Showing posts with label scandal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scandal. Show all posts
Please Check Out This New Blog - "My Blog Doesn't Matter"
I came upon this good blog via twitter. It is called "My Blog Doesn't Matter" even though it does matter. As a person working in education Mr. Potillor has a different and most insightful take on the Penn State scandal. His blog offers some good thoughts on various goings on in our society today. Please do check out his blog here.
Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal: Rioting Students Topple TV Van in Wake of Coach Paterno Firing
From The Blaze: Officers used pepper spray to control the crowd. Some students chanted ‘We want Joe! We want Joe!” Others kicked in the windows out of the toppled news van.
From The Blaze: Paterno had announced earlier in the day he planned to retire after the season and expressed remorse for not having done more after he learned of the sex assault allegations.
A huge child sex abuse scandal has rocked the Penn State community. Now the fallout has even taken down the famous football coach, Coach Paterno. Apparently Penn State had more multiple opportunities to stop Sandusky's alleged child sex abuse. Joe Paterno reported at least one incidence of child abuse to college officials but did nothing else to ensure the safety of young boys. While he did nothing legally wrong it is evident that morally he should have done something more to make sure that boys were in a safe environment. Do you think that he should have been fired? Keep in mind this happened without an investigation by Penn State and the police investigators found no fault with Joe Paterno. Or do you think that emotions were running high and that Penn State trustees simply gave into public pressure? In addition, after the child sex abuse scandal came to light Joe Paterno had said that he was planning to retire at the end of season. I have mixed feelings on this one. I just don't think that this should tarnish Paterno's entire football career. I just don't see evidence that he was in fact one of the persons who covered up for the child sex abuse. But this whole situation is disturbing so maybe the Penn State board made the correct decision in firing both the President of Penn State and Joe Paterno.
Here is the video of a t.v. van being toppled over by Penn State students.
Huge Scandal: ATF is "Letting Guns Walk" into Hands of Mexican Cartels
From CBS News:
What???? This is outrageous!! ATF agents are being ordered to just sit back, watch and allow assault weapons to get in the hands of the drug cartels, allowing the drug cartels to walk away with those guns in a strategy which was supposed to culminate with taking down a major cartel. The ATF's job was to stop gun trafficking across the border but was ordered to simply watch so they could see where the cartels would end up, whether these guns crossed the border into Mexico or ended up back into the U.S. These orders were traced all the way up the line to the Justice Department approving this policy of "letting guns walk". These same guns are killing our own people. Brian Terry, a border patrol agent was gunned down in December. The two guns which were found next to him were allowed to "walk". This is unbelievable! An ATF agent named John Dodson has gone public with this information and is blowing this scandal wide open. So, the ATF - essentially the U.S. government - is partially responsible for the escalating violence in Mexico. Our government is responsible for innocent lives being lost. This program clearly needs to be investigated by Congress. The "letting guns walk" program has had a devastating impact on both Mexico and our country so this needs to be stopped.
For some reason the embed code on the CBS video would only show half of the picture on the video so here are the links to the videos:
Here is a link to the interview with ATF agent Dodson
Here is the the link to the investigative report on the ATF
WASHINGTON - Federal agent John Dodson says what he was asked to do was beyond belief.
He was intentionally letting guns go to Mexico?
"Yes ma'am," Dodson told CBS News. "The agency was."
An Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms senior agent assigned to the Phoenix office in 2010, Dodson's job is to stop gun trafficking across the border. Instead, he says he was ordered to sit by and watch it happen.
Investigators call the tactic letting guns "walk." In this case, walking into the hands of criminals who would use them in Mexico and the United States.
Dodson's bosses say that never happened. Now, he's risking his job to go public.
"I'm boots on the ground in Phoenix, telling you we've been doing it every day since I've been here," he said. "Here I am. Tell me I didn't do the things that I did. Tell me you didn't order me to do the things I did. Tell me it didn't happen. Now you have a name on it. You have a face to put with it. Here I am. Someone now, tell me it didn't happen."
Agent Dodson and other sources say the gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department. The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel. And it was all kept secret from Mexico.
ATF named the case "Fast and Furious."
Surveillance video obtained by CBS News shows suspected drug cartel suppliers carrying boxes of weapons to their cars at a Phoenix gun shop. The long boxes shown in the video being loaded in were AK-47-type assault rifles.
So it turns out ATF not only allowed it - they videotaped it.
Documents show the inevitable result: The guns that ATF let go began showing up at crime scenes in Mexico. And as ATF stood by watching thousands of weapons hit the streets... the Fast and Furious group supervisor noted the escalating Mexican violence.
One e-mail noted, "958 killed in March 2010 ... most violent month since 2005." The same e-mail notes: "Our subjects purchased 359 firearms during March alone," including "numerous Barrett .50 caliber rifles."
Dodson feels that ATF was partly to blame for the escalating violence in Mexico and on the border. "I even asked them if they could see the correlation between the two," he said. "The more our guys buy, the more violence we're having down there."
Senior agents including Dodson told CBS News they confronted their supervisors over and over.
Their answer, according to Dodson, was, "If you're going to make an omelette, you've got to break some eggs."
What???? This is outrageous!! ATF agents are being ordered to just sit back, watch and allow assault weapons to get in the hands of the drug cartels, allowing the drug cartels to walk away with those guns in a strategy which was supposed to culminate with taking down a major cartel. The ATF's job was to stop gun trafficking across the border but was ordered to simply watch so they could see where the cartels would end up, whether these guns crossed the border into Mexico or ended up back into the U.S. These orders were traced all the way up the line to the Justice Department approving this policy of "letting guns walk". These same guns are killing our own people. Brian Terry, a border patrol agent was gunned down in December. The two guns which were found next to him were allowed to "walk". This is unbelievable! An ATF agent named John Dodson has gone public with this information and is blowing this scandal wide open. So, the ATF - essentially the U.S. government - is partially responsible for the escalating violence in Mexico. Our government is responsible for innocent lives being lost. This program clearly needs to be investigated by Congress. The "letting guns walk" program has had a devastating impact on both Mexico and our country so this needs to be stopped.
For some reason the embed code on the CBS video would only show half of the picture on the video so here are the links to the videos:
Here is a link to the interview with ATF agent Dodson
Here is the the link to the investigative report on the ATF
The Sr. Keehan Controversy: So, I'm Not Pro Life?
Controversy within the Catholic blogosphere as to whether Sr. Keehan’s statement’s here(and posted below) imply that if a person doesn’t support ‘Comprehensive Health Care Revolution Reform’-Obamacare- than you are not pro-life. I agree with Tantamergo, A Dallas Area Catholic’s assessment here since Sr. Keehan and the Catholic Health Association have made it quite clear in there statements and letters to politicians that they are supportive of Obamacare (a.k.a. comprehensive health care reform) so it is not far-fetched to come to the common sense conclusion that she was implying that if you don’t support Obamacare than you are not pro-life. While over at Vox Nova and here, they are defending Sr. Keehan’s statements and consistently defend controversial statements made by pro-abortion people, I have yet to see them defend controversial statements that were made by pro-life agencies, but yet have attacked them in the past. And, if you had any doubts about Sr. Keehan’s allegiance to Obamacare and “compressive health care reform” then they can be allayed now since in researching the CHA website I have found links to one video that CHA contributed signs and to the montage of signs that displayed support for Obamacare and the fact that Sr. Keehan visited the White House with the sole purpose of showing her support for Obamacare. Both she and the CHS are so heavily invested in the support of “Comprehensive health care revolution reform” -Obamacare- that the CHS combined with other hospitals have pledged a total of $155 billion to support the President’s efforts for health care reform. So, I think only a nonsensical elitist-minded individual who is stuck in the some alternate reality could believe that Sr. Keehan was not referring to people who are against Obamacare as not being pro-life.
And, these people who think that universal health care or single payer system, or government run health care is the panacea that would fix our health care accessibility and affordability problems are misguided. If these people think turning the way our doctors practice health care upside down and turning the whole system over to the Federal government is going to solve those issues they are highly misinformed and misled by certain people within either the Catholic community or by politicians. Should we sacrifice quality versus quantity in our health care system as other countries have done? Why do you think many people from other countries come to the U.S. when they’re sick and need a certain medical procedure performed on them that isn’t offered in their country? Patients come here for treatment here because we offer the invaluable procedures that they need and their country doesn’t because they’re country’s government limits the ingenuity of the medical professions and thus offers fewer procedures. Why is the U.S. able to offer what other countries can‘t? It is because of the principles of freedom and liberty in America and our Founders explicitly provided us with a road map for a limited government that would not intrude into our private lives as a government run health care system would. In other countries, the government controls what procedures may be done, the number of patients which may be seen, and many aspects of health care so this limits their availability to treat patients effectively. The United States treats people more effectively than other country around the globe because the government is not controlling every aspect of the doctors’ and patients’ lives. Doctors and medical researchers can use ingenuity to find new treatments, procedures and surgeries to help patients because they are not reliant on the government for monetary funds or approval for this and that procedure. As bad as you think it is with insurance companies it is much worse under the control of the government.
These same people like to apply the seamless garment philosophy in thinking that helping all of the poor in the name of “social justice” is on the same plane as the abortion issue. This simply isn’t true. To think that opposition to comprehensive health care reform-Obamacare- is on the same plane as being pro-abortion is fallacious. As children of God we do have a moral obligation to help the poor, but it is not wrong for us to choose to help one person instead of another person. It is not evil for us to choose to help Joe while being unable to help Robin at the same time. It is important for us, as children of God, to do these acts of charity which takes a free-will on our part instead of being forced by the government to give money to the poor. But, abortion is morally different. Abortion is always murder- it is never morally licit. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. No exercise of the act of killing an innocent human being is ever licit, but it can be licit to refrain from an act of charity which would benefit this or that poor or sick person. If one is of limited means, one is obligated to see to the needs of his or her family before tossing away one’s resources on strangers. It is our obligation to adhere to both moral law and civil law and not to commit murder, or kill ANY innocent human being. It is entirely appropriate for the government to compel our obedience to the law and demand under the threat of force that we refrain from murder. But how appropriate is it for the state to compel our charitable giving at the point of a gun (effectively eliminating its value as an act of charity)?
Catholic Health Association's website is here.
CHA has a link to ourhealthcarevalues where you can verify the details that I mentioned regarding Sr. Keehan's support for Obamacare.
And, these people who think that universal health care or single payer system, or government run health care is the panacea that would fix our health care accessibility and affordability problems are misguided. If these people think turning the way our doctors practice health care upside down and turning the whole system over to the Federal government is going to solve those issues they are highly misinformed and misled by certain people within either the Catholic community or by politicians. Should we sacrifice quality versus quantity in our health care system as other countries have done? Why do you think many people from other countries come to the U.S. when they’re sick and need a certain medical procedure performed on them that isn’t offered in their country? Patients come here for treatment here because we offer the invaluable procedures that they need and their country doesn’t because they’re country’s government limits the ingenuity of the medical professions and thus offers fewer procedures. Why is the U.S. able to offer what other countries can‘t? It is because of the principles of freedom and liberty in America and our Founders explicitly provided us with a road map for a limited government that would not intrude into our private lives as a government run health care system would. In other countries, the government controls what procedures may be done, the number of patients which may be seen, and many aspects of health care so this limits their availability to treat patients effectively. The United States treats people more effectively than other country around the globe because the government is not controlling every aspect of the doctors’ and patients’ lives. Doctors and medical researchers can use ingenuity to find new treatments, procedures and surgeries to help patients because they are not reliant on the government for monetary funds or approval for this and that procedure. As bad as you think it is with insurance companies it is much worse under the control of the government.
These same people like to apply the seamless garment philosophy in thinking that helping all of the poor in the name of “social justice” is on the same plane as the abortion issue. This simply isn’t true. To think that opposition to comprehensive health care reform-Obamacare- is on the same plane as being pro-abortion is fallacious. As children of God we do have a moral obligation to help the poor, but it is not wrong for us to choose to help one person instead of another person. It is not evil for us to choose to help Joe while being unable to help Robin at the same time. It is important for us, as children of God, to do these acts of charity which takes a free-will on our part instead of being forced by the government to give money to the poor. But, abortion is morally different. Abortion is always murder- it is never morally licit. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. No exercise of the act of killing an innocent human being is ever licit, but it can be licit to refrain from an act of charity which would benefit this or that poor or sick person. If one is of limited means, one is obligated to see to the needs of his or her family before tossing away one’s resources on strangers. It is our obligation to adhere to both moral law and civil law and not to commit murder, or kill ANY innocent human being. It is entirely appropriate for the government to compel our obedience to the law and demand under the threat of force that we refrain from murder. But how appropriate is it for the state to compel our charitable giving at the point of a gun (effectively eliminating its value as an act of charity)?
Catholic Health Association's website is here.
CHA has a link to ourhealthcarevalues where you can verify the details that I mentioned regarding Sr. Keehan's support for Obamacare.
ACORN Probe Investigator Says They Have Done Nothing Illegal -- LIAR!!
Luther Scott Harshberger who just happens to be a Democrat and a lawyer from the state of Massachusetts has made the claim that ACORN has done nothing illegal. This is bullsh*t!! Either Hashberger is completely oblivious and blind, or he is in ACORN's back pocket. I tend to think the latter. He and the other democrats would benefit from ACORN's shenanigans, so why wouldn't he look the other way so that it would benefit his fellow Democratic friends?
He must not have probed very deep since the videos show ACORN workers giving advice on how to hide assets, and how to sneak illegal Americans into America and pimp them out. What the hell method did Harshberger use? Possibly the toothpick standard of analysis? Instead of actually digging to find the truth? The videos clearly show that ACORN committed illegal misconduct.
In the video, Obama talks about spreading "community values" and how community organizations will shape his agenda. What the hell was Obama talking about? Maybe, he was talking about spreading the "values" of prostitution, finding ways of bypassing the law, and promoting voter fraud in order to steal elections. He seems to believe in immorality, so, why not? He and other Democrats are forcing their secularist views on Americans, and common sense values are disappearing because of them. It seems like most of the democrats today are the most underhanded, dirty, and immoral people.
H/T goes to Political Integrity Now.
Here are two videos: one of the ACORN videos and an older one of Obama speaking.
In the video, Obama talks about spreading "community values" and how community organizations will shape his agenda. What the hell was Obama talking about? Maybe, he was talking about spreading the "values" of prostitution, finding ways of bypassing the law, and promoting voter fraud in order to steal elections. He seems to believe in immorality, so, why not? He and other Democrats are forcing their secularist views on Americans, and common sense values are disappearing because of them. It seems like most of the democrats today are the most underhanded, dirty, and immoral people.
H/T goes to Political Integrity Now.
Here are two videos: one of the ACORN videos and an older one of Obama speaking.
The Walpin Firing: Where There's Smoke There's B.O.
Last Wednesday Inspector General Gerald Walpin learned that he was being fired. Was his being fired due to his astute abilities in finding corruption and misuse of Americorp funds by Obama's friend Kevin Johnson? I smell a stench in the air. I can see the words cover up written on the graffiti-filled bathroom walls. I believe that the corruption from the streets of Chicago has been transplanted to the streets of Washington D.C.
Here is a little bit of background on the life of Gerald Walpin:
Walpin grew up in the Bronx. His parents went hungry so that he could eat dinner. Walpin, while growing up, was a hard worker and continued with the same tenacity during his adult life. With all of his efforts and hard work he made it into Harvard, even though he was unable to pay for it. He would not give up on his American dream. Walpin's dream was to be a litigator. He went to Yale law, took out massive college loans, eventually got a scholarship and graduated from Yale in 1955.
During Walpin's career he has been a 1st Lieutenant in JAG, a special U.S. prosecutor who took on the conservative Ray Cohn, the infamous counsel to an aid of Senator Joseph McCarthy. He also helped to indict Nixon's two cabinet members and represented Mia Farrow against Woody Allen.
In an article by Byron York of the Washington Examiner he stated:
"The White House's decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin came amid politically-charged tensions inside the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that runs AmeriCorps. Top executives at the Corporation, Walpin explained in an hour-long interview Saturday, were unhappy with his investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California and a prominent supporter of President Obama. Walpin's investigation also sparked conflict with the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento amid fears that the probe -- which could have resulted in Johnson being barred from ever winning another federal grant -- might stand in the way of the city receiving its part of billions of dollars in federal stimulus money. After weeks of standoff, Walpin, whose position as inspector general is supposed to be protected from influence by political appointees and the White House, was fired."
Obama has consistently shown that he can't handle any sort of dissent or criticism at all. His huge ego gets shattered at the thought of someone actually disagreeing with him. Obama is proving that if any type of corruption comes to light, and it involves any of his cronies or monetary contributors, he makes sure that the corruption is covered up. In this case, he has decided to get rid of the ethical party. What happened to Obama standing up against corruption? Walpin was acting responsibly, by investigating and following up on a lead that involved corruption. If that lead happens to include Kevin Johnson, one of Obama's friends, so be it.
On Wednesday night when Walpin was contacted by Norman Eisen, Special Counsel to the President and "He said, 'Mr. Walpin, the president wants me to tell you that he really appreciates your service, but it's time to move on,'" At that moment Walpin had just finished a report on the Sacramento probe. He had just also finished an investigation into extensive misuse of AmeriCorp money by the City University of New York, which is AmeriCorp's biggest program. Because of his findings from the investigations of St Hope and City University of New York, top executives kept him out of corporation business that should normally include the Inspector General.
An article by Byron York stated:
"Walpin says he told Eisen that, given those two investigations, neither of which was well-received by top Corporation management, the timing of his firing seemed "very interesting." According to Walpin, Eisen said it was "pure coincidence." When Walpin asked for some time to consider what to do, Eisen gave him one hour. "Then he called back in 45 minutes and asked for my response," Walpin recalls."
I don't think that it was any coincidence at all. This was planned. Obama wanted to stop Walpin before he found any more problems with the way the money was managed at AmeriCorp. Think about it, Obama wants to expand AmeriCorp and if it was proven that the money was mishandled that could have some effect on whether Obama's much wanted program expansion would happen or not. I am sure that Obama didn't want AmeriCorp to be put in a bad light. The fact that Walpin's firing was so sudden and immediate is a telling sign and I believe is much more than a coincidence. If Gerald Walpin wasn't an excellent investigator than why would he be an Inspector General? He was obviously an excellent investigator of corruption which was not affiliated with any political group. He must have been a great investigator for his own good, to find corruption with one of Obama's chummy old friends. Obama by firing Walpin in such an interesting and a sudden way has made this political when the Inspector General is suppose to be apolitical and do independent investigations and follow those investigations wherever that leads him without regard to any particular political party.
Last year, a dispute began, when Walpin recommended that Johnson and St. HOPE be barred from receiving and using federal grant money. This is known as "suspension and disbarment", which means that under the current arrangement Johnson would be suspended from receiving any federal funds and might be ultimately barred from receiving funds in the future. "The whole purpose of suspension and debarment," Walpin says, "is to say that somebody who was involved in the misuse of government funds in the past should not be trusted with federal funds in the future."
Walpin's finding included that Kevin Johnson and St.HOPE did in fact misuse the government funds under the guidelines that were specified in the grant. Johnson used federally-funded AmeriCorp staff for his own personal use, which included: "driving [Johnson] to personal appointments, washing his car, and running personal errands."
Byron York stated:
"Walpin came to the conclusion that Johnson and St. HOPE should be subject to suspension and debarment. But it was not Walpin's decision to make; there is another official at the Corporation whose job it is to make that call. In September 2008, after reviewing Walpin's evidence, the official decided to order a suspension, with the distinct possibility that it would lead to a permanent debarment."
Glenn Beck said:
"Believe me, the only thing wrong with Gerald Walpin is that his heart hurts from being thrown under the bus by the system he served for so long."
According to the Associated Press, the FBI has opened up an investigation into allegations that an executive obstructed a federal inquiry by deleting emails written by Johnson. In order to settle the investigation St.HOPE Academy agreed to repay close to $424,000 in federal grants.
"I was fired because I did my job," Walpin told KCRA 3 from his home in New York City. "That's bad for our country. It's bad for taxpayers because it's the responsibility of an IG to make sure that taxpayers' money is not wasted."
In my assessment, Gerald Walpin is not disoriented or confused. I believe it is President Obama who is disoriented and confused. He is the one who is acting in a delusional state, trying to cover up and avoid reality, that his friend Kevin Johnson was involved in corruption. Obama is the one that has penalized an inspector general for doing his job extremely well. Walpin was fighting to reduce government waste and the misuse of federal funds. He was doing this by pinpointing where corruption was located, and acting accordingly to get rid of that corruption. Walpin has been wrongly fired for doing his job with precision. Could there be a lawsuit brewing? Obama has proven that he doesn't mind allowing corruption to exist, as long as it has to do with the Democrats. But, should the big, bad, ugly Republicans be involved in corruption, that must be weeded out. Corruption should not be advocated or accepted by any politician from any political party. It should not be a Democrat or Republican issue, in trying to make the other party look bad, but it should be a moral issue.
Here is a little bit of background on the life of Gerald Walpin:
Walpin grew up in the Bronx. His parents went hungry so that he could eat dinner. Walpin, while growing up, was a hard worker and continued with the same tenacity during his adult life. With all of his efforts and hard work he made it into Harvard, even though he was unable to pay for it. He would not give up on his American dream. Walpin's dream was to be a litigator. He went to Yale law, took out massive college loans, eventually got a scholarship and graduated from Yale in 1955.
During Walpin's career he has been a 1st Lieutenant in JAG, a special U.S. prosecutor who took on the conservative Ray Cohn, the infamous counsel to an aid of Senator Joseph McCarthy. He also helped to indict Nixon's two cabinet members and represented Mia Farrow against Woody Allen.
In an article by Byron York of the Washington Examiner he stated:
"The White House's decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin came amid politically-charged tensions inside the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that runs AmeriCorps. Top executives at the Corporation, Walpin explained in an hour-long interview Saturday, were unhappy with his investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California and a prominent supporter of President Obama. Walpin's investigation also sparked conflict with the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento amid fears that the probe -- which could have resulted in Johnson being barred from ever winning another federal grant -- might stand in the way of the city receiving its part of billions of dollars in federal stimulus money. After weeks of standoff, Walpin, whose position as inspector general is supposed to be protected from influence by political appointees and the White House, was fired."
Obama has consistently shown that he can't handle any sort of dissent or criticism at all. His huge ego gets shattered at the thought of someone actually disagreeing with him. Obama is proving that if any type of corruption comes to light, and it involves any of his cronies or monetary contributors, he makes sure that the corruption is covered up. In this case, he has decided to get rid of the ethical party. What happened to Obama standing up against corruption? Walpin was acting responsibly, by investigating and following up on a lead that involved corruption. If that lead happens to include Kevin Johnson, one of Obama's friends, so be it.
On Wednesday night when Walpin was contacted by Norman Eisen, Special Counsel to the President and "He said, 'Mr. Walpin, the president wants me to tell you that he really appreciates your service, but it's time to move on,'" At that moment Walpin had just finished a report on the Sacramento probe. He had just also finished an investigation into extensive misuse of AmeriCorp money by the City University of New York, which is AmeriCorp's biggest program. Because of his findings from the investigations of St Hope and City University of New York, top executives kept him out of corporation business that should normally include the Inspector General.
An article by Byron York stated:
"Walpin says he told Eisen that, given those two investigations, neither of which was well-received by top Corporation management, the timing of his firing seemed "very interesting." According to Walpin, Eisen said it was "pure coincidence." When Walpin asked for some time to consider what to do, Eisen gave him one hour. "Then he called back in 45 minutes and asked for my response," Walpin recalls."
I don't think that it was any coincidence at all. This was planned. Obama wanted to stop Walpin before he found any more problems with the way the money was managed at AmeriCorp. Think about it, Obama wants to expand AmeriCorp and if it was proven that the money was mishandled that could have some effect on whether Obama's much wanted program expansion would happen or not. I am sure that Obama didn't want AmeriCorp to be put in a bad light. The fact that Walpin's firing was so sudden and immediate is a telling sign and I believe is much more than a coincidence. If Gerald Walpin wasn't an excellent investigator than why would he be an Inspector General? He was obviously an excellent investigator of corruption which was not affiliated with any political group. He must have been a great investigator for his own good, to find corruption with one of Obama's chummy old friends. Obama by firing Walpin in such an interesting and a sudden way has made this political when the Inspector General is suppose to be apolitical and do independent investigations and follow those investigations wherever that leads him without regard to any particular political party.
Last year, a dispute began, when Walpin recommended that Johnson and St. HOPE be barred from receiving and using federal grant money. This is known as "suspension and disbarment", which means that under the current arrangement Johnson would be suspended from receiving any federal funds and might be ultimately barred from receiving funds in the future. "The whole purpose of suspension and debarment," Walpin says, "is to say that somebody who was involved in the misuse of government funds in the past should not be trusted with federal funds in the future."
Walpin's finding included that Kevin Johnson and St.HOPE did in fact misuse the government funds under the guidelines that were specified in the grant. Johnson used federally-funded AmeriCorp staff for his own personal use, which included: "driving [Johnson] to personal appointments, washing his car, and running personal errands."
Byron York stated:
"Walpin came to the conclusion that Johnson and St. HOPE should be subject to suspension and debarment. But it was not Walpin's decision to make; there is another official at the Corporation whose job it is to make that call. In September 2008, after reviewing Walpin's evidence, the official decided to order a suspension, with the distinct possibility that it would lead to a permanent debarment."
This shows that he was not the only person who came to the conclusion that Kevin Johnson misused federal grant funds and used federal AmeriCorp employees for his own personal gain, which was not apart of their responsibilities as AmeriCorp staff. Did the other official come to the wrong conclusion also? He obviously thought Walpin did a thorough job investigating the matter and that he had proven that Johnson did indeed misuse federal grant money.
In the meantime, Johnson was elected Mayor of Sacramento. After Congress passed the $787 billion stimulus package the conflict became a far more pressing issue since Johnson and Sacramento were hoping to receive aid from the Stimulus package. But, because of Walpin's investigation and assessment of Kevin Johnson's misuse of prior federal funds their would be an insuperable obstacle for Johnson and Sacramento to getting all the funds.
"On March 21, the Sacramento Bee reported that, "The city of Sacramento likely is barred from getting federal money -- including tens of millions the city is expecting from the new stimulus package -- because Mayor Kevin Johnson is on a list of individuals forbidden from receiving federal funds, according to a leading attorney the city commissioned to look into the issue." The issue was explosive. What if there were all that federal money raining down and Sacramento couldn't get any because its mayor had been found to have misused federal money in the past?"
Obviously because of the massive debt California has been facing the past few months or so, Sacramento desperately needed their part of the Federal Stimulus money. Kevin Johnson is the one that had put Sacramento in jeopardy of not receiving any help from the Stimulus. It is not Walpin's problem that Sacramento elected a mayor that had misused federal funds before. I am sure that Obama felt some pressure from one of his top supporters to take care of this situation so that Sacramento could receive federal Stimulus Funds.
The White House claims that Inspector General Gerald Walpin is "confused, disoriented, and unable to answer questions."
Glenn Beck said:
"Believe me, the only thing wrong with Gerald Walpin is that his heart hurts from being thrown under the bus by the system he served for so long."
According to the Associated Press, the FBI has opened up an investigation into allegations that an executive obstructed a federal inquiry by deleting emails written by Johnson. In order to settle the investigation St.HOPE Academy agreed to repay close to $424,000 in federal grants.
"I was fired because I did my job," Walpin told KCRA 3 from his home in New York City. "That's bad for our country. It's bad for taxpayers because it's the responsibility of an IG to make sure that taxpayers' money is not wasted."
In my assessment, Gerald Walpin is not disoriented or confused. I believe it is President Obama who is disoriented and confused. He is the one who is acting in a delusional state, trying to cover up and avoid reality, that his friend Kevin Johnson was involved in corruption. Obama is the one that has penalized an inspector general for doing his job extremely well. Walpin was fighting to reduce government waste and the misuse of federal funds. He was doing this by pinpointing where corruption was located, and acting accordingly to get rid of that corruption. Walpin has been wrongly fired for doing his job with precision. Could there be a lawsuit brewing? Obama has proven that he doesn't mind allowing corruption to exist, as long as it has to do with the Democrats. But, should the big, bad, ugly Republicans be involved in corruption, that must be weeded out. Corruption should not be advocated or accepted by any politician from any political party. It should not be a Democrat or Republican issue, in trying to make the other party look bad, but it should be a moral issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
