Obama Illegally Fires Inspector General For Investigating Crony

This should be front page news across the nation. But, since the people guilty of wrongdoing (*ahem* allegedly, of course) are Democrats in general and the Obamessiah in particular, there seems to be a collective shrug. Red State has an excellent roundup. First, watch this:

So, these Inspectors General are specifically chartered to keep politicians honest, and thus insulated from political retribution. Walpin was doing his job by investigating political corruption on the part of one of Obama's friends, and Obama fired him. Of course, by law, a President can only fire an IG by explaining his reasoning to Congress and after a 30-day notice; Obama gave Walpin 1 hour of notice and didn't bother with that pesky Congress thing. When Walpin refused to kowtow to Obama's thug tactics, the lefty smear machine ramped up, and suddenly we see reports that Walpin has gone senile.

This is an outrageous abuse of Presidential power, and it is blatantly illegal. It is also incredibly hypocritical for a man who campaigned on tolerance and cleaning up corruption in Washington.

Of course, this situation really puts things into proper perspective, doesn't it? It proves that Obama is a lying liar who uses thuggish silencing tactics and baseless smears to destroy anyone who doesn't toe his line.

Here's some other commentary:

Byron York --- "Bottom line: The AmeriCorps IG accuses prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. Prominent Obama supporter has to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. Obama fires AmeriCorps IG."

Hot Air --- "Hope and change! It looks very suspicious. The administration has overtly interfered with the IG in his investigation, and now has tried to fire him, apparently for reporting to Congress. If so, then the White House has abused its power on behalf of a campaign contributor and political ally — an act that would make Richard Nixon blush."

Quin Hillyer --- "This is, on its face, a scandal. It is worse than Travelgate because it involves an official protecting the public fisc against waste and corruption. It is worse than the US Attorney "scandal" under Bush because, unlike US Attorneys, IGs are NOT political appointees who can be fired at will -- and because the quid pro quo, or rather dismissal pro quo, here is far more direct than it (allegedly) was with regard to the dismissed USAs.

WHERE ARE THE WATCHDOGS of the establishment media? Oh, that's right: They are no longer watchdogs but lapdogs, and particularly slobbering ones at that, waiting for Obama's order for them to fetch his slippers while they hope to be thrown a bone for their slavish devotion to him.....

Gerald Walpin himself --- ""I think for them to say that I was disoriented was an amazing, amazing slinging of mud... Frankly what they're saying, anybody who knows me and everybody who knows me and those people who've heard me on television, those people who've heard me on radio, know that this is the most incredible smear that has ever occurred to someone only because he's standing up to the most powerful machine on earth."

But, it gets better! Hot Air reminds us of the RAT in the turd-of-a-stimulus bill that was passed in February:

The provision, which attracted virtually no attention in the debate over the 1,073-page stimulus bill, creates something called the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board — the RAT Board, as it's known by the few insiders who are aware of it. The board would oversee the in-house watchdogs, known as inspectors general, whose job is to independently investigate allegations of wrongdoing at various federal agencies, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House.

In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask "that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation." If the inspector general doesn't want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he'll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward.

The point here is that Walpin's firing is the first shot in a systematic effort by the Obama administration to deliberately weaken and intimidate the IGs that are directly responsible for investigating political corruption in the administration! They wrote that effort into law, and now we see it playing out to protect an Obama crony.

HOPE! CHANGE!

But wait...it gets better still:

And guess who’s meddling in these affairs? Yep, First Lady Michelle Obama:

Some decisions about CNCS are being made by First Lady Michelle Obama, according to service advocates (who asked not to be named). Last week, Mrs. Obama announced that her chief of staff, Jackie Norris, would move to CNCS as a senior adviser. ...

First Lady Michelle Obama’s chief of staff, Jackie Norris, is being sent to the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) in what is both a White House shake-up and an indication of the first lady’s sway over the corporation that oversees AmeriCorps, Serve and Learn and the Senior Corps.

Does it get any more blatant than this??

For those of us living in Missouri, there's yet one more bit of ridiculousness to pay attention to:

Huh: Key Democratic Ally Claire McCaskill Admits Obama "Didn't Follow Law" on Firing AmericaCorps IG

Actually, she says he failed to follow proper procedure, which is a nice way of saying "did not follow the law," which in turn is a nice way of saying "broke the law."

She demands Obama immediately reinstate the illegally-fired IG and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate his conduct in this matter.

Just kidding.

She wants him to make up a better explanation, one that "sounds legal."

Then, just days later, she found one:

Shock: As Predicted, Claire McCaskill Now Satisfied With Obama's "Well-Founded" Firing

Update: As predicted, Claire McCaskill just wanted a reason that "sounded legal," even though the law is not satisfied by the executive's reason for termination. Whatever the reason, the law requires informing Congress for comment thirty days before the actual termination.

But Claire McCaskill got her hastily-written made-up legal-sounding reason. She now says "the termination appears well-founded."

Way to show that integrity, Claire-bear!

So, what's the latest? Well, a few Senate Republicans (led by Charles Grassley) are starting to talk a bit tougher on this issue. Grassley, in particular, is pushing for records to be made public that explain the White House's decision to fire Walpin, and Obama appears to be backpedaling a bit. As Powerline says, "It will be interesting to see what stories the administration comes up with next. This abuse of power business is proving a little trickier than Barack Obama had bargained for."

I sincerely hope so. There's little doubt that if any Republican President had tried this, we would be seeing headline after headline about impeachment proceedings moving full speed ahead. But, let's be optimistic - maybe something like this is what it'll take to penetrate the thick fog of hope-n-change that comes from dunking one's head into a vat of Kool-Aid on a daily basis.

There's my two cents.