The coming Barack Hussein Obama thugocracy

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yes there is more to the story...but the main one is that someone wanted Walpin shut up so that Barry's supporter and sacremento could get their hands on the money. It's about money and getting Barry's man some more of it. I'm sure Barry is checking up on all of the DA's so closely.

Of course race has everything to do with it.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Of course race has everything to do with it.

Nah...I expect it was more bigotry than anything, which you would know about.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yes there is more to the story...but the main one is that someone wanted Walpin shut up so that Barry's supporter and sacremento could get their hands on the money. It's about money and getting Barry's man some more of it. I'm sure Barry is checking up on all of the DA's so closely.

"hands on the money"?? you mean the money that you keep posting isn't being spent? the only thing that is consistent about your harping on the stimulus money is your inconsistentcy in bitching about it not being spent, while you bitch about too much money being spent, and now you post about spendig of stimulus money being the root cause of someone being fired due to...stimulus money that you repeatedly say isn't being spent.

it's really humourous- actually it's a bit sad as well- that there are those who continue to put out conspriracy theories that have no basis in fact, and when shown the facts those people just choose to ignore the reality as it doesn't suit their agenda.

really, if you have any evidence that contradicts the statements of the us attorney, the documents cited in the previous article, or any factual response to the facts outlined, let's see them.

otherwise you really look very, very small.

[dude1394]

So a US DA finds corruption, uncovers it, barry tries to fire the dude so that nothing comes out and you are peachey keen about it. Okay.

With respect to the stimulus you continue to mis-understand me on my bitching about it.

1. If you are going to tout a stimulus planas an emergency measure then it damn well ought to STIMULATE something. -- Which has now been shown to be a failure.
2. Barry (as his chief of staff made very clear) used this as a means to pursue political ends, not financial ones. He was either lying his ass off or he's more incompetent than even I thought, and I thought he was plenty incompetent.
3. The entire stimulus package will wind up being pork. And will be divied up to gain barry the most votes and will be protected (just like in this case) by barry.

All while the unemployment rate tops 10+. Keep defending the dude mavie, he's a cluster.

I see no "conspircacy" theory here either. I'm quoting the dude that just got fired, you are quoting barry. There's no "conspiracy" theory here. There's a guy who was a possibly overzealous (yet to be proven) DA that was doing his job and POTUS decided to put a stop to it. What conspiracy...looks like facts to me.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

So a US DA finds corruption, uncovers it, barry tries to fire the dude so that nothing comes out and you are peachey keen about it. Okay.

uh, no, not "OK". your comments are completely opposite of what the us attorney involved with the matter has stated and has written.

with comments like what you just made, I'm wondering if you read the posted article or took the time to read the statements by the us attorney, who btw is NOT an obama appointee nor a democrat. if you has done a bit of reading than you would clearly see that the inspector general defied the us attorney, impeded the investigation that the us attorney was conducting, and culled the evidence in an attempt to prejudice the findings.

all good reason to dismiss the man. he wasn't fulfilling the duties of his office.

With respect to the stimulus you continue to mis-understand me on my bitching about it.

1. If you are going to tout a stimulus planas an emergency measure then it damn well ought to STIMULATE something. -- Which has now been shown to be a failure.
2. Barry (as his chief of staff made very clear) used this as a means to pursue political ends, not financial ones. He was either lying his ass off or he's more incompetent than even I thought, and I thought he was plenty incompetent.
3. The entire stimulus package will wind up being pork. And will be divied up to gain barry the most votes and will be protected (just like in this case) by barry.

All while the unemployment rate tops 10+. Keep defending the dude mavie, he's a cluster.

nope, you're repeatedly playing both sides of the issue in whatever manner supports your goal of cricizing the current administration. just take a position and stay there.

I see no "conspircacy" theory here either. I'm quoting the dude that just got fired, you are quoting barry. There's no "conspiracy" theory here. There's a guy who was a possibly overzealous (yet to be proven) DA that was doing his job and POTUS decided to put a stop to it. What conspiracy...looks like facts to me.

wow, you want people to believe that you have a grasp of the issue yet you don't even know that it is NOT about "a possibly overzealous..DA", it is about a federal official called an inspector general. clealry you do not know the facts at all...

again, nobody is "quoting barry", these statements and facts are from the us attorney involved in the matter, the us attorney who wrote his superiors about the unprofessional conduct and lack of integrity of the inspector general.

jeez, it's like the gaggle of lemmings, with limbaugh leading the gaggle and all the other lemmings following behind, not knowing why they are going where they are headed but just lock step behind nonetheless.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Of course race has everything to do with it.

Just another racist.

Seeking Answers on IG Firing, Sen. Grassley Asks About Possible Role of First Lady's Office

June 15, 2009 10:18 AM
In an email and fax sent late Friday, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, demanded that Alan D. Solomont, the chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, provide "any and all records, email, memoranda, documents, communications, or other information, whether in draft or final form" related to President Obama's firing of CNCS Inspector General Gerald Walpin.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Just another publicity seeking republican.

fixed.

[dude1394]

Just another hypocritical democrat. Heaven forbid someone would ask about why Barry wanted to break his own law?

Will Democrats cover up the AmeriCorps mess?

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
06/16/09 12:13 AM EDT



Can Republicans in Congress get to the bottom of President Obama's sudden -- and suspicious -- decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin? The answer is no -- unless some. Democrats show interest in what could possibly be the first scandal, or at least mini-scandal, of the Obama administration.


In dismissing Walpin, the president seemed to trample on the law -- a law he himself had co-sponsored as a senator -- that protects inspectors general from political influence and retribution. In addition, it appears that at least part of the reason Walpin was fired was for the tenacity he showed in investigating misuse of AmeriCorps money by a friend and supporter of the president, Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California. Walpin got the goods -- evidence of Johnson's serious misuse of federal dollars -- and the inspector general ended up getting fired for his troubles.


So the Walpin case is just the kind of thing the watchdogs of good government in the House and Senate might investigate. But Democrats enjoy solid majorities in both houses, and thus control what will be investigated, and how any investigation will proceed. As the minority party, Republicans have little power to do anything.


"We can't move something through a committee," says one Republican Senate aide. "We can't issue a subpoena. But we can write letters, and we can jump up and down."


That's pretty much what Republicans are reduced to doing now. They are asking the administration for information -- politely -- and are trying to get the message out through the press. That's all they can do.


They're not particularly optimistic about getting help from the other side. Would Majority Leader Harry Reid really have any interest in a tough probe of a Democratic White House, a Democratic AmeriCorps, and a Democratic mayor who just happens to be a friend of the president?


The committee that would normally be expected to look into the matter would be the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which oversees AmeriCorps. But the chairman is Sen. Edward Kennedy, who in April joined President Obama to celebrate the passage of the $5.7 billion Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which will triple the size of AmeriCorps. Kennedy is highly unlikely to support an investigation that might tarnish his favorite program.


Inspectors general as a whole are watched over by the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, headed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Some Republicans hope -- a little -- that Lieberman will lend a hand, but they're not holding their breath.


The one lawmaker who has shown real interest in investigating the AmeriCorps matter is Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. Throughout his career, Grassley has been something of a guardian angel for inspectors general, and he was on the Walpin case from the very beginning.


But Grassley is not just a Republican, he's also on the Senate Finance Committee, which really doesn't have much jurisdiction over this particular matter. So he did what Republicans can do -- he wrote a letter, to Alan Solomont, the former Democratic fundraiser who now heads AmeriCorps.


"It is vital that Congress obtain a full understanding of the role that you and your colleagues…played in these matters," Grassley wrote. "Inspectors General have a statutory duty to report to Congress. Intimidation or retaliation against those who freely communicate their concerns to members of the House and Senate cannot be tolerated. This is especially true when such concerns are as legitimate and meritorious as Mr. Walpin’s appear to be."


Grassley asked AmeriCorps to hand over all records and e-mails and documents and other information about the Walpin firing. But if Grassley is the only one doing the asking, the administration doesn't really have to comply.


In 1993, just after Bill Clinton was elected and Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, a lone Republican congressman, Rep. Bill Clinger, wanted to investigate the suspicious firings of the White House Travel Office staff.


But majority Democrats had no inclination to pursue the matter. Clinger tried and tried, wrote letter after letter, and jumped up and down, but he didn't begin to get results until after November 1994, when Republicans took control of both Houses of Congress.


When it comes to investigating allegations of wrongdoing, Republicans today are right back where they were in 1993.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Just another hypocritical democrat. Heaven forbid someone would ask about why Barry wanted to break his own law?

please save all this bs and do a little reading about this affair. really, if you want to continue this multitude of silly posts that reflect a lack of knowledge go ahead and do it...but the information that contradicts articles (such as posted above) has already been provided.

Can Republicans in Congress get to the bottom of President Obama's sudden -- and suspicious -- decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin? The answer is no -- unless some. Democrats show interest in what could possibly be the first scandal, or at least mini-scandal, of the Obama administration.

first, "sudden and suspicious"??

In that email, as well as other documents surrounding Walpin's termination obtained by ABC News, a picture emerges of an ambitious and aggressive inspector general whose actions repeatedly offended officials of the US Attorney's office, to the point that the Republican-appointee in the US Attorney's office filed an official complaint against the Republican-appointed Inspector General.

clearly not sudden nor suspicious if one takes "an official complaint" as evidence of the severity of the inspector general's past conduct into account.

In dismissing Walpin, the president seemed to trample on the law -- a law he himself had co-sponsored as a senator -- that protects inspectors general from political influence and retribution.

not accurate at all. the president gave notice to the inspector general that he was going to follow the guidelines in the law on replacing the inspector general, but gave the inspector general the opportunity to resign and therefore avoid what could be a very embarrassing public expose of the inspector general's conduct which motivated the president o seek his replacement.

Walpin had an hour to make up his mind as to whether he was going to resign or have the president seek his suspension and termination, as indicated in email from Walpin to Eisen obtained by ABC News.

(A White House official tells ABC News that on Wednesday afternoon, "Walpin was informed, as a courtesy, of the president's decision to replace him. Mr. Walpin asked for time to consider resigning. He was told the decision to replace him was final, but for logistical reasons having to do with preparing the Congressional notifications, he could call back within the hour if he chose to resign.")

so the opportunity for the inspector general to avoid the congressional process by resigning was given, and the inspector general took that opportunity.

one must ask the question of if the inspector general believed that his actions and conduct were not deserving of his being replaced, and that if the inspector general could show to congress that his actions were above reproach, why would he respond so quickly to accept the chance to resign?

apparently he himself knew that the facts and the evidence, complete with the official complaint from a republican us attorney, was too damning foer him to overcome.

In addition, it appears that at least part of the reason Walpin was fired was for the tenacity he showed in investigating misuse of AmeriCorps money by a friend and supporter of the president, Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California. Walpin got the goods -- evidence of Johnson's serious misuse of federal dollars -- and the inspector general ended up getting fired for his troubles.

not in the least bit accurate nor factual. it was not "the tenacity" of the inpsector general which produced the official complaint or the lack of confidence by the president, it was the inspector general continued ignoring of instructions by the us attorney to not publically comment on an ongoing investigation, as well as the inspector general's decision to pick and choose the facts/details of the investigated organization's actions that led to his dismissal.

September 26, Brown said, the then-US Attorney McGregor Scott "emphatically informed Mr. Walpin that under no circumstance was he to communicate with the media about a matter under investigation and that his acts "were hindering our investigation and handling of this matter."

Ultimately the US Attorney's office determined that "a significant portion of the AmeriCorps grant funds were appropriately expended." They concluded that Walpin's investigation was wanting. For instance, Walpin's referral of his investigation to the US Attorney's office concluded that St. HOPE AmeriCorps members performed no tutoring," but the principal of an elementary school told the US Attorney's office that wasn't true, that St. HOPE AmeriCorps members had performed tutoring at his school. Upon further investigation, Brown wrote, the US Attorney's office found that Walpin had received a similar statement from the principal "but did not include it in their report or disclose it" to his office.

it's really clear what the right wing is using as their mantra on this story, that being "damn the facts, we have an agenda to pursue!"

articles such as this that ignore the facts, distort the situation, and make unfounded conclusions reflect poorly on the author rather than the current administration's handling of the affair.

[dude1394]

Another racist republican wanting the prez to follow his own laws.

Breaking: First Democrat questions Obama over AmeriCorps IG firing

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
06/16/09 7:26 PM EDT

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill has become the first Democrat to question the White House over the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin. McCaskill, who, like Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, is a champion of inspectors general, co-wrote the 2008 legislation requiring the president to give 30 days' notice, and cause, before firing an inspector general.



In a statement released this afternoon, McCaskill says that the reason the president gave for firing Walpin -- that the president no longer has "the fullest confidence" in Walpin -- is, in McCaskill's words, "not sufficient." And McCaskill is calling on the White House to offer a fuller explanation as soon as possible.



Here is McCaskill's statement:
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. 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.

[dude1394]

Hmm...since now the guy is being accused of having dementia..there's probably a civil suit in the making. Priceless

I think some folks under oath at that meeting need to be stepping up.

President Barack Obama removed a government agency’s internal watchdog last week and plans to fire him in part because he was “confused” and “disoriented” at a meeting last month, the White House said in a letter to Congress Tuesday night.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...xzz0IhVW7ZdJ&C

[dude1394]

Hah....I"m starting to like this guy more and more.

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.

[dude1394]

Hmm...I'm sure this will not be the last we hear of this one Barry. Barry's used to chicago I think where no one watches very much.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblo...-house-excuse/

IG witness Blows Up White House Excuse

By QHillyer on June 17, 2009 into Water Cooler

• Subscribe

We have found an exclusive witness who directly contradicts multiple aspects of the official White House explanation for firing AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin.

Separately, one part of the White House explanation treads on exceedingly shaky ground that raises the specter of improper age discrimination.

President Barack Obama's highly unusual move to fire an inspector general has drawn bipartisan inquiries from Members of both the House and Senate who are worried about protecting the independence of inspectors general. In response, White House Special Counsel Norman Eisen made a number of allegations against Mr. Walpin in a letter to Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).

Many of the Eisen letter's charges are rather vague (“he had engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct”; “Mr. Walpin had become unduly disruptive to agency operations”). Two allegations are more specific.

1)There was a “May 20, 2009 Board meeting at which Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve.”
2)“We further learned that Mr. Walpin had been absent from the Corporation's headquarters, insisting upon working form his home in New York over the objections of the Corporation's Board.”

Mr. Walpin dispute these statements, as might be expected. But now, in a Washington Times exclusive, so does another official who was a first-hand witness at several of the key meetings involved. The witness, whose bona fides are unimpeachable, is on the agency's payroll, and thus spoke on grounds of anonymity. The Washington Times contacted him through our own research, without Mr. Walpin's knowledge or suggestion.

The second issue is simpler to explain, so let's start there. In January, Mr. Walpin, 77, informed then-President George W. Bush's administration that he would be resigning his post, largely because he and his wife of 52 years had tired of his weekly commute away from his home with her in New York to the offices in Washington, D.C. He claims, and others confirm, that several career staff members subsequently talked him out of resigning, saying that they were proud of the work they were doing under him, and that they suggested he could often just telecommute from New York.

When he accepted their pleading and decided to stay, one staff member told the Times today, “Everybody was pleased. He really had taken charge of the office and gave it a sense of mission that everybody felt proud of.”

A witness at a subsequent meeting among Mr. Walpin and the agency's general counsel, Frank Trinity, and acting CEO, Nicola Goren, confirms Mr. Walpin's account – namely, that Mr. Trinity and Ms. Goren said they had no objection to the telecommuting arrangement and that (in Mr. Walpin's recounting of it) “there is no reason why it can't work.”

Mr. Walpin told the Times that a standing audit committee of the agency's board – consisting of chairman Alan Solomont, Vice Chairman Steven Goldsmith, and board member Eric Tanenblatt – lightly questioned the arrangement at one meeting, but agreed to “let's see how it works.” After that, he said, “I never heard a whimper” of complaint about the arrangement from the board or anybody else. “I never heard an objection.”

Again, the witness largely corroborates his account. The witness was not at the original meeting with the audit committee, but attended several later full board meetings in which Mr. Walpin mentioned his telecommuting arrangement without a single objection being raised.

Furthermore, both Mr. Walpin and the independent witness said Mr. Walpin always was extremely accessible regardless of where he was working that day, and that the board never indicated otherwise. Independently, both volunteered that Mr. Walpin had made clear the telecommuting would last on a trial basis only through June anyway, at which time they would review the set-up to see how well it was working.

So much for Mr. Walpin “insisting” on telecommuting “over the objections of the Corporation's Board.”

Now let's examine the second item of contention, the May 20 meeting at which Mr. Walpin allegedly was “confused” and “disoriented.” Before discussing the actual events of the meeting, consider several points.

First the allegation comes awfully close to profiling Mr. Walpin through reference to characteristics often thought to be age-related. By questioning his “capacity to serve” without establishing a pattern of such alleged behavior or providing any medical report confirming a lack of “capacity,” the White House skirts dangerously close to illegal age discrimination.

It is worth noting that nobody ever alleged that such a pattern of disorientation existed. Even if “confusion” did occur at one meeting, that does not constitute grounds for dismissing an independent IG absent other evidence of incapacity. An IG is by law an independent, apolitical official who can be removed only for just cause.

Through several lengthy interviews with the Washington Times and numerous television and radio appearances since his dismissal, Mr. Walpin has proved to be mentally sharp as a tack. With not a single suggestion to the contrary on any other known occasion, this citation of incapacity is scurrilous and, arguably, defamatory. Indeed, congressional staff might ask if it could be grounds for a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

That said.... what did, actually, happen at the meeting?

By the staff member/witness's account, later independently confirmed by Mr. Walpin, the IG had been working around the clock before the meeting, overseeing reports and reactions thereto concerning a case in Sacramento embarrassing to a close Obama ally and a case in New York highly embarrassing to board itself of the Corporation for National and Community Service. By both independent accounts, Mr. Walpin opened the meeting by chastising the board for particularly weak oversight of the grants, involving the Teaching Fellows program of the City University of New York. By both accounts, the board met Mr. Walpin's report with considerable hostility and repeated interruptions, during which the questions ranged without much logical order over several different topics.

At some point, the board asked Mr. Walpin to leave the room for 15 minutes while discussing the matter in private. When Mr. Walpin returned, he found his papers out of order. The witness confirms that Mr. Walpin asked for time to get his papers back in their proper order, but was denied that courtesy.

“I was also denied time to review my notes,” Mr. Walpin said.

Mr. Walpin continues: “There was no inability on my part to express myself before I was asked to leave for 15 minutes. After, there was indeed one question I didn't understand, because so many different items were on the table at once. I also felt physically ill in the middle of that meeting, and indeed was very ill that night. But even if I appeared to others to be confused that one time , that was based on just one occasion out of hundreds [of communications with the board]. Two weeks after that I had a long telephone meeting with the [audit] committee. The only confusion that existed then was the committee's confusion about its own duties.”

The witness, who agreed that Mr. Walpin and the board “weren't connecting” at the meeting after the board hectored him and denied him time to get his notes back in order, agrees that never before or since has he seen Mr. Walpin the slightest bit “confused.”

“Was Barack Obama 'incapacitated' because he got confused once and said there are 56 states?” asked Mr. Walpin. “Of course not. Do I lack the capacity to serve because of one occasion where they were hostile to me? That's baloney.”

Mr. Walpin notes one other anomaly. On Tuesday June 9, just one day before the White House first asked him to step down, the agency asked him to make a speech on June 23 in San Francisco to a conference of some 2,000 staff members and grantees. The invitation, he said, was delivered by Gretchen Van De Veer, director of the Office of Leadership Development and Training at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

“They begged me to come,” he said. “Why would they do that if they thought I am incapacitated?”

Previous Washington Times editorials have shown the highly suspicious nature of President Obama's move to fire Mr. Walpin. Today's witness adds fuel to those suspicions about the White House's motivations and propriety in this affair.

[Mavdog]

odd, but these attempts to place walpin on the pedestal of truth and goodness never discuss the us attorney's complaint againt him (which has been well documented and not surpringly ignored) as well as the unanimous vote by the two independent board of members of the corporation (you know, the people that actually lead the group and work closely with walpin) to seek his dismissal from the position he held.

nah, the right wants to just ignore the reality of the situation, feed unsubstantiated theories about paying money to sacramento and use anonymous sources to further their fantasy scandal.

yawn. what a waste of everyone's time.

[dude1394]

Well possibly now they will be looked at...rigiht? Whereas is barry(and yourself) had there way this would never have seen the light of day.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well possibly now they will be looked at...rigiht? Whereas is barry(and yourself) had there way this would never have seen the light of day.

what will be "looked at"? the evidence is right there, and they are actions that occured without any involvement of the white house.

it has already "seen the light of day", all of the prior acts (the us atty, the decision by the board) were not concealed, they were public. the resignation of walpin was not kept silent either.

much ado about nothing really. one would think these critics would have something better and substantive to obsess about.

[dude1394]

Thoughts from someone who's seen the thuggery up close and isn't surprised by it.

Obama's political play should shock no one

John Kass June 21, 2009 It's amusing to watch the Washington political establishment feign shock, now that President Barack Obama's reform administration has used a clay foot to vigorously kick one inspector general and boot another out the door.

One inspector general foolishly investigated a friend of the president. Another inspector general audited those juicy bonuses given to AIG executives as part of $700 billion federal bailout of the financial industry.

It's a decent man-bites-dog story, at least until North Korea tries lobbing a few missiles toward Hawaii. But until that happens, the political talk shows will buzz about Neil Barofsky, the inspector general overseeing the financial bailout.

Barofsky now claims that his autonomy will be compromised if the Obama Justice Department rules that he is merely a functionary of the Department of Treasury.

"An adverse ruling ... could potentially have a serious impact on the independence of our agency and our ability to carry out our mandate," Barofsky wrote in a letter to ranking senators on Friday.

Just two weeks ago, inspector general Gerald Walpin, who watches over volunteer community programs, was fired. He investigated Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama pal and former NBA star. Walpin alleged Johnson misused $850,000 in federal youth grants.

The use of political muscle may be prohibited in the mythic transcendental fairyland where much of the Obama spin originates, sprouting green and lush, like the never-ending fields of primo Hopium.

But our president is from Chicago. Obama's Media Merlin David Axelrod and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel come right from Chicago Democratic machine boss Mayor Richard Daley. They don't believe in fairies.

Daley can't wait to be rid of his own inspector general, David Hoffman, who had the audacity to question why Daley's nephew received $68 million in city pension funds to invest. The mayor insists he didn't know anything about it. Nobody with a functioning brain believes the mayor.

The second that Hoffman's term expires, the mayor will change the locks on his office doors and move Hoffman's house plants out into the cold. Daley might even send some of the same political tough guys who helped elect Emanuel to Congress years ago, all in the name of reform.

It's the Chicago Way. Now, formally, it's also the Chicago on the Potomac Way.

One fellow who seems surprised is Walpin. He was transformed from dogged inspector general to alleged drooling incompetent last week in just a few spin cycles.

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

In a letter to Congress explaining Walpin's firing, the Obama White House complained that Walpin failed to disclose exculpatory evidence that would have helped the mayor of Sacramento, and exhibited "other troubling and inappropriate conduct."

The letter, by White House counsel Norman Eisen, also left the impression that Walpin, 77, was a doddering old man just shy of dementia, describing him as "confused" and "disoriented" and all but incapacitated. I don't know whether that's true. But I do know this:

Walpin alleged that Obama's ally, supporter and fundraiser, Sacramento Mayor Johnson, played games with the $850,000 in federal money targeted for the AmeriCorps student volunteer program. Johnson allegedly paid "volunteers" to work on Democratic political campaigns, run his personal errands and even wash his car.

In an April deal with prosecutors in the Obama Justice Department, Johnson was not charged with a crime. But his St. HOPE Academy charity agreed to pay back half of the $850,000, including $72,000 from Johnson himself.

During the presidential campaign, the message expertly spun by Daley's mouthpiece, Axelrod, was that Obama would bring hope and change and transform the cynical politics of the past.

The Washington Beltway media pack, exhausted after the cynicism of the Bush years, was eager for change. Many fired up their Hopium pipes and waited, glassy eyed, for the rapture, all but chanting "Yes We Can." Now they're coming down hard.

So here's my question:

What's the big surprise? What strange, exotic land do they think Obama comes from?

Do they think Obama learned his politics in Narnia, while cavorting with gentle forest creatures, some of which have hooves and serve tea and cakes to journalists and well-mannered English schoolgirls on snowy winter afternoons?

Did Obama learn politics in Camelot, the magical kingdom where federal czars sit at a great round table, all for the good of the simple peasants? Or did he learn politics along that famous highway, you know, the one that's always paved with good intentions?

No. Obama learned his politics in Chicago.

And now all of Washington can learn it, too.

jskass@tribune.com

[dude1394]

So is this is okay, right? The whitehouse having an enemies list? I don't know...sorta seems not...sorta seems like chicago thuggery in action. I guess since it is the choosen one, no problemo.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../08/024209.php

We and many others have ridiculed the Obama administration's heavy-handed effort to gather information on the "fishy" opponents of its government medicine proposal. Byron York, meanwhile, takes a serious look at the legal implications of the administration's data-gathering program:

In a letter to Obama Tuesday, Republican Sen. John Cornyn wrote that, given Phillips' request, "it is inevitable that the names, email address, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House." Cornyn warned the president that "these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program." "I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House," Cornyn continued. "I urge you to cease this program immediately."
Senate Judiciary Committee lawyers studying the proposal say that although there is no absolutely settled law on the matter, the White House plan is likely not covered by the Privacy Act, which prohibits government agencies from keeping any records "describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained." Therefore, it appears the White House can legally keep records of the emails and other communications it receives in response to Phillips' request.
Those lawyers also point out that the White House is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, which means it would not have to release any information on the plan to members of the public who make a request.
In addition, the lawyers say the collected emails likely will be covered by the Presidential Records Act, which requires the White House to preserve and maintain its records for permanent storage in a government database. ...
if "fishy" information is indeed collected, as Phillips' request suggested, the laws involved mean that the information obtained by the White House could not only be secret but permanent. A dissident database, in whatever precise form it ultimately takes, could be around for a long time to come.

A secret and more or less permanent dissident database--in America! That's quite an accomplishment for an administration still in its seventh month. It seems longer, somehow.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

So is this is okay, right? The whitehouse having an enemies list? I don't know...sorta seems not...sorta seems like chicago thuggery in action. I guess since it is the choosen one, no problemo.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../08/024209.php

"enemies list"? that's really wacko...wait, there was an enemies list by a previous president, wasn't there?

overblown reaction to a simple request to communicate false reports. from the actual white house webpost:

Facts Are Stubborn Things
Posted by Macon Phillips
Opponents of health insurance reform may find the truth a little inconvenient, but as our second president famously said, "facts are stubborn things."

Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to "uncover" the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions.

In this video, Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House’s Health Reform Office, addresses one example that makes it look like the President intends to "eliminate" private coverage, when the reality couldn’t be further from the truth.


For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them. He has even proposed eight consumer protections relating specifically to the health insurance industry.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

so, long and short, nobody is compiling any "enemies list", the request is for false information to be revealed and corrected, and it is all being done openly and publicly.

or do you believe it is unreasonable for false reports to be corrected, and reasonable to strive for the public to have accurate and truthful information?

[Underdog]

Barack Saddam Hussein Hitler Marx Judas Obama = THUG (boy, those secret Muslims have a lot of names!)

He knows where Shaggy's cat is...


(I make win for debate now?)

[dude1394]

Okay...I guess it's a-ok then. Wonder if he'll be as transparent about those names as everything else? I don't recall any other administration asking for help understanding the political discourse, or getting the email addresses of those that don't like it.

But okay, if you guys say so.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Okay...I guess it's a-ok then. Wonder if he'll be as transparent about those names as everything else? I don't recall any other administration asking for help understanding the political discourse, or getting the email addresses of those that don't like it.

But okay, if you guys say so.

you didn't answer my questions....

or do you believe it is unreasonable for false reports to be corrected, and reasonable to strive for the public to have accurate and truthful information?

[dude1394]

I believe it is unreasonable for the white house to have it's fellow citizens reporting on each other. And the white house compiling said list.

Yup...sure do. The white house has way too much power to be collecting a list of folks whom they have grievances against.

[kg_veteran]

Cornyn is exactly right.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I believe it is unreasonable for the white house to have it's fellow citizens reporting on each other. And the white house compiling said list.

Yup...sure do. The white house has way too much power to be collecting a list of folks whom they have grievances against.

you purposely avoided answering the question, because to respond in a negative, that it is a reasonable position to allow false reports to go unchallenged and inaccuracies to not be corrected, would be an indefensible position to take.

it is both logical and prudent to make an effort to set the public record right, to confront those who put out falsehoods.

that's exactly what the request from the white house involves. it isn't asking for the names and addresses of those who put out the incorrect reports, it is asking for the incorrect reports themselves so they can be responded to.

the better question is why anyone would object to this simple request of the white house to be advised when these campaigns of disinformation are put forth.

apparently there's a group of people who don't want accurate facts, do not wish to have an honest discussion, but would rather use falsehoods and deception to acheive their goals.

do you support those people?

[dude1394]

Do you support the Government of the United States have a list of dissidents? Sounds like it.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it is both logical and prudent to make an effort to set the public record right, to confront those who put out falsehoods.

that's exactly what the request from the white house involves. it isn't asking for the names and addresses of those who put out the incorrect reports, it is asking for the incorrect reports themselves so they can be responded to.

the better question is why anyone would object to this simple request of the white house to be advised when these campaigns of disinformation are put forth.

apparently there's a group of people who don't want accurate facts, do not wish to have an honest discussion, but would rather use falsehoods and deception to acheive their goals.

Let me understand how you think this works. Someone emails the white house and says "someone said that your health care plan was going to cost too much".

No source, no name, no reference to who said it, where it came from, wherever. Are you truly this trusting of barry? Sorry...you can be but I'm sure that the folks who are getting reported to the white house don't feel so sanguine about having their name on his list.

Oh...I forgot..there won't be any names or sources..just the information. Silly me.

[dude1394]

No wonder barry has been bending over backwards to save his union buds at Government Motors. Those union dudes are useful. I expect we'll see some busted heads soon...probably already have in St. Louis.

The nation's largest federation of labor organizations has promised to directly engage with boisterous conservative protesters at Democratic town halls during the August recess.


In a memo sent out on Thursday, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney outlined the blueprint for how the union conglomerate would step up recess activities on health care reform and other topics pertinent to the labor community. The document makes clear that Obama allies view the town hall forums as ground zero of the health care debate. It also uses the specter of the infamous 2000 recount "Brooks Brothers" protest to rally its members to the administration's side.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you didn't answer my questions....

or do you believe it is unreasonable for false reports to be corrected, and reasonable to strive for the public to have accurate and truthful information?

I believe its unreasonable for false reports to be presented and not corrected. Thus the current reports coming out of the white house have been proven wrong, yet the white house is countering saying that the reports to prove they were wrong are actually wrong.

The White House is doing its best to keep America confused, thus distorting the Truth.

The prime example is this entire Health Care topic. They have a Video from 2007, in which then Senator Obama ramping up for his Presidential Campaign makes a speech and basically states that we will have a one payer health system, but that it wont be right away. We will have to let people believe that they can keep what they as they gradually bring in this new health care system. It goes on from there, but basically the goal is to turn this into a completely government controlled system.

Obama is essentially manipulating the truth with LIES and he is conning America.

How he and any Democrat can deny this, when he is on Video tape saying this is beyond me...other than the fact that the White House and Democrats believe they know whats best for the people better than the people do, so they don't want the people to have the complete information to decide for themselves.

Heck, look at the way the left is dismissing the opposition within the rash of townhall meetings going on.

So yes, I support the news outlets who are not only reporting on the truth, but they are supporting their reports with fact...such as Fox News.

As far as I'm concerned, the left can keep doing what they are doing...they will be their own downfall and in 2010 we can get the Democrats OUT OF OFFICE!!!

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you purposely avoided answering the question, because to respond in a negative, that it is a reasonable position to allow false reports to go unchallenged and inaccuracies to not be corrected, would be an indefensible position to take.

it is both logical and prudent to make an effort to set the public record right, to confront those who put out falsehoods.

that's exactly what the request from the white house involves. it isn't asking for the names and addresses of those who put out the incorrect reports, it is asking for the incorrect reports themselves so they can be responded to.

the better question is why anyone would object to this simple request of the white house to be advised when these campaigns of disinformation are put forth.

apparently there's a group of people who don't want accurate facts, do not wish to have an honest discussion, but would rather use falsehoods and deception to acheive their goals.

do you support those people?

Mavdog,

Did you support this same view when President Bush was President?

So will you report to the White House that they are misrepresnting themselves in regards to the Healthcare issue?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Do you support the Government of the United States have a list of dissidents? Sounds like it.

can you point out where the white house, or any of its representitives, has asked for a "list of dissidents"?

you can't. the request was for inaccurate publicity to be forwarded to them so they can respond and put the facts out.

those are two completely different items.

Let me understand how you think this works. Someone emails the white house and says "someone said that your health care plan was going to cost too much".

No source, no name, no reference to who said it, where it came from, wherever. Are you truly this trusting of barry? Sorry...you can be but I'm sure that the folks who are getting reported to the white house don't feel so sanguine about having their name on his list.

Oh...I forgot..there won't be any names or sources..just the information. Silly me.

you need to listen to the comments and the request for misinformation to be sent to them. you do not have a good understanding of what they have asked for.

they never asked for people to send them names of "someone said". they asked for news reports, blogs and other inaccurate posts to be sent their way so they can respond with accuracy and facts.

[DirkFTW]

I hear there's a free shirt if you submit information!



Seriously, didn't Carmelo voice opinions about this type of situation?

Luckily, the lawyers looked at it and said it's not covered by the Privacy Act, which prohibits government agencies from keeping any records “describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained.”

It is also not covered by the FOIA, but is covered by the Presidential Records Act so it's secret and permanent. That also means, if your email is forwarded, it's forever in the archives. I should probably stop using "biggerdongthanyou@gmail.com" if it's gonna be etched in stone with the 44th President's papers. The upside is that, in 10 years, the secrecy should end and we'll be able to see who ratted us out.



EDIT: You know, I think remember Silk posting something negative and completely false about health care reform. Something about the Cubans breaking the world's banks through increased health care bills or "bill ups". What a racist.

[alexamenos]

There's nothing to debate on this subject -- of course the government does all kinds of crap to dissidents. There are ample examples of dissident groups that had just about as many undercover FBI agents as actual members. Very recently a member of some anarchist, SDS type of group outed an army mole in their ranks...I'm talking a few weeks ago.

Smear campaigns, punative IRS audits....common as dirt.

edit....

A point Noam Chomsky makes often (and I think it's an interesting and valid point, obviously) is that the Watergate break-in was a crime of a very, very common kind. Nixon's plumbers and others were doing this sort of thing regularly to all sorts of political groups....it only caused a stir when they did it to the dems.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

I believe its unreasonable for false reports to be presented and not corrected. Thus the current reports coming out of the white house have been proven wrong, yet the white house is countering saying that the reports to prove they were wrong are actually wrong.

The White House is doing its best to keep America confused, thus distorting the Truth.

there's no question that those who do not want to see the truth, who want to believe the disinformation being put out (see above and below), can't and won't see the truth...

The prime example is this entire Health Care topic. They have a Video from 2007, in which then Senator Obama ramping up for his Presidential Campaign makes a speech and basically states that we will have a one payer health system, but that it wont be right away. We will have to let people believe that they can keep what they as they gradually bring in this new health care system. It goes on from there, but basically the goal is to turn this into a completely government controlled system.[/QUOTE]

you mean this video: http://www.thefoxnation.com/white-ho...o-you-be-judge

a cobbled video of seperate speeches and parts of statements, just the type of bs the white house is referring to. a portion of a speech to a convention, a segment of a statement culled out from later in the speech, a seperate comment from over 6 years ago, comments from other people....

the subject is the proposal and the bill that is in front of congress. if there are specific parts of that bill, if there is language in that bill that anyone objects to, let's see and discuss it.

allegations based without facts are distortions, falsehoods and do not serve the discussion well.

Obama is essentially manipulating the truth with LIES and he is conning America.

How he and any Democrat can deny this, when he is on Video tape saying this is beyond me...other than the fact that the White House and Democrats believe they know whats best for the people better than the people do, so they don't want the people to have the complete information to decide for themselves.

Heck, look at the way the left is dismissing the opposition within the rash of townhall meetings going on.

So yes, I support the news outlets who are not only reporting on the truth, but they are supporting their reports with fact...such as Fox News.

see, here is someone who points to the distortions and inaccuracies in the video as facts and truth when clearly they are not.

the right is acting like they work for orwell's ministry of truth....

[92bDad]

You linked to a video and yet you still dismiss the statements made within the video...???

If Obama stated that 1+1=3 would you defend him? But hey, why would democrats let facts and truth get in the way of their agenda?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

You linked to a video and yet you still dismiss the statements made within the video...???

??? it's a friggin' cut and paste of completely seperate snippets of words from speeches that are not even from the same events....do you not see that it is an inaccurate representation?

my gosh, it jumps from speech to speech, with parts of one speech to another speech and takes out portions of phrases. if you can't see that it is disingenuous, you are blind.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

??? it's a friggin' cut and paste of completely seperate snippets of words from speeches that are not even from the same events....do you not see that it is an inaccurate representation?

my gosh, it jumps from speech to speech, with parts of one speech to another speech and takes out portions of phrases. if you can't see that it is disingenuous, you are blind.

What's wrong with stringing together sound bites? They are rather consistent too.

But if "uncut" Obama is what you want...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.

Isn't that exactly what 92bdad said Obama said?

[DirkFTW]

I just got this in my email from silk!!!! Everyone should forward this to the White House so that they can spend lots of time to formulate a proper response to each one!

Top 5 reasons to oppose ObamaCare:

1. Universal healthcare will lead to us needing the government just to survive. Through promoting more sex for all people, the government is creating widespread exposure to HIV and other STDs they created to originally attack black people. (Please listen to Rev. Wright!) This will be accelerated by a future reduction in the rubber quality of contraceptives to promote viral transmission. This will lead to permanent, lifelong dependencies on pharmaceutical cocktails that the government will then be in charge of setting the price for, prescribing, and taxing to pay for. This will guarantee a base floor of monies that MUST be taxed so that the population can continue to survive. The government will thoroughly own us from cradle to grave.

2. The Zionist movement has secretly infiltrated the medical, insurance, and actuarial communities so that they may continue to wage religious war against the non-Zionists. This will give the Zionists complete authority to deny/reduce care to non-Zionists in an effort to reduce their populations in a sustained, covert terrorist attack. Mosad may even have operatives posing as pediatricians to kill the children that survive their other terror attacks!

3. Antisemites have secretly infiltrated the medical, insurance, and actuarial communities so that the true final solution can be started in America by denying/reducing care to Jews. Then, in conjunction with the universal health systems in Europe, the antisemites will have succeeded in boxing the Jewish population back into a tiny geographical region, ripe for Iran's "accidental" nuking!

4. Aliens are controlling the universal healthcare system to further their probing experiments! As is proven from the insistence of the Administration to prefer older, "just-as-effective" medical treatments, universal healthcare will halt the advance of non-invasive colonoscopies. Then the only approved process will be a probe in the nether regions. Coupled with mandated, "preventative health" colonoscopies starting at progressively younger ages, the aliens will have secretly succeeded in bypassing the abduction step to satisfying their insatiable human testing needs.

5. The universal healthcare system is a complete coverup for Obama's missing birth certificate! By insisting on electronic records, the administration will be able to force every hospital to digitize their documentation and ELIMINATE THE PAPER TRAIL! Once digitized into a database, Obama's Hawaiian certificate will of course appear along with everyone else's! And don't think this stops with Obama... the long chain of Manchurian candidates has only begun because the electronic system will allow them to fabricate new "natural born citizens" every election cycle!!!

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

What's wrong with stringing together sound bites? They are rather consistent too.

parsing sentences does not convey the reality of what someone says, they lose the context. it is typically done to alter people's remarks in a way that suits the person doing the editing.

Isn't that exactly what 92bdad said Obama said?

that's from 2003 I believe....and in 2008, he said this:

“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.

"Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs. You’ve got a whole system of institutions that have been set up,” he said at a roundtable discussion with women Monday morning after a voter asked, “Why not single payer?”

“People don’t have time to wait,” Obama said. “They need relief now. So my attitude is let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time—as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered—decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.”

the point is look at the proposal, look at the bill, and make critical remarks about that specific program. do not attempt to make claims about the program that are not accurate as to what the program itself says.

those who are trying to attack the program are doing so not in that manner, but rather by suggesting that there is some conspiracy to do a bait and switch.

stay with the facts, stay with what the program itself says, not demonizing the person who is proposing the program or trying thru innuendo to make the program out to be something it isn't.

it isn't a single payer system, it does not take over the role of private insurance. period.

[aquaadverse]

While I don't think it's really a big deal, If it had been on the White House website during the W administration the avalanche of keening and wailing about dictators and fascism, 1984 et al would have those T. Boone whirly rigs so fast we wouldn't need to discuss alternative fuel anymore.
Putting it on the official, top dog, king of the hill, heavily read and internationally monitored, US uber site was a pretty tone deaf move.

For an organization that was trading on shiny newness and a deep understanding of tech, this was puzzling. Obama has some serious cultural blindspots as far as being able to predict how actions and strategy are seen by Joe Sixpack and Susie Cornshuck.

It doesn't really matter what the reasons and motivation was for doing this, he is not attempting to make an enemies list anymore than Bush was attempting to become ruler for life with the Patriot Act. You can make an argument for the Patriot Act by citing examples of civil right protections that made sense for snail mail and landlines and the automatic paper trails of travel and meetings, being woefully inadequate in an age of disposable cellphones, electronic wire transfers and international netmeetings with no passport stamps, hotel or plane tickets. Wireless routers that show only a single IP...etc.

This was just stupid. It's like aliens swooped down and replaced all the people who ran one of smartest campaigns in history with wonks. I don't understand the need to continually make everything an us against them that forces a winner and loser. No President in my lifetime, well maybe Nixon, has so consistently concerned themselves with what was going on in the media.
Republican Mobs? Astro turfing? WTF? Why would you want to imply some of the folks are your enemy?

People are pissed. You might think their reasons aren't valid and they dislike you personally, but I'm not seeing the wisdom in these "We won, sore losers and idiots" tactics.

How did they turn so stupid? Americans tend to want to hit back if they feel dissed and ignored. I keep trying to look for the wisdom in this. Whatever you think the practical reasons in this might be, it has to be one of the worst political moves if you bank on your personal likability to move legislation.

Not as bad as Carter asking for his entire cabinet's resignation to bolster confidence that government can make good decisions to solve problems, but damn. I'd be firing someone. Bad enough to have a VP like Bidden out of control, but this?