President Obama — the Alderman in Chief of America: UPDATED

Let’s start out with a preface to the most current and blatant abuse from the White House; the illegal firing of an Inspector General who’s job it is to protect our tax dollars that pour into DC:

6/12/2009 RedState: …clearly for political reasons, Barack Obama tried to fire AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin. Not only is it for strictly political reasons (Short take: “the AmeriCorps IG accuses prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. Prominent Obama supporter has to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. Obama fires AmeriCorps IG.”) but Obama does not have the authority to summarily dismiss an IG as he tried to do last night.

Not since the depression of the 30’s, have we had such an urgent need to have unbiased, ethical and non-partisian inspectors in place to safeguard from abuse of tax payer dollars allocated for economic recovery, but as I have always concluded: “Obama ain’t no FDR”:

6/16/2009 American Thinker: ….FDR asked for vigilance from the American people to ensure the program and federal money was honestly run:

There are chiselers in every walk of life. Every profession has its black sheep….The most effective means of preventing such evils in this work relief program will be the eternal vigilance of the American people themselves. I call upon my fellow citizens everywhere to cooperate with me in making this the most efficient and the cleanest example of public enterprise the world has ever seen…Feel free to criticize. Tell me of instances where work can be done better, or where improper practices prevail.

 

Harry Hopkins, a close confidant of FDR’s, was placed in charge of the WPA. He worked indefatigably to ensure the program was free of the taint of partisanship, funds were spent-not for political gain in certain areas-but in ways calculated to have the most bang for the buck. Efficiency was a theme harped on throughout the program, both by FDR and Hopkins. They both took criticism to heart and responded when the occasion (relatively rare) required them to do so to uphold their principles. One may argue whether FDR’s program prolonged the Depression. I happen to think that they did. However, the WPA did spend money honestly and efficiently. Hopkins was always the target of politicians who wanted him fired for not going along with cronyism and corruption.

 

Now we have a President who brought the ways of the Chicago Machine to the highest office of the land. He fires a non-partisan Inspector General who tried to fulfill his duties to the taxpayers of America to ensure their money is spent honestly and efficiently.

When will just one of these elected officials find their spine and stand firm saying:  “enough is enough” from the “Chicago” white house and we’re not going to take it anymore”!

When are our elected officials in DC going to wake up! When are our Governors going to wake up!

We are all now prisoners of the “Chicago White House” and ACORN with “NO HOPE” of rescue anywhere in sight as we seem to have “NOT ONE” elected official, sitting US Attorney General, Federal Judge or Prosecutor willing to do the right thing for our country by upholding the Constitution and our laws.

UPDATE:

The most transparent administration ever(pass the barf bucket) is keeping “mum” about its internal investigation of Inspector General Walpin:

At today’s meeting, Sen. Grassley’s staffers wanted to know more about the White House review.  “Unfortunately,” Grassley writes in a letter just sent to White House counsel Gregory Craig, “Mr. Eisen refused to answer several direct questions posed to him about the representations made in his letter.”  Grassley says that since Eisen refused to answer the questions in person, Grassley would submit a dozen of them in writing.  Here they are:

1- Did the [Corporation for National and Community Service] Board communicate its concerns about Mr. Walpin to the White House in writing?

2- Specifically, which CNCS Board members came forward with concerns about Mr. Walpin’s ability to serve as the Inspector General?

3- Was the communication about the Board’s concerns on or about May 20, 2009 the first instance of any communications with White House personnel regarding the possibility of removing Mr. Walpin?

4- Which witnesses were interviewed in the course of Mr. Eisen’s review?

5- How many witnesses were interviewed?

6- Were any employees of the Office of Inspector General, who may have had more frequent contact with Mr. Walpin than the Board members, interviewed?

7- Was Mr. Walpin asked directly during Mr. Eisen’s review about the events of May 20, 2009?

8- Was Mr. Walpin asked for his response to the allegations submitted to the Integrity Committee by Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown?

9- What efforts were made during Mr. Eisen’s review to obtain both sides of the story or to afford the Office of Inspector General an opportunity to be heard?

10- In addition to the claim that Mr. Walpin was “confused” and “disoriented,” the letter also says he exhibited “other behavior” that led to questions about his capacity. What other behavior was Mr. Eisen referencing?

11- If the initial and primary concern had to do with Mr. Walpin’s capacity to serve for potential health reasons, why was he only given one hour to decide whether to resign or be fired?

12- If Mr. Walpin’s telecommuting arrangements since the beginning of this year were a major concern, then why was Mr. Walpin not simply asked to stop telecommuting?

Grassley asks the White House for a response in writing by Wednesday, June 24.

Now, these seem like legitimate questions that the white house should have been able to answer immediately, well, that is if we are to think that the firing was actually legit.

%d bloggers like this: