 US Attorneys because one of them was investigating him. (When Bush fired 8 the Democrats and MSM went on a witch hunt.) He got rid of William Sessions as head of the FBI on a trumped up ethics charge because Sessions wouldn't go along with Slick's proposed shenanigans. All of this was early in his first term.
FDR tried to stack the Supreme Court by adding justices. LBJ's violations are too numerous to list.
We have had ample warning about the Democrats but the MSM still controls the information flow and the Democrats get whitewashed and conservatives must fight lies and attempts at personal destruction just to get to the truth.
Maybe the internet and talk radio can get the information out and you are right, this administrations abuses may finally bring the truth home.
Well stated...
This is a line of reasoning that needs to be expanded.
What would the Democrats impose on this country if they could have their way?
What intimidation, corruption, theft would the American people be subjected to if there was no one in their way?
Obamas first Executive Order come to mind.
ACORN comes to mind. SEIU comes to mind.
There are others.
When Robert Caro was researching his multi-volume LBJ biography he ran across a tape in the LBJ Library at the University of Texas. It was a tape of a telephone conversation between LBJ and his long time friend senator Richard Russell of Georgia, another Democrat, right after the passage of the Voters right Act of 1964.
LBJ said, “That will keep the (n word) voting Democrat for the next two hundred years.”
That is your answer. The Democrats have sought complete control of the government for at least the last seventy-five years. How would they yield such power? In any manner it took to maintain complete control.
That usually means making the opposition completely powerless. No opposition media to express other ideas. No teachers or professors who teach other ideas. Disarm the populace. Assure that the people worship the state and the Democrat Party rather than some other religion. Suspend elections as they would be unnecessary because everyone loves the Democrats and would vote for them anyway. If that raises opposition have sham elections to prove the point.
Personal freedom? Why would anyone want that? The state provides them all they need and that in itself is freedom, freedom from want. If they want more than provided by the state they are selfish and greedy, unwilling to do what is necessary for “the people.” So send them off to be reeducated in a proper reeducation camp (prison).
History has shown that to be contrary to human nature and sooner or later human nature must win. How many millions will die in the interim? Lots!
R. Buckminster Fuller said that free enterprise has the unique ability to transform the selfish desires of the individual into a good for the whole. That is human nature at work.
Yet, those who seek power don’t trust the individual so they must lie and manipulate the people with linguistic tricks like naming their organizations and policies in a way that gives the impression they are the opposite of what they really are. The ACLU, NOW, WHO, the National Council of Churches, UNICEF, global warming, Card Check, etc., the world abounds with such deception.
If they were the right way for us why do they have to lie to us to gain power? The answer is obvious.
So much truth in your reply...
As Ive said, this is a line of thought that needs a full discussion.
Since Hannah Giles & James O’Keefe, the exposure of the Left has accelerated. Lately, the further release of documents from other ACORN offenses has come to light.
Now the hacked emails of the climate change scam has shown truth is painful to the LEFT.
Lets continue to shine the light on the Rats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.