PBO Fires Inspector General

[SubGod22]

What's behind Obama's sudden attempt to fire the AmeriCorps inspector general?

The 30 day requirement is important because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which was designed to strengthen protections for IGs, who have the responsibility of investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse within federal agencies, against interference by political appointees or the White House. Part of the Act was a requirement that the president give Congress 30 days' notice before dismissing an IG. One of the co-sponsors of the Act was then-Sen. Barack Obama.

The Act also requires the president to outline the cause for his decision to remove an IG. Beyond saying that he did not have the "fullest confidence" in Walpin, Obama gave no reason for his action

Gerald Walpin speaks: The inside story of the AmeriCorps firing

Walpin learned his fate Wednesday night. He was driving to an event in upstate New York when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform. "He said, 'Mr. Walpin, the president wants me to tell you that he really appreciates your service, but it's time to move on,'" Walpin recalls. "Eisen said, 'You can either resign, or I'll tell you that we'll have to terminate you.'"

[wu_shizzle]

This can't be true, I thought Obama was all about transparency.

The IG found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.

[SubGod22]

White House: AmeriCorps IG Walpin Was a Troublemaker

For some strange reason I don't think we're ever going to hear an actual reason behind it. As per usual, PBO will keep things as vague as possible. And you can't blame him. It's gotten him this far.

[shocklight]

Where is the outrage from the Republicans?

[SpanglerFan316]

When people are partisans of one party or the other, they lack credibility. If the people here who seem to hate Obama were as critical of corruption, etc. when Bush was in office, I would respect their opinions. I could go back and see which anti-Democratic partisans were critical of Cheney's declaration that the vice president's office was not part of the executive branch or the many scandals by Republicans.

I hate corruption in office by anyone, independent of party or belief. IGs are important and this is an interesting story. I don't have the facts. Could Walpin be a Republican political hack trying to cause trouble for innocent people? Could Walpin be a nonpartisan, honorable individual simply trying to do his job? I have no idea. Remove the partisanship, investigate everyone independent of party or influence and you would have my support.

Of course, should I say anything about campus "corruption" (in its broadest sense)? By and large, campus problems come from the top, not the bottom.

[SB Shock]

If the people here who seem to hate Obama were as critical of corruption, etc. when Bush was in office, I would respect their opinions.

That is laughable. Most of the conservatives in this here chat room have called a spade a spade and have been critical of both parties. I think it is safe to say a majority of the conservatives on SN don't even consider themselves republicans.

The only difference now is Republicans are toothless and are not players now and and it is all about Obama and his agenda now.

[Maggie]

From the Village Voice:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/06/obama_fires_gov.php

:shock:

[Maggie]

Not an isolated incident?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/18/obama-has-fired-2-igs-in-2-weeks-leashed-another/

[SubGod22]

:banghead:

[RoyalShock]

How very Soviet of Obama.

The next step is to have them institutionalized.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2009/06/american-yezhovschina.html

[Maggie]

How very Soviet of Obama.

I, briefly, had the same thought – very Stalin like. :(

[Maggie]

For what it is worth, so did Victor Davis Hanson:

The New Orwellianism

We use Orwell, Orwellian, and Orwellianism loosely a lot these days, but what is going on in the Obama administration is beginning to get a little creepy and resembles a lot of things Orwell wrote about in 1984.

When in, Soviet fashion, a critical overseer is dismissed as being "confused" and suffering mental problems in carrying out the law, as Gerald Walpin probably did in uncovering waste and possible fraud in connection with the mayor of Sacramento; or when the government begins to create new words like "overseas contingency operations" and "man-made catastrophes"; or when Justice Sotomayor says that a Latina is inherently a better judge than a white man — and then says she does not mean what she says — or that a female-only club that has no males does so because no males apparently applied (using the argument of pre-Civil Rights Southern country clubs); or when the president begins nationalizing companies because he has no interest in the federal government interfering with private enterprise or swears that he is going to uncover waste and insist on financial sobriety as he runs up a nearly $2 trillion deficit, we see a creeping Orwellianism everywhere. Bush (and "Bush did it") has become the proverbial enemy at large, sort of playing the role of Trotsky in the Soviet 1930s, or the face on the big screen we are supposed to hate — alternately demonized and airbrushed (when Obama adopts his policies like military tribunals, Iraq, or renditions). Newspeak has even proclaimed our president a "god," and a journalist has adopted proskynesis in his presence.

All this dissimulation is based on two general principles — one, the cause of egalitarianism and equality of result is so critical that the tawdry means of distorting reality is not only worth it, but not tawdry; and two, 30 years of postmodern teaching in our law and graduate schools have insidiously convinced many of our elites that there is no absolute truth, only competing narratives that take on credence depending on the race, class, gender, and access to power of those who speak.

As a rule of thumb, when key administration officials say they do not wish to do something, the odds are they have already done it, and when they imply "Bush did it" it means that they will adopt it (e.g., anti-terrorism protocols) or exceed it (Bush deficits). (emphasis added)

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWM1ZjkyYmM2OGVjMTAwYTc3MmVmYjdiYWFiOGI2ZWI=

[SubGod22]

Getting to the bottom of the AmeriCorps IG firing

[SubGod22]

Report: AmeriCorps Feared IG’s Push for Further Probe into Case Involving Obama Supporter

[SubGod22]

AmeriCorps feared bad press if IG investigation continued