Originally posted by hklvette: So does that mean he's going to find a way to pay for the $800 billion spendulous bill, or is Pay-Go not applicable to that?
I happened to catch his speech. I could not believe what I was hearing until I heard him say "... we can not issue a tax cut unless we come up with the money for it ...". I think that is what it means in a nutshell, as well as him trying to sound like a responsible spender, .
Oh, dear readers, it's almost too good to be true!
The children of the world are to be properly indoctrinated with a positively ingenious new product: The Barack and Michelle Obama Paper Doll & Cut-Out Book, from our friends at St. Martin's Press. Taking his cues from the ingratiating mainstream media, author John Boswell has created a perfect introduction to the false messiah for the children of adoring masses.
Imprint those young minds early and often.
It is described in the press kit as just the thing for "the millions who can't get enough of this remarkable first family."
What? Half the covers of Newsweek for the past 18 months isn't enough? Just try to find a newsstand without the First Couple staring back at you.
Having played with run-of-the-mill paper dolls in my youth, I can attest that these modern paper dolls are of the authentic original genre. The dolls themselves put the First Couple in their very best light, complete with ear-to-ear grins sure to please nascent idolaters on both coasts.
Barack's doll shows none of the haughty arrogance that slips out when he gets away from the teleprompter, and the ears have been politically trimmed to appear not too big for his head. The Michelle doll shows not a single sign of the fierce, Big-Radical-Mama-in-Chief, but her arms are positively the stuff of legend. All in all, perfectly PC-submissive renderings.
No re-education camp for these suave capitalists.
This paper doll book is exactly what any little subject of a banana republic would love to receive from his dear leader in a care package. I especially liked the international flavor, complete with enough paper outfits from around the globe for a kumbayah parade. Citizens of the world can rejoice knowing the USA plays no favorites. I'm sure that every little Obot around the world will be thrilled to have a set of these dolls for her very own.
If it's a commercial success, we can expect further volumes. Perhaps the makers can come up with a costume appropriate to Evan Thomas's characterization of Obama as "sort of God." The creator (that's small "c" creator) can call it a Sea of Galilee outing, and Barry and Michelle can don seamless, white garments with little dove-like wings for their feet and skip across the waters.
The makers of the little paper dolls ought to avoid using the Leader in any "sort of God" situations that might be construed as Islamic in nature, however. The reasons here ought to be obvious; one would so hate for these lovely paper-doll makers to meet untimely, unfortunate deaths. Blaspheming the Christians or Jews should be no problem, as usual.
I was every bit as enthralled with the Obamanoid paper dolls as anyone with half a brain would be.
In honor of the 44th President of the United States , Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: " Barocky Road ."
Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow.
The cost is $100.00 per scoop.
When purchased, it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but then the ice cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you.
You are left with an empty wallet and no change, holding an empty cone with no hope of getting any ice cream.
In honor of the 44th President of the United States , Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: " Barocky Road ."
Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow.
The cost is $100.00 per scoop.
When purchased, it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but then the ice cream is taken away and given to someone who cannot pay.
You are left with an empty wallet and no change, holding an empty cone with no hope of getting any ice cream.
In honor of the 44th President of the United States , Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: " Barocky Road ."
Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow.
The cost is $100.00 per scoop.
When purchased, it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but then the ice cream is taken away and given to someone who cannot pay.
You are left with an empty wallet and no change, holding an empty cone with no hope of getting any ice cream.
How many will do you think they will MAKE YOU buy?
Hi Boys. I am sitting in an internet cafe in Guangzhou, China typing this. Don't go out allot, a particular female keeps me tied to the bed. Went to lunch in a very small diner this afternoon which seats about 20. A young Brit happened to be eating and we struck up a conversation. He works for the largest english radio station here and lives next door to the diner. We were talking about the economy and he says the US may take years to recover, maybe a couple of generations because of the spending BO is doing. He said that his election could not have come at a worse time for the US.
Went to a meeting yesterday at a Chinese company and at lunch I ask two of the guys who could speak english what they thought of BO and his handling of the economy. They both were of the opinion that he was sincere but had no clue and was taking the US down the wrong path. I asked if they thought that was the view that Beijing had and was told probably, but that it is not in their nature to openly be critical of him. Just a couple of views from the rest of the Obama loving world. Later, being tugged on, back to bondage I go. These Chinese girls are ruthless.
HAMPTON, Va. – President Barack Obama's controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is blaming "them Jews" for keeping him from speaking to the president. Wright, the former pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, said he hasn't spoken to Obama since he became president. "Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office," Wright told the Daily Press of Newport News following a Tuesday night sermon at the 95th annual Hampton University Ministers' Conference. "They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. ... I said from the beginning: He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do." Obama was a longtime member of the church but resigned from it and cut ties with Wright after videos surfaced during the presidential campaign showing Wright's sometimes provocative sermons. Wright's incendiary comment included shouting "God damn America" and accusing the government of creating AIDS. In the interview Tuesday, Wright also criticized Obama for not sending a U.S. delegation to the World Conference on Racism held recently in Geneva, Switzerland, saying Obama chose not to for fear of offending Jews and Israel. "Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing (by) the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don't want Barack talking like that because that's anti-Israel," Wright said. The White House declined to comment to the Associated Press on Thursday on Wright's remarks. A phone message left by the AP at Wright's home wasn't immediately returned.
Now...got more about the "Chinese girls are ruthless" part? (wink)
Have not yet found one named Ruth yet! One trip here and you understand why even with populatoin control there are 1.3 billion people. There are about 4 million females in this city and the average is maybe 30. They have 24 hour night clubs and no curfew on selling booze. These girls love to party.
I watched an hour show on China's take on the environment and will post in your other thread when I get back, very interesting. Don't know what Nancy reported after her meeting here but it was probably bull. China expelled her in 1999 for displaying a banner in the square in Beijing protesting human rights violations. Don't think they have any respect for her at all. Later, hope I survive.
[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 06-12-2009).]
Have not yet found one named Ruth yet! One trip here and you understand why even with populatoin control there are 1.3 billion people. There are about 4 million females in this city and the average is maybe 30. They have 24 hour night clubs and no curfew on selling booze. These girls love to party.
Wow. I never thought Chinese women would be such partyers.
quote
I watched an hour show on China's take on the environment and will post in your other thread when I get back, very interesting. Don't know what Nancy reported after her meeting here but it was probably bull. China expelled her in 1999 for displaying a banner in the square in Beijing protesting human rights violations. Don't think they have any respect for her at all. Later, hope I survive.
Please do. I'm really interested to know what the Chinese think about global warming. I've heard they have NO intention of cutting CO2 emissions, and the world expects the U.S. to. I'll bet the Chinese LOVE that idea.
Obama ousts AmeriCorps' IG who investigated friend
By ANN SANNER and PETE YOST, Associated Press Writers Ann Sanner And Pete Yost, Associated Press Writers – 24 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says he has lost confidence in the inspector general who investigates AmeriCorps and other national service programs and has told Congress he is removing him from the position.
Obama's move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star.
Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for the way he handled the investigation of Johnson and St. HOPE Academy, a nonprofit group that received hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grants from the Corporation for National and Community Service, which runs the AmeriCorps program.
St. HOPE Academy ended up repaying more than $400,000 in government funds.
"It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general," Obama said in a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joe Biden, who also serves as president of the Senate. "That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general."
The president didn't offer any more explanation, but White House Counsel Gregory Craig, in a letter to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, cited the U.S. attorney's criticism of Walpin to an integrity committee for inspectors general.
"We are aware of the circumstances leading to that referral and of Mr. Walpin's conduct throughout his tenure and can assure you that the president's decision was carefully considered," Craig wrote.
Grassley had written Obama a letter pointing to a law requiring that Congress be given the reasons an IG is fired. He cited a Senate report saying the requirement is designed to ensure that inspectors general are not removed for political reasons.
Grassley said Walpin had identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds that were wasted or misspent and "it appears he has been doing a good job."
Messages left for Walpin seeking comment were not immediately returned.
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.
In August 2008, Walpin referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney's office, which said the IG's conclusions seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered in the investigation.
"We also highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent," Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown said in an April 29 letter to the federal counsel of inspectors general.
Walpin's office made repeated public comments just before the Sacramento mayoral election, prompting the U.S. attorney's office to inform the media that it did not intend to file any criminal charges.
The U.S. attorney's office reached a settlement that requires the St. HOPE Academy to repay nearly $424,000 — almost half of the $850,000 it received — in return for the government lifting its suspension on future grants.
Brown said at the time of the settlement that prosecutors determined there was no fraud, but rather a culture of "sloppiness" in St. HOPE's record-keeping.
Kevin Hiestand, chairman of the board of St. HOPE Academy, said in a statement it was "about time" Walpin was removed. "Mr. Walpin's allegations were meritless and clearly motivated by matters beyond an honest assessment of our program," he said.
Ken Bach, who works in the inspector general's office at the national service corporation, will be acting inspector general until Obama appoints someone to the position.
Walpin, a New York attorney, was appointed by then-President George W. Bush and sworn into office in January 2007 after being confirmed by the Senate, according to a news release on AmeriCorps' Web site. Walpin graduated from College of the City of New York in 1952 and received a law degree in 1955 from Yale Law School. He was a partner with the New York City law firm Katten Muchin and Rosenman LLP for more than 40 years.
Alan Solomont, a Democrat and the board chairman of the government-run corporation, and Stephen Goldsmith, a Republican and the board's vice chair, said they strongly endorsed Obama's decision.
Despite his boldness, Barack Obama seems as fated to fail as were Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter. And for the same reason: a belief in his own righteousness and moral superiority, and a belief that his ideals and his persona count mightily in the modern world.
Wilson declaimed about America's fight to "make the world safe for democracy" when in harness with the British, French, Russian, Japanese and Italian empires, all slavering to feast on the carcasses of the Hohenzollern, Habsburg and Ottoman empires.
By 1920, Wilson was a tragic failure, mocked by ex-allies and reviled by former enemies for having dishonored his own 14 Points.
Jimmy Carter declared in 1977 that "we have gotten over our inordinate fear of communism that caused us to embrace any dictator who shared in that fear." So, we undermined Nicaragua's Anastasio Somoza and the Shah, and got the Sandinistas and the Ayatollah Khomeini.
As for Barack, he behaves on the world stage like some Ivy League kid ashamed of the people he came from, letting one and all on campus know that he is nothing like his benighted family with its sordid history.
In Cairo, he confessed that America had a hand in dumping over the regime in Iran in 1953. He did not mention that the United States forced the retreat of Joseph Stalin's army from Iran in 1946.
For the 100th time, he declared, "I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year."
Is Obama unaware that Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia run prisons that make Guantanamo look like The Breakers at Palm Beach?
How many Guantanamo inmates plead to be sent home to Muslim countries?
In Trinidad, Obama sat for 55 minutes enduring Daniel Ortega's diatribe against the United States for mistreatment of Castro's Cuba and for the Bay of Pigs. Obama protested that he could not be held responsible for something that happened the year he was born.
Why could not he say to Ortega: "We also intervened in the Dominican Republic in 1965 to block a communist takeover, and in Grenada in 1983. The only problem with the Bay of Pigs is that we should have done it right and removed the odious Cuban dictatorship, and put Fidel, Raul and Che up against that same wall where so many patriots perished and spared the Cuban people 50 years of tyranny and the prostitution of their island into a base camp for the greatest despotism of the 20th century."
What is the matter with Obama that he cannot defend our Cold War conduct and Cold War presidents like Ike and JFK?
Answer: Obama cannot, because at heart he buys into the anti-American narrative that ours is a deplorable history -- of genocide against the Indians, of slavery and segregation, of robbing Mexicans of their land and of disrespecting our Latin neighbors.
Obama is determined to make the requisite apologies to show the world he does not condone the sins our fathers committed.
Thus, as Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation has cataloged, Obama has apologized to Europe for our having "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." He apologized to Latin America for our having been "disengaged and at times ... sought to dictate."
He told the Turks that we are "working through our own darker periods in our history. ... Our nation still struggles with the legacy of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans."
Obama, however, did not ask the Turks to confess to their own "darker periods," which might have taken some time.
Obama is the anti-Reagan. Where Reagan ever spoke of the greatness and glory of America, her history and heroes, her capacity to make the world all over again, Obama is like a dismal parson, forever reminding us -- and everyone within earshot -- of our own and our fathers' sins.
Obama is not only demoralizing Middle America, he is driving away the God-and-country patriots who are sick of hearing this rot from professors and journalists, and prefer not to hear it from their president. He is ceding moral high ground to regimes and nations that do not deserve it.
If Obama believes he can build himself up by tearing America down, he is mistaken. Cynical foreigners will view it with snickering contempt, patriotic Americans with disgust. What kind of leader is it who talks down his own country on foreign soil?
America's performance in the Cold War was hardly flawless. But does anyone deny that we were on the right side, that the Soviet Empire and Mao's China and communist Vietnam and Castro's Cuba were on the side of tyranny -- and that the neutrals were by and large irrelevant or worse in that great cause?
A nation is an extended family. While families fight and quarrel, often bitterly, you do not take the family quarrel outside the family.
You don't hang the family's dirty linen on the communal clothesline.
Obama, however -- like some Hollywood actress seeking sympathy and public approbation with her tell-all biography detailing how she was abused by her father -- trolls for popularity with America's adversaries by reciting for the benefit of the world all the sins his country has allegedly committed.
When did this become the duty of the president of the United States?
When did this become the duty of the president of the United States?
When a liberal got elected. Liberals seem to love to wallow in self-pity, self-hatred, and guilty. So they elected a wallower-in-chief. Pretty disgusting, isn't it?
_Consumers and lenders whose unwitting or reckless credit and borrowing decisions placed families under staggering debts and contributed to the instability of the financial system. Obama is likely to recommend creating a financial services consumer protection body with oversight powers over mortgages and credit cards and other consumer financial products.
Gee, not forcing banks to make no down payment loans to people who can't afford it might be a good start. Ya think? Kind of ironic coming from a president who as a lawyer sued Citibank under the CRA for not making enough subprime mortgage loans.
quote
Case Name Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011 State/Territory Illinois Case Summary Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctiverelief, actual damages, and punitive damages.
U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement. Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Clayton, Fay (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Love, Sara Norris (Virginia) FH-IL-0011-9000 Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Obama, Barack H. (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Wickert, John Henry (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-9000
I am still wondering when Obama is going to step in and join Ahmadinejad in helping to quell the ongoing protests in Iran. We all know that Obama has made great strides to show the PM that he wants to be friends, and that he deeply appreciates his Islamic values, so I'm sure he is already thinking that by taking action against the protestors he could earn some quick credibility from Iran and the other Islamic countries.
[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 06-15-2009).]
You know we've said time and time again the main media is in the tank for Obama.. and lefties keep saying.. naw aint true.. Your'e paranoid. Riiiiight.
ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
MORE
Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:
Dear Mr. Westin:
As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.
Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.
In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.
Respectfully, Ken McKay Republican National Committee Chief of Staff
Amazing. When the Bush administration was accused of using Fox News as propaganda, the left complained bitterly. Anyone want to bet on whether they'll complain about this?
No outrage from the left on this one either...the president firing an inspector general, whose investigation got too close to a couple of Obama's supporters:
Fired IG was investigating the president's supporters
President Obama's unexpected firing last Thursday of an inspector general looked suspicious. Now the story is getting worse. If allowed to stand, the firing of Gerald Walpin, inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, surely will chill other efforts to rein in corruption within the Obama orbit.
Early reports on the firing focused on Mr. Walpin's work exposing serious irregularities in the use of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the Sacramento mayor who is a political supporter of Mr. Obama's. The irregularities occurred while Mr. Johnson headed a Sacramento educational enterprise.
That controversy in Sacramento remains a big part of this story. But another, bigger controversy, this one involving a program at the City University of New York (CUNY), has been largely overlooked. It is worth noting that Mr. Walpin issued his report on Mayor Johnson back on May 6 without losing his job. In contrast, the president forced Mr. Walpin out within a week of his June 4 report on substantial waste at the New York program.
Why would the administration be so sensitive to long-running waste at CUNY? Consider whose ox was gored. Here's the story:
The Research Foundation at CUNY set up a Teaching Fellows Program in 2000. It had no AmeriCorps connection at the time. The program covers tuition for the fellows, and it has always attracted huge numbers of applicants. The program had 19,200 applicants last year for 3,000 spots. CUNY does not advertise an AmeriCorps affiliation as an inducement for applicants. A survey by Mr. Walpin's office found that most fellows were not even aware there was an AmeriCorps connection.
Yet, for the past six years, AmeriCorps has granted each fellow up to $9,450 on top of their scholarships. As Mr. Walpin describes it, the AmeriCorps cash has the appearance of a gratuity - "because it adds no service to the community which is not already provided by the Fellows Program."
The Fellows Program earns praise, but the AmeriCorps funding is far from essential for it. The grants, therefore - "upwards of $80 million of taxpayer money," Mr. Walpin told The Washington Times on Saturday - would be far better used for other purposes.
"The [Fellows Program at] City University of New York is the largest AmeriCorps program," Mr. Walpin told us. "The corporation board clearly did not like the idea that we were holding that their largest program was invalid."
The board chairman is Alan Solomont, a longtime top Democratic donor who bundled more than $800,000 combined for the Obama presidential campaign and Inauguration. He had been a Democratic appointee on the AmeriCorps board since 2000 before Mr. Obama elevated him to chairman.
"Solomont has been very, very hostile to the IG's office," Mr. Walpin said. "It hadn't been like that [before the new administration]."
Mr. Obama effectively shot the messenger with last week's IG firing. Mr. Walpin has embarrassed two of the president's supporters, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Solomont. Apparently that is cause for dismissal in this administration - even for a nonpartisan public official of unquestioned integrity.
Federal inspectors general were created to be free from political interference. Many of them serve through the terms of several presidents regardless of party affiliation. Their entire job is to root out fraud, abuse and waste of the very sort Mr. Walpin, to his credit, identified at CUNY.
The law governing inspectors general mandates that a president can remove them only after stating a cause for the dismissal. Mr. Obama has offered no substantive reason for firing Mr. Walpin. That is unacceptable.
The curious case of the inspector general and a Presidential ally.
President Obama swept to office on the promise of a new kind of politics, but then how do you explain last week's dismissal of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars? This is a case that smells of political favoritism and Chicago rules.
A George W. Bush appointee, Mr. Walpin has since 2007 been the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees such subsidized volunteer programs as AmeriCorps. In April 2008 the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; and theater and art programs.
Associated Press Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation For National and Community Service, was fired by President Barack Obama. Mr. Walpin's investigators discovered that the money had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car.
At the end of May, Mr. Walpin's office recommended that Mr. Johnson, an assistant and St. HOPE itself be "suspended" from receiving federal funds. The Corporation's official charged with suspensions agreed, and in September the suspension letters went out. Mr. Walpin's office also sent a civil and/or criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California.
So far, so normal. But that all changed last fall, when Mr. Johnson was elected mayor of Sacramento. News of the suspension had become public, and President Obama began to discuss his federal stimulus spending. A city-hired attorney pronounced in March that Sacramento might be barred from receiving stimulus funds because of Mr. Johnson's suspension.
The news caused a public uproar. The U.S. Attorney's office, which since January has been headed by Lawrence Brown -- a career prosecutor who took over when the Bush-appointed Attorney left -- had already decided not to pursue criminal charges. Media and political pressure then mounted for the office to settle the issue and lift Mr. Johnson's suspension. Mr. Walpin agreed Mr. Johnson should pay back money but objected to lifting the suspension. He noted that Mr. Johnson has never officially responded to the Corporation's findings and that the entire point of suspension is to keep federal funds from individuals shown to have misused them.
Mr. Brown's office responded by cutting off contact with Mr. Walpin's office and began working directly with the Corporation, the board of which is now chaired by one of Mr. Obama's top campaign fundraisers, Alan Solomont. A few days later, Mr. Brown's office produced a settlement draft that significantly watered down any financial repayment and cleared Mr. Johnson. Mr. Walpin told us that in all his time working with U.S. Attorneys on cases he'd referred, he'd never been cut out in such fashion.
Mr. Walpin brought his concerns to the Corporation's board, but some board members were angry over a separate Walpin investigation into the wrongful disbursement of $80 million to the City University of New York. Concerned about the St. HOPE mess, Mr. Walpin wrote a 29-page report, signed by two other senior members of his office, and submitted it in April to Congress. Last Wednesday, he got a phone call from a White House lawyer telling him to resign within an hour or be fired.
We've long disliked the position of inspectors general, on grounds that they are creatures of Congress designed to torment the executive. Yet this case appears to be one in which an IG was fired because he criticized a favorite Congressional and executive project (AmeriCorps), and refused to bend to political pressure to let the Sacramento mayor have his stimulus dollars.
There's also the question of how Mr. Walpin was terminated. He says the phone call came from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, who said the President felt it was time for Mr. Walpin to "move on," and that it was "pure coincidence" he was asked to leave during the St. HOPE controversy. Yet the Administration has already had to walk back that claim.
That's because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice, plus a reason, before firing an inspector general. A co-sponsor of that bill was none other than Senator Obama. Having failed to pressure Mr. Walpin into resigning (which in itself might violate the law), the Administration was forced to say he'd be terminated in 30 days, and to tell Congress its reasons.
White House Counsel Gregory Craig cited a complaint that had been lodged against Mr. Walpin by Mr. Brown, the U.S. Attorney, accusing Mr. Walpin of misconduct, and of not really having the goods on Mr. Johnson. But this is curious given that Mr. Brown himself settled with St. HOPE, Mr. Johnson and his assistant, an agreement that required St. HOPE (with a financial assist from Mr. Johnson) to repay approximately half of the grant, and also required Mr. Johnson to take an online course about bookkeeping.
Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, a co-sponsor of the IG Reform Act, is now demanding that the Corporation hand over its communications on this mess. He also wants to see any contact with the office of First Lady Michelle Obama, who has taken a particular interest in AmeriCorps, and whose former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, recently arrived at the Corporation as a "senior adviser."
If this seems like small beer, keep in mind that Mr. Obama promised to carefully watch how every stimulus dollar is spent. In this case, the evidence suggests that his White House fired a public official who refused to roll over to protect a Presidential crony.
I don't know whether it says more about the state of the economy or the state of the White House press corps -- or which is more pathetic -- but most members of the Fourth Estate didn't bother to travel with the Big O on his trip to Chicago this week.
Patrick Gavin wrote in Politico: "For media observers, it felt like a milestone moment: While reporters sometimes skip short fundraising-only trips or journeys in the waning days of a presidency, it’s hard to remember a time when a president, in the prime of his presidency, traveled outside Washington for a major policy address just to have the press stay home."
The official line ascribes the press corps' decision to stay home alone, without Daddy-O, to the tight budgets that are squeezing legacy media organizations, tight budgets that apparently didn't apply to Obama's trip to Cairo, or Las Vegas, or Hollywood, or....
I'd like to suggest another reason: Most of the White House press corps knew how they would cover Barack Obama's health care proposals, just as they know how they'll treat all matters Obama, before the official announcement. So why bother going all the way to Chicago to actually cover Obama's speech, especially when he was giving it to the American Medical Association?
The AMA, comprised of the health care providers most directly affected by Obama's plan, did not greet the proposals warmly; he was booed. Since the White House press corps was not actually on hand, there was no opportunity, really an obligation, to cover the reaction.
So while, the MSM was more than willing to ante up to cover Obama's trip to Cairo, even his night on the town with Michelle in Paris, they couldn't cobble together the funds to cover his speech on an important topic in front of a skeptical audience.
The crowd's reaction might not fit the story line.
UPDATE: ABC REFUSES OPPOSITION ADS DURING WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL... ABC REFUSES OPPOSITION ADS DURING WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL Wed Jun 17 2009 15:15:00 ET
ABC is refusing to air paid ads during its White House health care presentation, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including a paid-for alternative viewpoint!
The development comes a day after the network denied a request by the Republican National Committee to feature a representative of the party's views during the Obama special.
Conservatives for Patients Rights requested the rates to buy a 60-second spot immediately preceding 'Prescription for America'.
Statement from Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights:
"It is unfortunate - and unusual - that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care event. Health care is an issue that touches every American and all potential pieces of legislation have carried a pricetag in excess of $1 trillion of taxpayers' money. The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC's decision - as of now - to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public. Our organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an alternative viewpoint and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people. We were surprised to hear that paid advertisements would not be accepted when we inquired and we would certainly be open to purchasing time if ABC would reconsider."
If a Republican president had fired three inspectors general working on sensitive investigations, the media firestorm would drown out every other story. But that's exactly what The One has done, and only a home town newspaper (well-versed in the ways of Chicago politics), the Chicago Tribune, seems to notice.
The always vigilant Dan Riehl brings us up to date on the actions of Senator Charles Grassley, who seems to be the lone guardian of the public, as the coverup explodes. The three fired IGs are:
Gerald Walpin, who blew the whistle on the Mayor of Sacramento, whose organization paid back hundreds of thousands of dollars for misuse of federal community organizing funds, but faced no penalty. Note that Obama has slated billions for community organizing, and fired the IG in charge of investigating misuse.
Neil Barofsky, tasked with watching over the financial stimulus spending. Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten of the Chicago Tribune write: ...now Neil Barofsky is embroiled in a dispute with the Obama administration that delayed one recent inquiry and sparked questions about his ability to freely investigate.
The disagreement stems from a claim by the Treasury Department that Barofsky is not entirely independent of the agency he is assigned to examine a claim that has prompted a stern letter from a Republican senator warning that agency officials are encroaching on the integrity of an office created to protect taxpayers.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, sent the letter Wednesday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner demanding information about a "dispute over certain Treasury documents" that he said were being "withheld" from Barofsky's office on a "specious claim of attorney-client privilege."
Judith Gwynne:
Separately this week, the International Trade Commission told its acting inspector general, who is not subject to White House authority, that her contract would not be renewed.
Grassley had become concerned about her independence because of a report earlier in the year that an agency employee forcibly took documents from the acting inspector general.
"It is difficult to understand why the ITC would not have taken action to ensure that the ITC inspector general had the information necessary to do the job," Grassley wrote on Tuesday.
Less than three hours after the letter was e-mailed to the agency, the acting IG, Judith Gwynne, was told that her contract, which expires in early July, would not be renewed.
We have a president and Democrat-controlled Congress which are spending trillions of dollars as fast as they can, and simultaneously inspectors general charged with keeping the process honest are fired.
Why isn't this the top story? The question answers itself.
Obama's catastrophic economic policies have not had an effect on his personal popularity - yet.
But that doesn't mean they aren't getting very worried about the fact that they don't see much of a plan for getting the economy restarted, much less any good ideas from the administration on how to bring down the deficit.
Americans also have huge problems with Obama's statist takeovers of the banking and auto industry, as well as his goal of nationalizing health insurance.
This much is evident in two new pollsl out today from The Wall Street Journal/NBC and the New York Times/CBS.
First, the Journal poll is analyzed by Laura Meckler:
Nearly seven in 10 survey respondents said they had concerns about federal interventions into the economy, including Mr. Obama's decision to take an ownership stake in General Motors Corp., limits on executive compensation and the prospect of more government involvement in health care. The negative feeling toward the GM rescue was reflected elsewhere in the survey as well.
A solid majority -- 58% -- said that the president and Congress should focus on keeping the budget deficit down, even if takes longer for the economy to recover.
The people simply don't believe that the takeovers and the incredible deficits were necessary to save the economy or stimulate the private sector.
The New York Times/CBS poll had even worse news for the president as Jeff Zeleny and Dalia Sussman report:
A distinct gulf exists between Mr. Obama's overall standing and how some of his key initiatives are viewed, with fewer than half of Americans saying they approve of how he has handled health care and the effort to save General Motors and Chrysler. A majority of people said his policies have had either no effect yet on improving the economy or had made it worse, underscoring how his political strength still rests on faith in his leadership rather than concrete results. As Mr. Obama finishes his fifth month in office and assumes greater ownership of the problems he inherited, Americans are alarmed by the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been doled out to boost the economy. A majority said the government should instead focus on reducing the federal deficit.
The Journal poll also shows a drop in the president's approval numbers from 63% to 56% in just two months. Critically, independents now are almost evenly split where before, the president enjoyed a nearly 2-1 approval rating.
All this points to big trouble ahead for Obama and the Democrats. As unemployment continues to climb, interest rates start spiking, and inflation rears its ugly head, people will start abandoning the president in droves.
But where will they go? Currently, the GOP enjoys a favorable rating with the public of an anemic 28% according to the Times poll - the lowest since they've been polling that number. It presents a tremendous opportunity for Republicans who are currently ill-equipped to take advantage. Almost leaderless and disorganized, GOP lawmakers and politicians are at sea about how to win back the American people to their party.
Unless they can come up with a plan very soon, they will find themselves almost as bad off in 2010 as they have been since they lost control of the Congress.
Vice President Biden recently confessed that the administration "guessed wrong" on the stimulus bill. Even President Obama reluctantly admitted that unemployment is likely to reach ten percent this year, after promising in February that his stimulus package would keep it from exceeding eight.
The US economy is so large and globally dominant that it probably will recover at some point -- perhaps just in time for the 2010 elections. And once it recovers, no doubt Mr. Obama will stop blaming his predecessor and take credit for it. But his actions only worsened the economic recession, just as President Roosevelt's did in the mid-1930s. According to some studies, Roosevelt's policies prolonged the depression by seven years.
So what exactly is wrong with Mr. Obama's plan? The short answer is that he is attempting to stimulate demand, rather than stimulating supply. To make things even worse, he also is taking actions that will depress supply.
For the past three decades, the Federal Reserve Board was allowed to moderate America's money supply with an unprecedented degree of autonomy. Mistakes were made, but the Fed generally has been able to offset -- or at least delay -- the harm done by the looters in Washington.
However, Mr. Obama piled on spending and debt that even the most prudent monetary policies might not be able to counteract. Stagflation and other terms that haven't been heard since the miserable Carter years now are voiced again in economic forecasts.
Mr. Obama's so-called stimulus spending is counterproductive not only because of its unprecedented magnitude, but also because of its beneficiaries. As an inexperienced policy maker, Mr. Obama naively believes that supply follows demand. If mobs of greedy supporters at town hall meetings demand taxpayer-funded kitchens and free healthcare, Mr. Obama will try to find a way to supply them.
But good leaders aren't followers and supply doesn't follow demand -- not in a sustained prosperous economy. As successful entrepreneurs know, supply usually leads demand. For example, we all demand cheap cold-fusion energy, but if it ever becomes commercially viable, it will be supplied in some unexpected way that no consumer focus group (or president) could envision. Sustained demand then will follow supply.
That business principle applies to more than just atomic energy. Ordinary things like Bedford Falls housing developments work that way too. In the 1940s movie It's a Wonderful Life, guardian angel Clarence showed George Bailey, a successful building and loan entrepreneur, what life would be like without him:
Clarence: Are you sure this is Bailey Park?
George: No, I'm not sure of anything anymore. All I know is this should be Bailey Park. But where are all the houses?
Clarence: You weren't here to build them.
The movie dialog hints at the folly of stimulus policies that fund or promote consumer demand, such as those implemented in the past by Fannie Mae, and today by the Obama administration. Demand stimuli lead to inflation and boom/bust economies. They also eventually bankrupt the George Baileys and cause economic slowdowns and massive unemployment. Stagflation.
In contrast, supply stimuli -- investment tax credits, accelerated depreciation, and capital gains tax reductions -- lead to long-term capital formation. Small businesses are started. Big factories are modernized. The results are improved manufacturing efficiency, greater American productivity, more exports, and more jobs. And the jobs turn into productive careers, not temporary day labor.
More importantly, when supply leads demand instead of chasing it recklessly, a stimulus is not inflationary. Stimulated suppliers compete in a crowded market by improving their products and cutting prices. Bailey Park gets built to endure as a well-planned community, not an overpriced boomtown hastily carved into a cornfield.
Like another movie character, Ferris Bueller, perhaps Mr. Obama simply cut class when he was supposed to be learning basic economics. Or perhaps Mr. Obama is fully aware of the destructive consequences of his fiscal policies, but the lure of shifting money and power from individuals to government is irresistible.
If you're not a movie buff, a backyard way of understanding consumer demand stimulus is to think of it as lighter fluid with no charcoal. The temporary flash of heat and light can fool gullible picnickers into thinking they soon will be dining on steak, but of course they'll be stuck with cold potato salad.
Mr. Obama actually has addressed economic supply issues, but instead of stimulating supply, he restricted it further. His new CAFE regulations effectively ban the sale of most cars currently made by US auto companies. Mr. Obama is curtailing supply while stoking demand with his stimulus spending.
It's the automotive equivalent of giving $2000 to crackheads in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and then posting DEA agents on every street corner in town. Smuggling, bribery, price-hikes, and gang wars erupt.
Will Mexican drug mules enlarge their trans-border tunnels to accommodate black market SUVs? No, but freedom loving Americans naturally resist fascism, so they will find creative ways to get another Little Deuce Coupe and avoid buying an Obama Motors Little Il Duce Coupe.
Many simply will repair their old vehicles. In doing so, they will "smuggle" safe, comfortable, productive vehicles from the past to the present. As long as automakers and offshore aftermarket suppliers continue making every part, there's no reason a gardener's full-size pickup truck can't last for decades -- or at least until the state overreach is corrected.
Mr. Obama also wants to restrict the supply of affordable coal, oil, and nuclear energy with dramatic increases in taxes, exploration bans, and costly regulations. Energy costs have risen dramatically not because of increased economic activity, but because of supply reductions. More stagflation.
Ditto for nationalized healthcare: In that sector, Mr. Obama's policies will lead to skyrocketing demand while choking off supply, just as it has in every other country that already uses his proposed system. Inflation, rationing, favoritism, bribery, and offshore "medical tourism" will follow.
One might even argue that Mr. Obama is limiting the supply of skilled American labor by encouraging union expansion. Collective bargaining seeks to restrict the number of workers and artificially boost demand for them by reducing their productivity. That will lead to stagflation and more offshore manufacturing -- and increased illegal smuggling of non-union workers across the Mexican border to do domestic jobs that can't be exported to China.
The Left finally staged that Ferris Bueller sequel we've all been waiting for. But it turned out to be a horror flick.
.
