Complete with a raft of documents and exhibits, fired AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin on Wednesday filed a motion for summary judgment in his lawsuit demanding reinstatement to his job -- his own motion not even waiting for the judge to rule on the Obama administration's motion to dismiss the case without hearing or trial. A close perusal of his motion, affidavits, and exhibits suggests to me, for the first time, that this case has potential to reach the Supreme Court regardless of how the lower court rules. In his new motion, Mr. Walpin makes even more explicit than in his original suit that the constitutional and statutory disputes at issue are of great weight and moment, and he again claims support from a line of Supreme Court cases going all the way back to the famous Marbury v. Madison case of 1803.
It is also worth noting that our newspaper earned specific reference in Mr. Walpin's new motion. On page 17 of the "Memorandum of law and points of authority in support of plaintifff's motion for summary judgment," Mr. Walpin and his attorneys submit this: "The day after Mr. Walpin was ermoved, CNCS instructed Acting IG Back to destory 'WH documents.' He did so and '[c]onfirmed... the documents were shredded.' Later, Board members expressed concern when the Washington Times printed a story that contradicted Board members' account of relevant events...."
Other documents already available have shown that board members and staff then discussed whether somebody should call us at the Washington Times to explain their side of the story. Specifically, board member Eric Tanenblatt wrote on June 17 to board member Steve Goldsmith that "I think someone needs to get on the phone with the reporter on background and lay out the facts.... This feels like amateur hour and we as board members are now starting to look like tools." While the content of the call, and the person who made it, ended up being not just "on background" but under conditions of being "off the record," I think it is fair in light of these documents to say that "someone" related to the agency did indeed call me, and that I found the caller earnest but entirely unpersuasive (NOT at all dishonest, but just not armed with relevant info) when factual details were discussed.
This all becomes important because a congressional staff report describes as a "smear campaign" the White House efforts, after the fact, to provide reasons for his firing. A host of documents show a lot of other scrambling going on in the days and weeks after the firing to justify the firing -- scrambling which itself lends weight to Mr. Walpin's central contention in his suit that the White House did not provide the lawfully required "reasons" for his firing when the White House informed Congress that Mr. Walpin would be forced out. Clearly, the specific call I received wasn't a "smear" of Mr. Walpin, but it was also clear to me that the facts did not back up the justifications belatedly offered by the White House. Those justifications from the White House -- not the call I received from a person whose name shall remain anonymous, but other representations made to Congress and/or the media -- did indeed have the aspect of smears. In particular, they raise the possibility of unlawful age discrimination, as discussed in this earlier editorial.
Now, apart from Mr, Walpin's job records, why should the rest of us care? First, because the firing of Mr. Walpin put the big chill on whistleblowing intended to keep government honest, and perhaps hid skulduggery of the sort that erodes the very integrity of our government. In that light, the following lines from the penultimate page of Mr. Walpin's aforementioned "Memorandum of law....," become potentially very important. The memorandum says that if Mr. Walpin is reinstated for 30 days, he could, as anticipated by the Inspector General Act itself, "ensure that further Office of Inspector General (OIG) records are not destroyed, and that OIG staff members are permitted to freely respond to congressional inquiries. During that time, Mr. Walpin will be able to finally facilitate the communication with Congress that President Obama's illegal actions have thwarted."
Specifically, another document filed Wednesday ("Declaration of Gerald Walpin....") made these points: "The suddena and immediate removal of me from office prevented me from working to ensure an appropriate and full investigation of the potential obstruction of justice which I had referred to the FBI for investigation [regarding a case against Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a self-proclaimed personal friend of the Obamas].... Likewise, my removal resulted in a failure to implement OIG's report on the misuse of funds at The City University of New York."
That CUNY program, by the way, one of AmercCorps biggest, was alleged to have wasted some $80 million while now-board chairman Alan Solomont, a huge campaign donor for the Obamas, served on the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service. Nobody alleges wrongdoing by Mr. Solomont, but Mr. Walpin's allegation was that the board did not properly perform its oversight functions, and that its negligence was thus partially, if slightly indirectly responsible, for the alleged waste.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/18/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This has the potential to reach Obama personally, via his wife's apparent interference in the process. As it opens up, its getting uglier and uglier for the White House and Obama.
#4
Not as far as I am aware, g(r)omgoru. Attorney General Holder continues to stand four-square in the way of any investigation, despite subpoenas from the federal civil liberties commission, whose proper name I can't remember at the moment.
#6
Holder is blocking any cooperation with the Civil Rights commission subpoenas. They may up suing AG Holder and the Obama administration for impeding a lawful civil rights investigation (which is, by the way, a felony).
Black President and Black AG suppressing the Civil Rights commission. Go figure - I couldn't write something with that much irony even on my wildest ranting days.
John Edwards has never admitted to fathering a love child with a one-time staffer, but new legal documents suggest the failed presidential hopeful is the baby's daddy - and may soon have to pay up big-time.
The new documents detail an ongoing money battle between Edwards and Rielle Hunter, 45, whom Edwards has admitted bedding even as his wife, Elizabeth, discovered she had cancer.
Edwards has never copped to fathering little Frances Quinn Hunter, now almost two years old.
But the documents, first reported by the National Enquirer and posted online yesterday by radaronline.com, include an eight-page "Family Part Case Information Statement" listing "Rielle Hunter" as the plaintiff and "John Edwards" as the defendant.
The document identifies "custody," "parenting time" and "child support" as the issues in dispute, and names Rielle and "John Edwards" of Chapel Hill, N.C., as the parties.
The kicker: Little Frances is named as a "child...from this relationship."
The paperwork was prepared by Hunter's attorney, Frank Louis, and at the very least establishes that the blonde divorcee believes Edwards is legally responsible for the girl - and should have to pay up.
Hunter is seeking more than $17,000 a month from Edwards, a tab that includes some pretty high-end demands, the documents show.
She wants $800 a month for eating out, $400 a month for "club dues and memberships" and $1,200 a month for a security guard - apparently to keep the paparazzi at bay.
She also believes Edwards - who famously paid $400 for a haircut during his presidential run - should pay her $250 a month to trim her and Frances' locks.
The documents emerged at the same time that reports have swirled that Edwards purchased a four-bedroom, $535,000 home for Hunter to live in in Charlotte.
A report in the Charlotte Business Journal this week noted that the handsome, brick-faced home remains empty. The purchaser is listed only The Providence Road Trust, it reported.
More bad news may be just around the corner for Edwards.
ABC News has announced that it will air an exclusive interview next month with Andrew Young, another Edwards staffer who once claimed to have been the father of Hunter's child.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/18/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Andy Young? I thought the patsy was Ham Jordan.
#7
She also believes Edwards - who famously paid $400 for a haircut during his presidential run - should pay her $250 a month to trim her and Frances' locks.
America Now Over 6 Million Jobs Shy of Administration's Projections
The table below compares the White House's February 2009 projection of the number of jobs that would be created by the 2009 stimulus law (through the end of 2010) with the actual change in state payroll employment through November 2009 (the latest figures available). According to the data, 49 States have lost jobs since the stimulus was enacted as unemployment has skyrocketed to 10 percent. Only North Dakota and the District of Columbia have seen net job creation following the February 2009 stimulus (though both fall short of seeing the promised level of job creation). While President Obama claimed the result of his stimulus bill would be the creation of 3.5 million jobs, the Nation has already lost over 2.6 million a difference of 6.1 million jobs.
#1
District of Columbia and North Dakota? Not much of a relationship there. District of Columbia = govmint jobs; North Dakota = self-reliant people who don't rely on the govmint.
Most people involved in public affairs fall into two grand schools: Some believe that America is a unique nation, a nation built upon extraordinary and good moral values, and a country which is a microcosm of what the world should be. These people need not be Americans. Churchill, for example, was an unabashed admirer of America.
Other people believe that America is simply a very arrogant country, a nation inhabited with bumpkins who believe too much in God, and because of its religious faith and confidence, the antithesis of what the world should be. This animus flourishes outside America, but it also has a strong camp following in America.
Barack Obama is decidedly in the second camp. He is an "America Denier."
We have learned this early during the campaign in 2008. His wife, Michelle, revealed in February that for the first time in her adult life she was really proud of America -- because America was beginning to embrace the message of her radical husband. The next month, in March, we learned that his pastor damned America from the pulpit. Then in April Obama spoke about people in rural America clinging to their religion.
The roots of this antipathy toward America runs through the thinkers that influenced Obama like Saul Alinsky. As American Thinker's own James Lewis explains so well, Alinsky had before him two responses to America. As the child of persecuted Russian Jews, he could view America as Emma Lazarus, another Jewish immigrant, did. Her dedication to the Statute of Liberty is still both clear and strong. Emma leaned toward socialism; she was proud of her Jewish heritage; and she was emphatically American. She understood that America was the beacon, the hope, and the promise of the world.
Alinsky viewed America as the center of mankind's problems. It did not matter to Alinsky that he would have suffered torments in the Gulag under the Bolsheviks for his agitation but that he lived in liberty in America. It does not seem to matter to Obama or his wife that living in America has blessed them both far beyond their power to ever repay. They have actually benefited, rather than suffered, because they were black. What about these ancestors?
Twelve years ago, Keith Richburg, a black reporter for the Washington Post, wrote Out of America. The book describes his journey from an angry young black man, who reflexively accepted all the theories of exploitation, to a man who visited Africa and studied it closely. After seeing firsthand the horror of his native continent, and grasping that America had nothing to do with the nightmare before his eyes, Richburg writes: "Thank God that I am an American." This is not a pardon for slavery or Jim Crow. It is rather a mature and moral appreciation that in an imperfect world, America comes much closer to perfection than many of its sullen critics will acknowledge.
Once nearly all Americans understood, whatever their politics, that America was the hope of the world. America, like Israel, is a "homeland of choice." Even before slavery ended, the American government had gone to great lengths to provide a homeland for freed slaves (Liberia, for example, was founded just for that purpose.) Instead, people who wind up in America, however they came here, have always wanted to stay.
Using the First Amendment, we could wrangle about many different things, but not about the fact that the First Amendment was a creature of America. We could campaign fiercely for our parties, but doubt that the right of the people to choose their leaders grew out of the heritage of America. The idea of fundamentally changing America so that it resembled the rest of the world would have horrified any political leader even fifty years ago.
The elites of the Old World, largely, have wished that America would just vanish or else be absorbed into the oligarchy so familiar to Europe and Asia. Serfs of the world pined to come to America. Elites of the world hissed at the Land of the Free. They wanted differences between those in power and those in thrall. This emphatically included elitists who were socialists.
Those who feign concern about the poor, the socialists and collectivists, are actually the most elitist of the elites. Orwell saw that well in his masterpiece, 1984. A whole section of that book is devoted to "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism." The political philosophy of Oceania, the totalitarian nightmare of the novel, is Ingsoc, truncated from English Socialism. These elitists cared only about the power of their group, and America has always offered wealth, acclaim, and influence to the naked individual who rises above the crowd by work and by individual merit.
Anyone who has taken the trouble to study the books of Soviet dissidents knows that the empire of the Tsars was much less stratified, much less hierarchical, and had a much narrower gap between the rich and the poor than the empire of Communism.
This is just what modern America deniers crave most. Creeping official elitism, politically correct science, regimented learning, banishment of the truly religious, ending all the vestiges of what has made America the true Mecca of the world's unfree - these are the unspoken hopes of America deniers like Obama.
So he scolds "bankers" one day; he apologizes to the world for his country the next day; he tries to drown the economy in money which will soon be as worthless as a ruble in old Soviet-land the following day. His mission is clear. In the old Soviet Union, the place so many of his mentors secretly admired, the United States was almost always called within the oligarchic Communist Party by a highly descriptive term: The Main Enemy. That is how our president views his nation now. We, our liberties, our faith, our spirit of individual enterprise -- the very soul of America -- this is the foe of our America-denier, the President.
#1
"Some believe that America is a unique nation, a nation built upon extraordinary and good moral values, and a country which is a microcosm of what the world should be."
The author falls prey to one of the most beloved traps of collectivists. That is to debate American Exceptionalism in terms of values rather then principles. Values are simply a result of life experiences, influences and environment, therefore, are relative and open to debate. However, principles are the fundamentally accepted (not always socially accepted) rules of action and conduct. The framers of the US constitution went to great lengths to prevent these two concepts from being intentionally confused. One would expect the Ivy League constitutional lawyer and President of the United States to uphold that tradition. Don't hold your breath.
U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the importance of getting it right on health care reform:
"Senators on both sides acknowledge that the health care bill we're considering is among the most significant pieces of legislation any of us will ever consider.
"So it stands to reason that we'd devote significant time and attention to it.
"Indeed, some would argue that we should spend more time and attention on this bill than most -- if not every -- previous bill we've considered.
"The Majority disagrees.
"Why? Because this bill has become a political nightmare for them.
"They know Americans overwhelmingly oppose it, so they want to get it over with.
"Americans are already outraged at the fact that Democrat leaders took their eyes off the ball. Rushing the process on a partisan line makes the situation even worse.
"Americans were told the purpose of reform was to reduce the cost of health care.
"Instead, Democrat leaders produced a $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page monstrosity that vastly expands government, raises taxes, raises premiums, and wrecks Medicare.
"And they want to rush this bill through by Christmas -- one of the most significant, far-reaching pieces of legislation in U.S. history. They want to rush it.
"And here's the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader's conference room has even seen.
"That's right. The final bill we'll vote on isn't even the one we've had on the floor. It's the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private.
"That's what they intend to bring to the floor and force a vote on before Christmas.
"So this entire process is essentially a charade.
"But let's just compare the process so far with previous legislation for some perspective. Here's a snapshot of what we've done and where we stand:
The Majority Leader intends to bring this debate to a close as early as this weekend -- four days from now, on this $2.5 trillion dollar mistake
No American who hasn't been invited into the Majority Leader's conference room knows what will be in that bill
This bill has been the pending business of the Senate since the last week of November -- less than four weeks ago.
We started the amendment process two weeks ago.
We've had 21 amendments and motions -- less than two a day.
"Now let's look at how the Senate has dealt with previous legislation.
"No Child Left Behind (2001):
21 session days or 7 weeks.
Roll Call votes: 44
Number of Amendments offered: 157
"9/11 Commission/Homeland Security Act (2002):
19 session days over 7 weeks.
Roll Call votes: 20
Number of Amendments offered: 30
"Energy Bill (2002):
21 session days over 8 weeks
Number of Roll Call votes: 36
Number of Amendments offered: 158
"This isn't an energy bill. This is an attempt by a majority to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy -- to vastly expand the reach and the role of government into the health care decisions of every single American -- and they want to be done after one substantive amendment. This is absolutely inexcusable.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/18/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) backed out of an event with other organizations promoting the Senate healthcare reform bill Wednesday over concerns about changes made to the legislation to accommodate centrist Democrats.
The SEIU had planned to participate in a Capitol Hill press conference along with the AARP, the liberal advocacy group Families USA, Consumers Union and the American Cancer Society Action Network. As recently as Tuesday morning, the organizations distributed an advisory to the news media that included the SEIU.
But the move by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to excise provisions of the healthcare reform bill to create a government-run public option health insurance program and to allow people between 55 and 64 years old to buy into Medicare gave the labor union pause, spokeswoman Lori Lodes said.
"That decision has to be made by our leaders and our members," Lodes said. The event with the AARP and the other groups was scheduled before Reid made changes to the bill.
The SEIU executive board will hold what Lodes described as an "emergency" meeting Wednesday night to decide how to move forward. "Right now, they don't have the information they need to make this decision," said Lodes, who added that the SEIU informed the other organizations on Tuesday they would not be joining the press conference.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/18/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Four fellas with stupid signs waving bye bye to their boodle.
#2
The unions are running a heavy campaign in northern Virginia complaining they - the common folks - can't afford to have their benefits taxed. They provide the Senator's phone numbers on the screen, and urge people to call now.
I was looking for a pen to write down the numbers when I heard who the ad was sponsored by and laughed.
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/18/2009 6:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I was in the UAW once upon a time due to compelled membership laws. We were told that UAW means U Aint Workin.
#4
but also would levy an excise tax on so-called Cadillac health insurance plans that some union members have, Lodes said.
Hah! Seems like Harry is having a devil of a time getting the CBO numbers to score favorably without the Baucus tax hike. Now that Andy Stern has picked up the Louisville Slugger the pace of negotiations should pick up.
You can tell a lot about a man by the way he treats the people who bring him coffee and little bags of pretzels, and make sure his belongings are stowed securely in the overhead bin. So when an important man, a U.S. senator, actually -- busy, busy, busy -- flouts federal regs by refusing to turn off his cellphone so the plane can pull away from the gate (oh, and to heck with his fellow passengers, who in their humble way also had lives to get on with while they instead tapped their toes and he kept on yakking), well, that was bad enough. "It's Harry Reid calling,'' the rudenik, a.k.a. Chuck Schumer, announced to his hostages. "I guess health care will have to wait.''
But when the senior senator from New York then called a flight attendant who was only doing her job the b-word under his breath, that told us even more. Like how much women must be willing to put up with from a self-described "tireless advocate for women's rights" and how little -- this and only this -- the "advocate" has to do to keep the franchise.
Sure, Schumer has said through a spokesman that he regrets the incident -- and in the process made a liar out of fellow N.Y. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who was seated near him on the plane and who, before she knew he was copping a plea, put out the word that he'd been "polite'' when asked to turn off his phone. Maybe he can issue the requisite televised apology while seated beside David Letterman, who not all that long ago said Sarah Palin looked like "a slutty flight attendant.''
Only, this kind of casual disrespect goes well beyond those two boobs Dave and Chuck, and is to me an argument against the trashy way we talk about ourselves sometimes. It's why, even though I could not be happier for the success of our extravagantly talented colleague Helena Andrews, who is going to be writing the screenplay of the film version of her forthcoming memoir, "Bitch Is the New Black,'' I don't much agree with Donna Trussell's recent piece about how calling ourselves bitches is kind of empowering: "You can cower and whine, or you can be a bitch. In the next century maybe women will find a nice middle ground, but, unfortunately, we're not yet there.''
Posted by: Fred ||
12/18/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) told CNSNews.com that Congress has the authority to force individual Americans to buy health insurance because the U.S. Constitution "charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people."
The words "health" and "well-being" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
The Congressional Budget Office has determined that in the entire history of the United States the federal government has never mandated that Americans buy any good or service. Both the House and Senate health care bills, however, include provisions that require all legal residents of the U.S. to purchase health insurance, a provision whose constitutionality has been qiuestioned by, among others, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
At a press conference on Capitol Hill, CNSNews.com asked Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Blanche Lincoln the following question: "What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate that individuals have to purchase health insurance?"
Lincoln did not answer the question during the press conference but spoke to CNSNews.com in the Dirksen Senate Office Building immediately afterward. CNSNews.com asked her there: 'You didn't respond to my constitutionality question during the press conference, and what was your reaction to, your answer to the question?"
"Well, I just think the Constitution charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people," Lincoln said.
CNSNews.com then asked the Senator: "So, what area though? You're saying the health and well-being. What area, though, does that fall under?"
"The health and well-being of the people of the country," she replied.
During the press conference, Landrieu told CNSNews.com she would let "constitutional lawyers on our staff" answer the question of where the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance. "Well, we're very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I'll let them answer that," said Landrieu.
"But what I will say is that most certainly it is within Congress' jurisdiction to come up with a way to have a health insurance funded with shared responsibility, is the way I like to, you know--government has a responsibility, individuals have a responsibility and business has a responsibility," said Landrieu.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/18/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
She probably can't read the 2nd Amendment and find a legal right for people to own guns, either.
#2
Blanche, you dumb biddy, it's "promote the general welfare" as in "get a job you bum", not "provide welfare checks". That means promoting a climate of laws that allow jobs to flourish instead of discriminatory (against Americans) tariffs and punishing workplace regulations that beg for what remaining jobs to be sent overseas. It means allowing people to pursue their interests and raising families w/o the government suffocating all initiative with confiscatory taxes of 50-60% of gross income.
Posted by: ed ||
12/18/2009 0:35 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Sen. Lincoln, you ignorant C!
General Welfare means GENERAL welfare not welfare checks or robbing one part of the population to bribe another part for votes.
Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D), a crucial swing vote in the Senage's ongoing health care debate, called out the big guns for her re-election effort on Thursday, releasing a fundraising appeal from former President Bill Clinton.
#10
All persons running for Congress should be required to take a test on the Constitution. Results not graded, but posted for public view. I doubt most of them could past a impromptu test of this.
I have long since come to the conclusion that the person most responsible for saving our American Democracy, at least to this point in time, is Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.
Posted by: Kelly ||
12/18/2009 14:43 Comments ||
Top||
#16
FDR was the recipient of some of the first examples of revisionist history. Amity Shlaes gets it right in her excellent book "The Forgotten Man." Had he not died in office, he'd still be president today.
#17
We know how much boodle Mary Landrieu received. How much did Blanche get? Time to clean house (and Senate). These people are like a bunch of welfare queens crack on free Obama dollars. Except they are not free are they?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
John Edwards has never admitted to fathering a love child with a one-time staffer, but new legal documents suggest the failed presidential hopeful is the baby's daddy - and may soon have to pay up big-time.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) backed out of an event with other organizations promoting the Senate healthcare reform bill Wednesday over concerns about changes made to the legislation to accommodate centrist Democrats.
You can tell a lot about a man by the way he treats the people who bring him coffee and little bags of pretzels, and make sure his belongings are stowed securely in the overhead bin. So when an important man, a U.S. senator, actually -- busy, busy, busy -- flouts federal regs by refusing to turn off his cellphone so the plane can pull away from the gate (oh, and to heck with his fellow passengers, who in their humble way also had lives to get on with while they instead tapped their toes and he kept on yakking), well, that was bad enough. "It's Harry Reid calling,'' the rudenik, a.k.a. Chuck Schumer, announced to his hostages. "I guess health care will have to wait.''
(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) told CNSNews.com that Congress has the authority to force individual Americans to buy health insurance because the U.S. Constitution "charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people."
