This article was first published on InsideSTL.com on June 22, 2009. Please visit www.insidestl.com every Monday to read my latest articles there and participate in the comment forums.

New Black Panther Party members intimidated voters last November on Obama's behalf. Obama's Justice Department dropped the civil suit against them and refused to pursue criminal charges.

Shortly after taking office, Obama’s Justice Department (DOJ) dropped charges against three members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) videotaped last November outside of a Philadelphia polling place in full jack-booted paramilitary apparel, with one holding a police-style nightstick intimidating anyone not voting for Obama. The men told one voter, “Prepare to be ruled by the black man, cracker.” Obama’s DOJ appointees dropped the charges against the men even though the court had already issued a default judgment against them. Two were completely exonerated and the man wielding the nightstick was ordered not to brandish a weapon in front of a polling place until November 13, 2010. (Come November 14, 2010, it’s back to business as usual!) A New York attorney from the civil rights era called this incident the “most blatant display of voter intimidation” he had ever seen. The administration was never asked to explain why they dismissed a case that had already been won. Obama has now targeted an inspector general for embarrassing two of his political allies to the same absence of protests.

During his work overseeing AmeriCorps, inspector general Gerald Walpin discovered that Sacramento, Calif. Mayor and Obama political supporter, Kevin Johnson, had misused much of the $800,000 of AmeriCorps grant money awarded to the St. HOPE Academy of Sacramento. The grants were intended for redevelopment of several school buildings, tutoring students, and establishing theater and arts programs. Walpin discovered that Johnson had instead illegally used the money to influence school board elections, pad staff members’ salaries, and send AmeriCorps members on personal errands such as washing his car. Walpin suspended Johnson from receiving any further federal funds and ordered him to pay back the misused federal tax dollars. However, after Johnson was elected mayor of Sacramento, the suspension barred him from accessing any stimulus money. Lawrence Brown, a US Attorney’s Office prosecutor who took over after the Bush-appointed Attorney left, decided not to pursue any criminal charges against Johnson and attempted to have Walpin lift the suspension. Walpin refused. The Wall Street Journal stated that after Walpin’s refusal, Brown cut off all contact with him and worked directly with the board in charge of AmeriCorps to clear Johnson and water down Johnson’s financial obligations from the settlement.

Across the country in New York, Walpin uncovered inefficiencies in a grant program conducted by the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) whose primary entity is AmeriCorps. Walpin’s finding angered CNCS chairman, Alan Solomont. The Washington Times describes Solomont as “a longtime top Democratic donor who bundled more than $800,000 combined for the Obama presidential campaign and Inauguration.” The program Walpin was investigating was the organization’s largest, receiving $80 million in federal funding. Needless to say, with his largest program threatened, Solomont wasn’t pleased and he let Obama know it. What happens when an independent regulator stands between Obama and his lackeys? Someone has to go and it wasn’t going to be any of Obama’s friends. Campaign promises of a new era of government transparency and accountability suddenly became obsolete. 

Walpin is being fired and slandered by the administration for embarrassing two of Obama's political allies.

About two weeks ago, Walpin, received a call from Obama’s special counsel, Norman Eisen, demanding that he either resign within the hour or else be fired. The only reason given from Eisen was that Obama “thought it was time for [Walpin] to move on.” The administration insisted that it was merely a “coincidence” that Walpin had conducted two investigations that embarrassed and angered two of Obama’s important political allies and threatened an organization crucial to Obama’s radical plans for “change.”

In the past, AmeriCorps has funneled money to groups like ACORN and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Both organizations play a major role in promoting Obama’s agenda. For example, SEIU and ACORN coordinated the protests over the AIG bonuses while remaining silent when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paid larger amounts to their executives. The nurses union declaring support for Obama’s universal health care plan, the AFSCME Nurses Association, is an ACORN group. This union represents only 1.6 percent of America’s licensed nurses but is often quoted by the administration as approval from “medical professionals.” Democrats have refused to investigate ACORN while increasing funds available to them and even awarding them a role in the 2010 census. (That’s right. A group currently charged in 14 states for voter registration fraud is going to be trusted to gather data that determines representation in the House, Electoral College votes, and federal resource allocation.) These are incestuous organizations whose leaders frequently overlap. After dismissing Walpin, AmeriCorps can receive a “sympathetic” inspector general which would allow the Obama administration to allocate money for any dubious cause under the radar. Adding to the White House’s influence of AmeriCorps and CNCS, Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, recently stepped down from her White House position in order to become a “senior advisor” for CNCS. American Spectator stated that White House sources have confirmed that Norris and Obama have already discussed how AmeriCorps could fit into the First Lady’s volunteerism projects. A White House staffer explained, “We have a very clear agenda and a lot of plans for that organization; we wouldn’t be giving it the resources that we are if we didn’t.” Those “resources” are up to $6 billion in taxpayer dollars. The White House doesn’t need an independent inspector general intruding on these plans. A Senate Republican aide stated, “You look at what the CNCS is funding over there: a ‘Social Investment Fund,’ which over the next five years is going to hand out almost half a billion dollars to young people to start up community activist organizations. Who the hell is going to be monitoring that kind of underwriting?” Obama’s lapdogs will become the “watchdogs.”

In 2008, Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act which requires the president to give Congress 30 days notice and a full explanation when firing any inspector general. The purpose was to establish independence of the offices of inspectors general. The bill was cosponsored by then-junior senator from Illinois, B. Hussein Obama. In firing Walpin, Obama blatantly disregarded the legislation he cosponsored. Only after the firing came under question, the White House has claimed Walpin, who will turn 78 this year, had succumbed to senility and was incoherent when answering questions and handling official business. Take the time to read Walpin’s interviews with Byron York in the Washington Examiner or the transcript of his appearance on Lou Dobbs last Friday night and decide whether Obama’s accusation holds water. The administration has succeeded in making the Black Panthers’ case appear insignificant. Is this really the “change” that Obama’s supporters believed in last November?

Below is the full text of an article referenced in this week’s InsideSTL submission. It was originally written for my pre-election blog, The Anti-Obamassiah Refuge, but is definitely just as relevant as back in October when I first addressed the subject.

October 13, 2008

ACORN and Obama have long been united in their radical agendas.

Across the country, there is a concerted effort to steal the election through voter fraud. Almost daily, there are more reports about fraudulent voter registration efforts through the group, Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN.) ACORN boasts from their website that they have registered over 1.3 million new voters for the November election, mainly from low-income, minority communities which almost exclusively vote Democrat. Over the previous weeks, there have been frequent news reports of ACORN submitting multiple registrations in different voting precincts for individuals. In fact, many voters registered by ACORN are quoted as saying that ACORN’s members pressured them to sign multiple registration cards and some have even admitted to being paid with money and cigarettes to register multiple times. In several states, it has also been discovered that ACORN worked to add many felons to the voter rolls in states where felons are not allowed to vote. Obama’s claims of never being associated with ACORN are just plain false. He partnered with ACORN with his Project Vote during his early years in Chicago and he also served as ACORN’s attorney for several matters. In fact, the FEC discovered that Obama’s campaign attempted to hide an $800,000 payment for voter registration services to an ACORN front group. As more reports continue to surface of blatant voter fraud committed in crucial swing states, it is becoming more and more obvious that Obama supporters will use any means to put Obama in the White House. ACORN has a long history of committing voter fraud and they even have plenty of dirt on their hands from the subprime mortgage meltdown through their efforts to intimidate banks into lowering their lending standards to increase the amount of subprime loans made to people who obviously could not afford them. (more…)

This article was first published on www.insidestl.com on May 11, 2009.

Protecting Lady Justice's blindfold and balanced scales ensures true equality for every American.

Is it justified for someone to steal bread to feed their starving family? One side considers the poor soul resorting to theft to provide his loved ones with the basic necessities of life. The other considers the rights of those selling the bread in order to provide their own loved ones life’s necessities. In the United States, the law is clear that theft for any reason is a punishable offense. Certainly there are cases where the law seems cold and heartless. However, Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason. A judge cannot begin determining whether or not the end justifies the means. Instead, it is their job to interpret and apply the rule of law as written. In order to have a purely just judicial system, everyone must enter the courtroom as equals. No one group can be given a head start on their claims because of race, sex, religion, socioeconomic status, or any other factor. If someone is allowed to steal bread out of need, where does it end? Could they steal clothes? How about computers and internet access deemed vital to competing in today’s job markets? Who would it be acceptable to steal from? Probably most important, who determines the rules and would this be a court system you would feel comfortable entering with your property or even your life at stake?   (more…)

First published on www.InsideSTL.com on May 4, 2009.

Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced that he will be stepping down soon. This will present B. Hussein Obama with his first opportunity at appointing the progressive version of a “philosopher king” able to create the law of the land.

Justice David Souter will present B. Hussein Obama with his first Supreme Court vacancy.

While Obama’s personal popularity is relatively positive, his policies are already not sitting well with the American people according to the polls. So far, Obama has showed restraint in fulfilling his campaign promise to sign into law the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA), but with a Supreme Court appointment looming, the issue of abortion is not likely to stay in the background long. With the defection of Arlen Specter to the Democrat Party and a possibility of Minnesota seating Al Franken, it’s very possible that FOCA will come before Congress soon. As we have already seen with the Obama administration, issues are voted on and passed before they even come onto the radar. The promises of giving five days of public debate for each nonemergency bill have fallen to the wayside during Obama’s first 100 days. This promise has been kept once and disregarded ten times. Before Congress rubberstamps FOCA to the president’s desk, I would like to propose a few commonsense restrictions.

This might draw some opposition from NARAL members, but any reasonable American will definitely agree it’s sensible. Before anyone gets an abortion, they need to express a “need” to have it performed. (more…)

First published on www.InsideSTL.com on April 20, 2009.

The common storyline concerning political discourse says that racism, hatred, and greed fuel the actions and beliefs exclusively of those on the right. Liberal Democrats often take credit for the civil rights movement despite the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. was actually a Republican and Democrat John F. Kennedy ordered phone taps of the civil rights icon. Most of the votes in Congress against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were cast by Democrats. Southern segregation was a Democrat platform during this period. In fact, Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president. Today’s liberals, or progressives, claim that racist Democrats became fed up with their own party for supporting the Civil Rights Act and jumped ship to join the Republican Party. Basically by their logic, racists were furious with the party who offered the most opposition to the Civil Rights Act, causing them to become members of the party that offered the most consistent support. Don’t try too hard to understand the logic because it’ll cause heads to explode. Now, the racist accusations are flying again and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has actually turned this progressive myth into policy through their recently released report, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” Elsewhere, progressives are also using the tired storyline to explain last week’s nationwide tea parties. All of this is a concerted effort to marginalize Obama’s critics through painting any criticism as the product of bigotry and ignorance. (more…)

Pelosi's memory doesn't quite seem that strong compared to the actual record of events.

First published on InsideSTL.com on 4/27/09

Since hinting that Attorney General Eric Holder would be unleashed on the previous administration over allegations of torture, it’s been confirmed that the CIA briefed members of both parties in Congress over 30 times about their “enhanced interrogation” programs. House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi has denied these reports as she calls for investigations while claiming, “We were not – I repeat – were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.” Despite her insistence to the contrary, the Washington Post ran an article in 2007 which placed Pelosi, who was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee at the time, in a 2002 secret CIA briefing where four members of Congress were briefed in explicit detail about interrogation methods to be used on terrorist suspects and given a virtual tour of detention centers. The article stated that no one in attendance voiced opposition to the program and “at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder.” Either Pelosi or the Post is lying, both can’t be correct. While current pressing issues are placed aside so Democrats can pursue political vengeance, one question is rarely asked; did the United States torture detainees in the “Overseas Contingency Operation,” formerly known as the “War on Terror?” Hardly anyone seems concerned with the details of the programs that could cost several former government officials their freedom. (more…)