Sunday, December 29, 2013

Why Conservatives Cannot Support Rand Paul for 2016


There has been a lot of speculation about the possibility of Rand Paul running for President in 2016. Given that Ron Paul has been working as a junior United States Senator for Kentucky since 2011, he doesn't have a whole lot of experience in politics, especially when it comes to executive experience. America elected Obama twice. Obama who was a junior senator from Illinois with very little experience to be President. Do we really want to have another inexperienced politician to be our President? 

Another reason we conservatives and the Republican Party should not allow Rand Paul to get the GOP nomination in 2016 is because he flop flops on his political orientation. Sometimes he claims he is a conservative, sometime he says he's a libertarian. Libertarianism and Conservatism are not the same political philosophy. Which political philosophy does Rand Paul really believe? I don't know and I suspect most people don't know either. More importantly, do we really want to elect someone who flip flops on his political views and philosophy? Ron Paul wasn't a conservative. Neither is Rand Paul. Neither one of them are really conservatives. They are both conservatives in name only (CINO) and Republicans in name only (RINO).

The most important reason why Republicans and conservatives cannot support Rand Paul it is the same reason why people didn't support his father Rand Paul. Ron Paul has a well documented history of associating with known racists, anti-semites, conspiracy theorists and Neo-Nazis. 

For example, people couldn't get behind Ron Paul because had published newsletters that spewed bigotry, racism, homophobia and antisemitism. Ron Paul initially denied writing those newsletters but later admitted that he did but claimed that he only wrote the non-offensive parts. Do you really believe that? I don't.

Another reason why people couldn't support Ron Paul is due to the famous photos of Ron Paul with Don Black, who is a well known White Supremacist and also posed with Don Black's son, Derek Black. If you don't know who Don Black  is, you should. He's the founder of the white supremacist website stormfront.org. Not surprisingly, Ron Paul also accepted donations from a white supremacist group and refused to return the money. Two well known White Supremacists endorsed and supported Ron Paul in the 2012 election.

It appears that Rand Paul is no different than his father, Rand Paul, when it comes to associating with questionable people who are known to be racists, bigots and ant-Semites. For example, the famous hacker group called “Anonymous” broke into a website run by the white supremacist American Third Position (A3P), and released a document dump consisting of private forum messages, emails, organizational notes, and other personal information which showed that Ron Paul and Rand Paul are intimately connected with the American Third Position Party and Stormfront. Here's a sampling of what this Annonymous found:
Other excerpts show A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso (whose email account
was one hacked by the collective) coordinating meeting between Paul and
other members of A3P such as corporate lawyer and chairman of the
neo-Nazi group Paul. “I’m going to go to the Conservative Political
Action Conference (CPAC) with Bill Johnson,” reads an email to an A3P
member dated January 2011. “Bill and I will be meeting with Ron and Ran Paul.
I have a teleconference call with Bill (and Ron Paul) tonight. Much
more later. Things are starting to happen (thanks to folks like you).”
In another passage, Kelso, a former Scientologist and account owner
of other German Nazi forums, wrote: “I’ll be at CPAC from Feb. 9 to Feb.
12. I’ll send back reports to you from personal meetings with Ron Paul,
newly-elected Senator Rand Paul and many others. It’ll be here on
WhiteNewsNow, a place that is really starting to get interesting because
of the presence of folks like you. Birds of a feather flock together,
and we are really gathering some quality here.”
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb5_1372379074#gGo5pQjIqIrAwTw8.99
Other excerpts show A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso (whose email account was one hacked by the collective) coordinating meeting between Paul and other members of A3P such as corporate lawyer and chairman of the neo-Nazi group Paul. “I’m going to go to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) with Bill Johnson,” reads an email to an A3P member dated January 2011. “Bill and I will be meeting with Ron and Ran Paul. I have a teleconference call with Bill (and Ron Paul) tonight. Much more later. Things are starting to happen (thanks to folks like you).”
 
In another passage, Kelso, a former Scientologist and account owner of other German Nazi forums, wrote: “I’ll be at CPAC from Feb. 9 to Feb.12. I’ll send back reports to you from personal meetings with Ron Paul, newly-elected Senator Rand Paul and many others. It’ll be here on WhiteNewsNow, a place that is really starting to get interesting because of the presence of folks like you. Birds of a feather flock together, and we are really gathering some quality here.” (emphasis added by author of this blog)
The Annonymous document dump also revealed that Ron Paul has held meetings with A3P and Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party — the notorious UK fascist group with neo-Nazi roots:
Griffin from the British National Party was also involved in these meetings. "We'll be meeting up with Nick Griffin on Wednesday night... a few of us," Kelso wrote to a member of AP3. "I let Nick know about the CPAC going on Thurs. and Fri. at the Marriott Hotel north of the White House," he said. "Ron Paul will be there Fri. afternoon. Want to meet up with him?"
If Rand Paul's alleged connections with these racists groups isn't bad enough, there's his former association with Jack Hunter, who was an aide and co-author of Paul's 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington. However, the Washington Free Beacon revealed that Hunter used to be a neo-Confederate shock jock called the Southern Avenger, a columnist who compared Abraham Lincoln to Saddam Hussein, and the former chairman of the Charleston, South Carolina, chapter of the League of the South, a secessionist group. The League of the South has been classified as a hate group by the left leaning Southern Poverty Law Center. Of course, Rand Paul has tried to distance himself from Jack Hunter by parting ways with him. Rand Paul has also distanced himself by stating that Hunter's earlier writings "stupid" and said he was not aware of them when he hired him. (Right....) Despite Rand Paul trying to distance himself from Jack Hunter, both men were spoke at an event that was organized by his father Ron Paul. Not surprising, Hunter was a campaign blogger for Ron Paul's 2012 presidential primary bid.

The Republican party as well as conservatives should steer clear of Ron and Rand Paul. The more people learn about these two men, the more we find them in a tangled alliance with those who promote bigotry, racism, homophobia and antisemitism that has been well documented. These men have a long history of associations, communications and support from the dark side of society. Fortunately, Ron Paul has retired from politics.  But Rand Paul hasn't. 

If Rand Paul were to win the Republican nomination, he would be easily slaughtered by a Democratic candidate. Imagine Rand Paul going up against a seasoned and political candidate like Hillary Clinton. The Republican party would suffer a massive defeat at the local, state and national level. The Republican Party would suffer a PR nightmare for having allowed Rand Paul who has strong connections with bigoted people. 

I know 2016 is a long way off. However, time will fly by and before we know it, 2016 will be here. It is crucial that the Republican party and conservatives prevent Ron Paul from successfully competing in the 2016 election. There are so many reasons why the Republican Party and conservatives cannot support Rand Paul. However, I think the best and strongest reason is the Paul's connections to these people.

Based on Rand Paul's history and associations with his father and their mutual connections to bigoted people, he should not be associated with the Republican party. He should not receive any support from conservatives in 2016 because Rand Paul is not a conservative. He is a libertarian and has said so many times. Rand Paul really should be in the Libertarian party which is where he really belongs. He is not one of us. That's why conservatives should not and cannot support Rand Paul in 2016.
the League of the South is a hate group.
the League of the South is a hate group.Jack Hunter is also connected to Ron Paul since Hunter was a campaign blogger for Ron Paul's 2012 presidential primary bid.

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Where Did Obama's "If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your Plan" Promise Come From?

During the 2008 Presidential primaries, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were battling each other to become the Democratic candidate for the General election. They clashed with one another on the issue of health care. The only major difference between the two candidate's health care plan was that Hilary Clinton had an individual mandate while Barack Obama's health plan didn't. However, Obama would later include the individual mandate into his health care plan. Once he incorporated the individual mandate, he also incorporated her campaign promise:

Hilliary Clinton told the American people this: 



Obama would go on to repeat Hillary Clinton's promise 36 times:


Obama stole that infamous campaign promise from Hilliary Clinton. 

That 2008 campaign promise that "if you like your plan/doctor/hospital, you can keep it" is a lie. It was a lie told by both candiates. One of those candidates would later become President in 2008. The other candidate is thinking of running in 2016.

UPDATE (4/11/15):  The Wall Street Journal just came across a memo that one of Hillary Clinton's staffers wrote  nearly 20 years ago during the summer of 1994 which reads, “If you like your Blue Cross you can keep your BC.” The next line extends that promise to Aetna, Prudential, and any similar insurer. See the memo below:

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Hillary Clinton's 2016 Health Care Problem

There has been a lot of speculation about the possibility of Hillary Clinton running in 2016. The biggest hurdle for Hilliary is her health care plans that she proposed back in 1993 and in 2008.  Why will her old health care plans come back to haunt her in 2016?
 
Obama was inspired by Hillary Clinton's 2008 health care plan that she offered during her bid to become President during that time:
In 2009, President Obama adopted Senator Clinton’s plan almost in its entirety. Obamacare is Hillarycare 2.0. All of the harmful consequences of Obama’s individual mandate — people losing their policies, higher premiums, and increased tax burdens — were the foreseeable consequences of Clinton’s plan. Any criticisms of Obamacare can be aimed equally at Hillary Clinton.
In 2008, the linchpin of Senator Clinton’s health care plan program was a mandate that all Americans must buy health insurance. Those who did not would pay a penalty. 
In fact, during a Presidential debate, Obama admitted that almost all of the ideas for his health care plan was cribbed from Hillary Clinton's health care plan: 
At a primary debate, Hillary complained that “Senator Obama has consistently said that I would force people to have health care whether they could afford it or not.”
And Obama countered, “I have consistently said that Senator Clinton’s got a good health care plan. I think I have a good health care plan. I think mine is better. But I have said that 95 percent of our health care plan is similar.”
“The reason she thinks that there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody. It is a mandate that every individual purchase health care.”
Now we know that Obama's health care plan was completely ripped from Hillary Clinton's 2008 health care plan since the linchpin of ObamaCare is the individual mandate which he later implemented after becoming President. Thus, Barack Obama's claims that Mitt Romney's healthcare plan was the basis for ObamaCare is a lie based on his own admission. 

Given that Obama's health care plan is really based completely on Hillary's ideas, I now realize that the name for President Obama's health care "ObamaCare" is a misnomer. It really should be called HillBamaCare.

The fact that Obama implemented every aspect of Hillary's 2008 health care plan is a problem. However, the deeper and bigger problem for Mrs. Clinton is that she shares Obama's progressive belief in an growing the size and scope of government in which there is a paternalistic welfare state that offers an array of entitlements to take care of the citizens from cradle to grave. In short, both believe in that the government can solve the needs and problems of its citizens. 

Since Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both ardent supporters of a massive welfare state, it is no surprise that they both of them rely on a monstrous maze of government bureaucracy to run their health care plans. It is the central core of making their health plans work.

Back in 1993, this is what the bureaucracy behind HillaryCare would have looked like if it was implemented: 


This is the bureaucracy behind ObamaCare today:

As you can see, the core mechanism for Hillary's 1993 health care plan and ObamaCare rely on a massive bureaucracy to keep it running. If Mrs. Clinton does decide to run in 2016, the devastating blow that the failure of ObamaCare has done to the liberal/progressive promise that our government can competently, honestly and frugally manage our health care may be too big for Hillary to overcome. 
 
If Hillary Clinton runs in 2016, she won't be offering a plan to overhaul ObamaCare but she will be offering tweaks and modifications to HillBamaCare. The problem with that is that any adjustment or improvement she proposes will further increase uncertainty and disruption in the market place. Americans have been nauseous with economic uncertainty ever since Obama's health care plan was passed in 2008 and they're not willing to stomach another four more years of economic disruption caused by further "fixes" to HillBamaCare in 2016. Americans will have had enough in progressive experimentation and tinkering of our health care by then.

Americans will start revolting against ObamaCare in 2014 and the anger may continue well into 2016. Hillary cannot back away from ObamaCare since her 2008 health care plan is too intertwined with ObamaCare. She cannot back away from her progressive beliefs about government having a role in almost every aspect of American's lives including their choices regarding health care. ObamaCare is a colossal failure and any attempt to try to keep it alive or any promise that it will get better will be utterly rejected by the American people.

Both Obama and Hillary have staked their political futures on a progressive reform of America's health care. That's why HillBamaCare will be a huge obstacle for her in 2016.

Friday, October 4, 2013

Ann Romney Leaves The Door Open For Mitt Romney Running For President For A Third Time

Mitt Romney spoke to students at the  University of Utah David Eccles School of Business and stated that he would not be running again in 2016. However, Ann Romney, in speaking at the Republican/MassLive.com conference in Dedham, Massachusetts as part of her book tour for her new cookbook, “The Romney Family Table" had this to say about Mitt Romney running again for President: 
Ann Romney said it would take an “extraordinary experience” before she would consider encouraging her husband, 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, in a future run for office.
Though she did not absolutely rule it out, Ann Romney said there would need to be “an absolute collapse of the economy or something dramatic that it would say 'We need you, Mitt, to fix this.'"
"But it would be a very extraordinary thing to bring me back into it," she said.
Ann Romney spoke to The Republican/MassLive.com at a hotel in Dedham on Thursday, during a book tour for her new cookbook, “The Romney Family Table.”
After Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, ran for president in 2008 and lost in the Republican primary, Ann Romney told him she would never participate in another presidential campaign. She changed her mind, she often said on the 2012 campaign trail, because she felt the country at that time needed someone with her husband’s experience as its leader.
Asked what she told her husband after he lost the 2012 race, Ann Romney said, “Never, ever again, and I mean it this time.”
As I understand it, Ann Romney told her husband after losing the 2012 election that she was adamant that Mitt Romney not run again but now she seems to be open to the idea of running again but only on the condition that America is facing major catastrophic economic or national emergency. Many Romney fans are excited by Ann Romney's statement since the possibility of Mitt Romney running again isn't completely shut. 

Personally, I don't think Mitt Romney will run again. I just can't see him doing it.  If he decides to run in 2016, then I will support him. But if Mitt does decide to run, I think Ann's feelings on the matter will be the deal breaker. If she doesn't want to run, then I don't think he will do it. But if Ann is up for a third attempt, then Mitt might actually go ahead and give it a try again. But for now, it appears Mitt Romney is dead set against running again. But at least Ann leaves the door open for another opportunity for her husband to try to run again.  

By the way, in case you missed it, Mitt and Ann Romney were recently on Rachel Ray's television show and it looked like they had a lot of fun. Watch below: 

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

ObamaCare: A Study on The Art of Political Deception

This week, we learned, via a fantastic article over at Politico that  a few weeks before he decided to run for President in 2008, Barack Obama didn't have a formal plan on Health Care. It was an idea that was hastily concieved to make him appear that he was more competent as a candidate than he really was:
The most important red line of Barack Obama’s presidency was scrawled hastily in January 2007, a few weeks before he even announced he was running for president.

Soon-to-be-candidate Obama, then an Illinois senator, was thinking about turning down an invitation to speak at a big health care conference sponsored by the progressive group Families USA, when two aides, Robert Gibbs and Jon Favreau, hit on an idea that would make him appear more prepared and committed than he actually was at the moment.

Why not just announce his intention to pass universal health care by the end of his first term?

Thus was born Obamacare, a check-the-box, news-cycle expedient that would ultimately define a president.

“We needed something to say,” recalled one of the advisers involved in the discussion. “I can’t tell you how little thought was given to that thought other than it sounded good. So they just kind of hatched it on their own. It just happened. It wasn’t like a deep strategic conversation.”
This is not surprising given Obama's own admission that he wasn't ready to run for President. Remember this interview from CNN? 
 
It is mindboggling to me that we have a man who openly admits that he was not experienced enough to become President and yet he later decides to run for President despite that statement and we find out that Obama wanted people to believe that he had a formal plan on Health Care when he really didn't have one. 

Moreover, we also learn that not only was Obama dishonest about claiming he had a ambitious health care plan, but that his dishonesty was the result of desperation to do anything to win in 2008. (Doesn't that sound familiar for 2012?) Additionally, the inexperienced Obama knew he was out of his league on the issue of health care and that he wasn't even enthusiastic about his own hastily hatched plan:
Obama’s legacy on health care began with the pressure to say something, anything, at the progressive health conference a year before the first presidential primary votes were cast. He needed to keep up with Clinton, his party’s front-runner, and Edwards, who was trying to carve out space to Clinton’s left as the party’s liberal standard-bearer.

Favreau, who would go on to become the chief White House speechwriter, said Obama wanted “to say something bold and ambitious about health care.”

“He had previously talked about how every year and every election we keep talking about health care and nothing ever happens,” Favreau said. “So we came up with that promise, really one of the first.”

The candidate jumped at it. He probably wasn’t going to get elected anyway, the team concluded. Why not go big?

“In the 2008 campaign, affordable, universal health care for every single American must not be a question of whether, it must be a question of how,” Obama said at the Families USA conference. “We have the ideas, we have the resources, and we must find the will to pass a plan by the end of the next president’s first term.”

Even after his pledge, though, it took months for Obama to buy in.

In March 2007, he found himself on the same stage with a highly confident Clinton at another health care forum, this one sponsored by the Service Employees International Union in Las Vegas.

Obama staggered through a discussion that left policy wonks convinced that he was out of his league, particularly when compared to Clinton, arguably the nation’s premier expert on health care after her unsuccessful attempt to enact reform in the 1990s.

While she dominated, he was confronted by an audience member who asked why he didn’t have a health care plan yet. He responded that his campaign was only eight weeks old and promised to come up with one soon. At one point, in response to a question about health care disparities among minorities, Obama talked about lead poisoning as Clinton aides giggled.

Obama knew before he walked off the stage that he had screwed up.
Obama had successfully deceived the Democratic party in to believing that he was more competent than Hillary Clinton on the issue of health care by attacking her for supporting the individual mandate even though he secretly was telling other people that he did support the individual mandate and that it would most likely be a part of his plan. Here's Politico describing how Obama was lying to Democratic voters: 
At the advice of his political advisers, Obama sought to undercut Clinton by accusing her of pushing for an individual mandate — an idea borrowed from Republicans that polled poorly with independents and conservative Democrats in critical battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Aides say Obama was simply looking for any way to differentiate himself from an opponent whose basic policy positions were indistinguishable from his own. After Clinton dropped out in June 2008, Obama was privately telling his staff that any health care reform he proposed would most likely include a mandate.
Watch this clip below of Obama attacking Hillary Clinton on the idea of the individual mandate: 

While Obama was out lying to Democratic voters and later to the American people, it took months for Obama to buy into his own deceptive campaign promise. And when Obama was able to push ObamaCare through Congress through a procedural loophole despite massive public opposition the Affordable Care Act, the central idea of his plan was the individual mandate. Thus, not only did Obama lie to the American people, but he flipped flopped on the issue of he individual mandate. 

Four years later in the 2012 Presidential election, Obama would use ObamaCare as both a sword and a shield against Republican challenger Mitt Romney by falsely claiming that he used RomneyCare as a template for his healthcare plan since Romney's health care plan contained the individual mandate despite the fact that Obama was lying and flip flopping on that idea back in 2008. Once Obama was reelected in 2012, he would go on to use to U.S. government attorneys defend the individual mandate that he criticized and lied about when he was a candidate in 2008.

But back to the Politico's central theme that ObamaCare was born in attempt to make Senator Obama look more competent than he really was.  Supporters of ObamaCare claim that it was a well thought out plan. Now we know that it wasn't. Nancy Pelosi was  being truthful when she said that we had to pass ObamaCare in order to find out what was in it. What do we find out? We find out that  that a bunch of inexperienced twenty something year old Congressional interns wrote it which contained the individual mandate that Obama flipped flopped on. I don't think the Democratic Congress and their interns who wrote the bill even studied RomenyCare closely at all. We also learn that it contained a tax even though Obama would flip flop on that saying there was a tax and there wasn't a tax.

In other words, the legislation didn't come from the White House but Congress. Essentially, Obama let Congress create, draft and pass the bill. All he had to do was sign it. I don't think ObamaCare was really Obama's idea. He was never really enthusiastic about a healthcare plan and it took months for him to buy into the lie he sold to the American people. As you may or may not remember, it was Obama and the Democratic party who wanted a single payer health care program prior to the passage of ObamaCare. But in the end, and if you read the entire Politico article, you'll find that he just wanted his aides and advisors to be able to sell whatever plan someone came up with to the American people.

Ultimately, the biggest deception is that ObamaCare is a designed to pave the way for the eventual implementation of a single payer health care plan. Obama may not have initially had any health care plan when he made that decision to run in 2008. However, Obama has always wanted a bigger and more intrusive government. The intent of ObamaCare was to grow the size of the goverment. Listen to Obama's intent behind his health care plan in his interview with John Stewart on the Daily Show.  If you don't want to watch the entire thing, go to approximately the 8 minute mark and listen. Watch the video below:



As the President stated himself in the John Stewart interview, the "change" in the nation's health care program was to simply make it a framework that will allow for future growth of the federal government. His example of Social Security is used to drive this point home. Social Security was initially sold as support for widows and orphanages but later the "structure" of this program blossomed into a massive entitlement program. He points out that the same is true for every progressive piece of legislation, which includes ObamaCare, in which it started out small but it was never intended to be small. It was designed to allow them to make further "progress" which is another way of saying expanding the government. The implication that Obama is making is that ObamaCare will eventually grow into a single payer program over time.

The birth, passage and fragile survival of ObamaCare is an excellent study in art of political deception. Politicians lie all the time. They make promises to the American people they don't intend to keep. Obama is no exception. The media portrayed Obama as an outsider who was different and above politics. The truth is, he wasn't and he still isn't. 

Its not just ObamaCare that was a lie that was masterfully sold to the American people, it was his campaign. Even more fundamentally, Obama sold himself as a lie to the American people.

It is said that the the greatest lie the Devil told was to convince the world that he didn't exist. It may be that the greatest lie a politician can tell is to convince the people that he's more competent than he claims to be. Obama campaigned on a lie that he was ready to be president even when he fully admitted that he wasn't. 

Now, Americans have endured almost eight years of an amateur president who has clearly shown himself to be incompetent on foreign affairs and domestic affairs. If Obama is competent at anything, he's a master at manipulating and deceiving the public into making him President and allowing him to pass a health care plan that was initially conceived as a campaign tactic to make him look more competent than he actually was.  

Mitt Romney Is Not Running In 2016

Mitt Romney appeared at the University of Utah today to meet with students at the University of Utah David Eccles School of Business and stated that he would not be running again in 2016.
Romney also made it clear to the overflow crowd of students, faculty and business leaders gathered to hear his 45-minute speech that he was done running for the White House after two unsuccessful tries.
"I've had two bites at the apple. Three strikes and you're out," he said.
Romney, who received hearty applause after a questioner thanked him for his 2008 and 2012 presidential races, jokingly suggested his wife, Ann, or son Josh — who lives in Utah — would be better candidates next time around.
Before the speech, Romney said he was "feeling bad I'm not in the White House," calling it a "great thrill to run for president" and an honor to have had the support of Utahns.
"The country faces real challenges, which unfortunately are not being addressed in the way I'd hope they'd be. A lot of people are hurting. A lot of people across the country can't find work," he said, including new college graduates.
I knew that Mitt Romney would not be running again in 2016. Its not that I had any inside information but I knew that he just wasn't going to run. I don't think he wants to become like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul who have ran for President in multiple presidential elections. I also think he wants to move on and do other things whether it be in business or politics. 

There are many people (I am not one of them) who want Mitt Romney to run in 2016. There's even a Facebook group called Mitt Romney for President 2016 that has already been set up to promote that idea. Even though I am deeply saddened that Mitt Romney lost and I believe he would have made a great president, he made the right choice not to run again. 

As far as 2016 goes, I would like to see the following people throw their hats into the ring for that Presidential election: Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Robert McDonnell, Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Jan Brewer, Senator Jeff Sessions, Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Kelly Ayotte, former Oklahoma representative J.C. Watts, Former Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Dr. Benjamin Carson, Former U.S. Representative Artur Davis, Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, and Former U.S. Representative Allen West and former Mitt Romney running mate Paul Ryan. 

I also don't want the following people to run in 2016: Senator Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Alan Keyes, John Huntsman Jr., and Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Mitch Daniels, and Mike Huckabee.
 
Do you think it was right for Mitt Romney to decide not to run in 2016? Who do you think should run in 2016?

Sunday, August 11, 2013

How Do We Stop The Great Food Stamp Binge? A Look At The Mormon Welfare Program

Fox News renewed a fierce debate over how the U.S. Government takes care of its poor and needy citizens when it aired Bret Baier's special report, titled "The Great Food Stamp Binge." You can see the entire documentary below: 


This documentary is very educational. But everyone is focusing on the interview John Roberts did with a willfully unemployed and unmotivated surfer who lives a life of leisure in a very wealthy suburb of San Diego, California called La Jolla. To put La Jolla in perspective, Its the same place where Mitt Romney bought a  house that is worth $12 million.  

This surfer makes people angry for many reasons. He unabashedly admits on television that he chooses not to work despite living in San Diego's richest suburb, La Jolla. He is happy that other people are subsidizing his life style and seems to relish that fact. He is doesn't appear that he really needs the food stamps that he uses. His lifestyle is offensive for two reasons. He's accepting money from people who work hard only to have the government squander it on losers like him and he's taking the money from people that really need the help.

The Fox News documentary was designed to provoke people to debate this issue. We need to have this debate, especially when these entitlement programs are the largest driver of our national debt. This program is also pushes people to wonder if there is different approach that our government could take to help the poor and the needy. 

Actually, the answer just might be found in a Church that has its headquarters in Salt Lake City. Yes, I am talking about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, other wise known as the "Mormons." 

Ronald Reagan was a big fan of the Mormon's Welfare Program. After he taken a tour of the Church's welfare program, he made the following comment to the press: "What I think is that if more people had this idea back when the Great Depression hit, there wouldn't be any government welfare today, or need for it."  He also told his aides after the tour that, "You know, there is a program that comes very close to being the most ideal way dealing with those who are poor and unfortunate; and that is the Mormon Welfare Program."

The reason why the LDS Church has been a model for how to help the poor and the needy is because it runs their welfare program in the exact opposite way that the U.S. government does. There are no freebies. No hand outs. People are required to work or help as a condition for receiving assistance. Here's how the Mormon Welfare Program works:
The system is supported by the generous “fast offering” donations of 13 million Church members throughout the world. Mormons fast, or skip two meals each month, and give the money they would have spent on the food (and often much more) to their local Bishop. The money they give is called a “fast offering.” The bishop then uses those funds to help members of his congregation, and others, who are in need.
But it is not a handout. The bishop gives the needy individual or family assignments to work for the assistance they receive. The work might include cleaning a church building or using skills to help someone else in need.  Fulfilling these assignments helps those receiving assistance to maintain their dignity and self-respect and provides a way for them to give back.
The Church Welfare program helps both members and non-members alike. The person who requests assistance from the LDS Church works with the local Mormon ecclesiastical leader, known as a Bishop, to make sure that their needs are being met. The ecclesiastical leader also makes sure that the person has some work assignment to do as they are receiving the help that they have requested for.  

The goal of the LDS Welfare program is based on the idea of getting people who need help the immediate help they need, but then weaning them off of it and making them productive in society.  The LDS Welfare system works hard in helping as many people as they can. During the 2012 election, Brian Williams did a report about the Mormon Church. Below is a clip where they reported on the Church's Welfare program: 


Despite the massive size and scope of the welfare program, the LDS Church is very efficient and successful in helping people get back onto their feet quickly as possible: 
According to Rick Foster, who oversees a smaller storehouse in Salt Lake City along with the cannery and dairy at Welfare Square (the original site of all the church’s welfare services), people depend on the food at the storehouse for an average of three to six months. (emphasis added)
The LDS Church's Welfare program is so efficient and cost effective because it operates on the singular goal of helping people become self sufficient and reliant as soon as they can. The Church has a system in place to make sure that nothing is wasted, people get what they need and they get it quickly so that they are back on their feet again. 

In fact, the Mormon Welfare program is so efficient that it is usually the first organization on the scene after a major disaster of some kind. See John Stossel explain this below: 


Additionally, the program is also extremely effective because it has mechanisms and incentives in place to prevent people from free loading which ensure that slackers (like the La Jolla surfer) do not drain the welfare system dry. The Church does not allow for situations where food and money are doled out with no accountability.

Thus, the idea of receiving help but also being able to live a leisurely lifestyle is completely unacceptable in the Mormon program. The LDS Church would simply not tolerate nor appreciate the La Jolla surfer's attitude or thinking. You don't get to play while others are helping you. You do what you can to help yourself or pitch in to help others.  

It is clear that entitlement reform is needed in America. The LDS Church provides some good ideas on how to create a program that works on helping people who really need it in a quick, efficient and cost effective manner. The only only problem is this: Will our government actually put these ideas into practice?

For more information on the LDS welfare program: http://www.providentliving.org/

You can also make a donation to the Church's Charity program here: http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Glenn Beck: Did You Ever Really Lose Your Voice?


Although Glenn Beck has asked a very important question that I have never thought about. If today was the last day you had a voice, what would you say? I began to think about the question and I realized a few important things.

Glenn Beck relies on a narrow definition of the word "voice." He uses it as using your vocal chords to express your thoughts, feelings and ideas. And based on that, it can be a scary thing if you are not able to talk. It also might prompt people to begin to reconsider their words and the effect it has on other people and how they might choose their words more carefully.

Like Glenn Beck, I make a living communicating. I am an attorney. I use my words to defend clients in court or to help them resolve their legal problems. I write memorandums, briefs, letters and other documents for my clients. I understand how important words are and how powerful our voices can be.

I am also an individual with a profound hearing loss. Not only can I communicate by talking but I use my hands to speak. I learned American Sign Language (ASL) when I was in high school. I use ASL to speak with my Deaf clients or to talk with my friends.

Because of my hearing loss and my profession, You might not be able to speak, but you will never lose your voice. EVER. You might lose the ability to speak as a result of some medical condition. You might have your voice restricted, suppressed or silenced by a repressive government.  Someone could physically prevent you from speaking by putting duct tape over your mouth or throwing you in prison. 

How you feel, think and see the world can never be suppressed. The Soviet Government is a good example of this. No matter how much they tried to control people's speech, the good people found a way to make their voices heard. An underground movement known as Samizdat was formed in which people wrote letters, poems, articles and essays expressing their views. With all the might that the former USSR had, it  couldn't suppress speech. 

As a result, our 1st Amendment right can never be taken away. It will always be there. You might not be able to speak, but you will never lose your voice. The 1st Amendment takes a broad view of speech. It protects all forms of communication. But our voices doesn't have to be made by sound or put down on paper.  That's the cool thing about American Sign Language.  Your voice is also found in your hands, eyes, and body. That is what makes ASL beautiful and awesome.What is in your heart or in your mind can be expressed through your body. Even ASL is protected under the 1st Amendment. 

So Glenn, you might lose your ability to talk, but you will never lose your voice. I recommend that you learn American Sign Language. You are a passionate man with lots of things to say. However, I suggest you expand the way you use your voice to include American Sign Language. You will never see the world the same again and how you express yourself and your ideas will never be the same. 

I know you might not be able to talk, but you will always have your voice.

Monday, June 10, 2013

Congress Should Bring Obama In For Questioning Over IRS Scandal

With each passing day, we learn of additional evidence that the Obama Administration orchestrated various government agencies to suppress the conservative GOTV  activities in order to win the 2012 Presidential election at all costs.

One compelling piece of evidence is that the IRS had expansive program targeting and intimidating conservatives around the country from Laguna Niguel, California to Washington D.C. What's worse is that despite the Obama Administration's claim that this was simply a case of a few IRS agents going rouge, we now know that  88 IRS employees was involved in this matter. There were also emails from a low level employee who was corresponding with Washington-based IRS tax attorney Carter Hull back in 2010. Furthermore, a few different IRS agents have suggested that the idea of targeting came from Washington D.C.  Yet, other IRS agents refuse to say anything about whether that order came from their agency headquarters.  

Another piece of evidence is the glaring fact that liberal groups were not targeted for extra scrutiny by the IRS. This demolishes the claim that the IRS was engaging in a neutral and balanced assessment of organizations applying for tax exempt status especially when we find that Obama's Organizing For America organization had applied to the IRS for that tax exemption. 
 
So far, there’s no evidence that the White House or President Barack Obama were involved in the IRS scrutinizing overtly political groups applying for tax-exempt status. However, that may may change. We know that President Obama met with Douglas H. Shulman, the former IRS commissioner, over 150 times at the White House. That is highly unusual. But the most damning piece of evidence that may link Obama to the IRS scandal is his meeting with Colleen Kelley who is the President of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) at12:30pm on March 31st. The time of that meeting is significant and is not a coincidence as Jeffery Lord points out in his article for he American Spectator.
The very next day after that March 31 meeting at the White House, the IRS, with the union involved in its decision-making, was setting up its “Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party.”
Which raises the famous question from Watergate: What did the President know and when did he know it?
The famous question of when did the President know isn't the only question that the public should have answers to: 
• Did the President himself ever discuss the Tea Party with Kelley?
• Did the President ever communicate his thoughts on the Tea Party to Kelley — in any fashion other than a face-to-face conversation such as e-mail, text, or by phone?
• What was the subject of the Obama-Kelley March 31, 2010 meeting?
• Who was present at the Obama-Kelley March 31 meeting?
• Was the Tea Party or any other group opposing the President’s agenda discussed at the March 31 meeting, or before or after that meeting?
• Is the White House going to release any e-mails, text, or phone records that detail Kelley’s contacts with not only Mr. Obama but his staff?
• Will the IRS release all e-mail, text, or phone records between Kelley or any other leader of the NTEU with IRS employees?
• What role did Executive Order 13522 play in the IRS investigations of the Tea Party and all these other conservative groups?
I highly encourage you to read Jeffrey Lord's article in its entirety. The fact that the President of the IRS Union meets with Obama the day before the targeting of conservative groups began may be the smoking gun that links Obama to this scandal. Congress should haul Colleen Kelley and grill her under oath. This meeting also is another reason why Congress should appoint an independent special prosecutor to investigate the entire IRS scandal.

Its becoming increasingly clear to everyone that there is a very compelling case to be made that Obama has abused the power of government in order to win the 2012 Presidential election. Moreover, he may have also abused that power in order to prevent the Republican Party from having a majority in the Senate.  I believe the case is so compelling that even Mitt Romney, Obama's opponent in the 2012 Presidential election, has stepped forward to call for a Special Prosecutor to investigate the IRS scandal.

The fact that a nation wide suppression of conservative groups and individuals strongly suggest that a high level cooperation and planning could only could have come from Washington D.C. and evidence continues to pour in to validate that suspicion. In fact, a news reporter is stating this IRS scandal is about to explode into an even bigger scandal since some IRS agents claim to have evidence that the targeting of IRS agents came from Washington D.C.

I think its about time Congress appoint a special prosecutor and question Obama about his involvement in this IRS scandal.

Saturday, June 1, 2013

How Credible Is Obama's Claim That He Didn't Know About The IRS Scandals?

President Obama claims that he didn't know about the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups until the media found out about it. That claim is difficult to believe. Somehow, Obama wasn't aware of that the IRS was (1) targeting tea party groups for extra scrutiny,  (2) auditing of multiple wealthy Romney supporters  and (3)improperly and illegally accessing and disseminating private tax records of conservative groups and individuals despite that everyone else in his administration knew about it. 

The GOP has created a nice infographic that strongly questions Barack Obama's defense. Personally, I think the infogaphic goes beyond just questioning that defense but actually destroys it. But you be the judge. See below. 


I think the strongest piece of evidence that destroys Obama's defense is that these separate IRS scandals are not isolate incidents but are related to one another. What these scandals suggest to me is that this was a coordinated effort by the IRS to help Obama win the 2012 election no matter what. The fact that Gibson Guitar Company was raided by Federal agents adds further evidence to my believe that the federal goverment was colluding with the Obama campaign to assist him in winning the 2012 election.  In my mind, all these various scandals can be bundled together to form one big 2012 election scandal. If anything, I think Obama was the first to know about these IRS scandals since these scandals were designed in suppressing votes, fundraising and organizing of conservative groups and individuals. It appears that this came from the top of the Administration and not some rouge IRS agents as first claimed.

Friday, May 31, 2013

Was the IRS An Unofficial Member of the Obama 2012 Campaign?

The Obama Administration's abuse of power via the Internal Revenue Service appears to be worse than previously thought. We know that the IRS illegally targeted Tea Party groups and engaged in systematic and wide-scale harassment of Romney donors via IRS audits. However, the IRS may have illegally shared confidential tax information with the Obama Administration in advance of its 2012 reelection campaign. 

Back in 2010, Austan Goolsbee, who was working as Obama's economic advisor at that time, told reporters an secret press briefing that Koch Industries doesn't pay corporate income taxes. The information about the Koch's tax filing status is confidential and is not information that is available to the public.  

How Mr. Goolsbee has knowledge of the Koch's tax filing status remains a mystery. Yet, he has given has given conflicting accounts of where he got that information. The only way Mr. Goolsbee could make such a claim is by actually looking at the Koch Industries' IRS tax returns. Maybe someone in the Obama administration took a peek into the company's IRS tax returns and passed the information to Mr. Goolsbee.

Although it is not clear if the IRS shared confidential tax information and/or allowed members of the Obama administration to have access to these private tax records, we know that the IRS shared confidential tax information of various conservative organizations with a liberal/progressive nonprofit journalism organization called ProPublica. Again, The information about these conservative organization's tax records is confidential and is not information that is available to the public. Yet, that information was made public to ProPublica.

Not only was the IRS sharing confidential tax information with conservative organizations that were trying to establish themselves as a non-profit organization, but it was also sharing information with already established non-profit organizations. For example, the IRS shared confidential tax information of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) which back in March of 2010. Both organizations are opponents on the issue of gay marriage. John Eastman, the Chairman of NOM, explains why the release of confidential tax information is a major problem:
For the IRS to leak any organization's tax return to its political opponents is an outrageous breach of ethics and, if proven, constitutes a felony. Every organization — liberal and conservative — should shudder at the idea of the IRS playing politics with its confidential tax return information. But the situation here is even more egregious because the head of the HRC was at the time serving as a national co-chair of President Obama's re-election campaign.
The release of NOM's confidential tax return to the Human Rights Campaign is the canary in the coal mine of IRS corruption. Contrary to assertions that the targeting of Tea Party groups was an error in judgment by low-level IRS bureaucrats, the release of NOM's confidential data to a group headed by an Obama campaign co-chair suggests the possibility of complicity at the highest levels of politics and government. This wasn't a low-level error in judgment; it was a conscious act to reward a prominent Obama supporter while punishing an opponent.
 John Eastman, like myself, wonders if there is possible collusion with the IRS and the Obama campaign:
At this stage, nobody is accusing the White House or the Obama re-election campaign of illegal activity. But there is a serious question about whether there was communication or possible collusion between the IRS and the HRC, and if there was, whether anyone at the White House or the Obama re-election campaign was involved.
Finally, let us not forget Harry Reid's infamous accusation that Mitt Romney hadn't paid taxes in ten years. Senator Reid said that his accusation was based on "number of people" who told him about Mitt's confidential tax records. Yet, Mr. Reid also claimed that his accusation was based on a single "extremely credible source" Which is it, Harry? One source or multiple sources? And what's the name(s) of these sources? How did your sources know about Mitt Romney's confidential tax information? In light of the fact that the IRS was potentially sharing information with Austin Goolsbee and ProPublica, was the IRS also feeding information to Senator Reid?

In the case of Mr. Goolsbee, looking into the confidential and private tax information of an individual or corporation is potential violation of federal law. However, the IRS definitely violated federal law when it sent confidential tax information to ProPublica. Federal law may have also been violated when Harry Reid publicly disclosed Mitt Romney's confidential tax information even if the claim isn't true. Unfortunately, Harry Reid has immunity because he made these remarks while working as a Senator in the Senate floor. 

In light of these three separate instances of confidential tax information being leaked to the public, several questions are raised. Who else did the IRS share tax information with? How long have they been doing this? How many other conservative groups and individuals did the IRS allow the Obama administration have access to? Did the Obama administration look into these records before publicly denigrating these wealthy individuals on the Obama's 2012 campaign website? Did the Obama administration look into these records to decide which Romney donor they would have the IRS audit? Did the Obama administration look into these confidential tax records of individuals to decide which conservative IRS group they would give extra attention to? 

However, the most important question that I have not seen asked anywhere is this: Was the IRS an unofficial member of the Obama 2012 reelection campaign? The fact that we have three separate IRS scandals, (1) targeting tea party groups for extra scrutiny,  (2) the auditing of multiple wealthy Romney supporters  and the (3) the improper and illegal access and dissemination of private tax records of conservative groups and individuals is not a coincidence. We also know that Obama's IRS Commissioner visited the White House 157 times. We also know that Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, was highly aware and invovled in the targeting of these tea party groups. We also know that White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler and Barack Obama’s chief of staff Denis McDonough, who are both close to Obama in his administration, were fully aware of the targeting of the IRS groups. However, we are expected to believe that Obama was not fully aware of these IRS scandals. I don't believe it. Do you?

All of these facts leads me to believe that these three separate scandals are actually tied together and appear to be well coordinated and intentionally planned by the Obama administration to win the 2012 election by any means necessary. There is no other logical conclusion that can be derived from these facts. 

If the Obama administration really did use the IRS as an unofficial member of their 2012 reelection team, it raises mutliple questions in my mind: When did the Obama administration first decide to use the IRS as part of their 2012 reelection effort? How much cooperation was there between the IRS and the Obama 2012 election campaign and the White House? Which members of the Obama 2012 election team was involved in this matter? How often did the White House and the IRS cooperate together prior to and during the 2012 election? (Was it 157 times?) Did the President order the IRS to target conservative groups in order to win the 2012 election? What other questions need to be asked to determine whether or not the IRS was an unoffcial member of the Obama 2012 campaign? 

As a result, I believe that these three separate IRS scandals, (1) targeting tea party groups for extra scrutiny,  (2) the auditing of multiple wealthy Romney supporters  and the (3) the improper and illegal access and dissemination of private tax records of conservative groups and individuals needs to be investigated by Congress. Moreover, a special independent investigation needs to be conducted. Moreover, the Federal Election Commission needs to investigate this matter. 

I believe that its clear that all of these illegal activities tie together. All of them were conducted with one purpose in mind: win the election at all cost even if it means violating local, state, federal law or the Constitution. In looking at the totality of these illegal activities, it is clear that Obama was successful in doing whatever it took to win.  It was all a coordinated effort to help Obama win. 

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Questions That Need To Be Asked About That Federal Raid On Gibson Guitar Corporation

With the recent discovery of conservative individuals and organizations targeted by the federal government, many people are now starting to wonder if the Gibson Guitar Corporation was targeted by the federal government simply because the CEO of that company is a well known supporter of conservative and Republican candidates and causes. 

Here's the simple facts of the case.

Two years ago, federal agents descended on the famous guitar company, Gibson Guitar Corporation because they were believed to be in violation of the Lacey Act, which bans the trafficking of flora and fauna as well as the harvesting these plants. The acts areC also in violation foreign laws. As a result, the federal government seized important materials, products and computer information from the Government. However, what makes this raid so fishy is that Gibson's competitor,  C.F. Martin & Co, was not subject to federal raids even though they use the same materials that Gibson uses in making the guitars. 

What's the big difference between these two companies? Read below:
Grossly underreported at the time was the fact that Gibson's chief executive, Henry Juszkiewicz, contributed to Republican politicians. Recent donations have included $2,000 to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and $1,500 to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
By contrast, Chris Martin IV, the Martin & Co. CEO, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee over the past couple of election cycles.
Several important questions are justifiably raised here. Does Chris Martin IV have any contacts with officials in the federal government or with Democratic party operatives who might agree to use the government as a means to improperly gain an advantage over their competitor? Why was Gibson Guitar Corporation targeted for raids by the federal government for allegedly violating laws but not Martin & Co.? Was Gibson Guitar Corporation targeted merely because the Chief Executive donates to Republican candidates? Was this raid a form of political intimidation or revenge? Who authorized this raid and why? How high does the approval of this raid go? Was the White House ever made aware of the targeting of this raid?

I think this situation rises to the level of requiring a Congressional investigation. Do you think Congress should look into this? 

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Mitt Romney Was Right That Obama Would Do Anything To Win In 2012

I haven't been blogging lately since I've been focusing on myself and my career. However, I wish to take time out of my busy life to raise the alarm on the fact that President Obama trampled on the Constitution and the rights of people all across the country in order to win. Mitt Romney was right in saying that Obama will "do anything" to get re-elected in order to hang onto power. 

And we are just now finding out far Obama went to win that second term.

Let us review the list of illegal activies the Obama Administration engaged into to be reelected. 
IRS Scandal 

We know that many tea party groups were targeted by the IRS as early as 2010 and that the targeting continued throughout 2011 and 2012. It now appears that nearly 500 conservative groups were subjected to invasive review and intimidation. The impact this had on the 2012 election is incalculable. In fact, writing for the Washington Examiner explains how "the president's administration engaged in a systematic and wide-scale suppression of Tea Party and conservative activity and votes, via the IRS targeting of those groups" in crucial states of the 2012 election which lead to the approximate suppression of "at least 7 million Romney votes across the country." 

I personally believe these groups were investigated after Obama saw how successful and powerful these Tea Party groups were in the aftermath of the devastating 2010 elections and decided to target these groups in preparation for his 2012 reelection campaign.We are now learning that the targeting of these groups wasn't done by a few rouge IRS agents but was intentional campaign waged by senior officials in the IRS and the White House. Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, is now being grilled by Congress as to the extent of her knowledge and participation of these activities. I believe Congress will also investigate White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler and Barack Obama’s chief of staff Denis McDonough who are both close to Obama in his administration. If Congress continues to pursue this matter, I believe all roads will lead to Obama and they must investigate whether or not the President ordered the IRS to target conservative groups in order to win the 2012 election.  I also believe that Congress needs to appoint an independent special investigator/prosecutor to look into the allegation of targeting of these Tea Party groups.

Mitt Romney Donors Targeted

Not only were conservative Tea Party groups targeted by the IRS but individuals were also targeted by the IRS for simply donating money to the Romney campaign. The IRS harassed these individuals by auditing them and in some cases, conducting more than one audits on the same individual.  For example, Billionaire businessman Frank VanderSloot, a major Mitt Romney super PAC donor who was subjected to three federal agency audits after his name appeared on the Obama's campaign website. He claims that other wealthy Romney donors were harrased by the Obama administration via IRS audits. 

There is a very good reason to be suspicious about Obama and the IRS with regards to the harrassment of Romney donors:
The Obama campaign itself listed 15 large Romney campaign donors and bundlers on their site, which directly lead to the harassment by lefts of those donors. And, by no coincidence, many of them such as business owner Frank Vandersloot, were also harassed and audited by the IRS. This had a chilling effect and caused many possible donors to stop writing the checks. By September and October of last year, Obama fund-raising took off while Romney fund-raising flat-lined. Now we know why, it was suppressed by the Obama campaign, and the Obama administration, efforts to intimidate and suppress Romney donors. It worked quite well and cost the Romney campaign millions in dollars and millions more in votes.
Another Republican and conservative donor was also targeted by the federal government. Two years ago, federal agents descended on the famous guitar company, Gibson Guitar Corporation because they were believed to be in violation of the Lacey Act, which bans the trafficking of flora and fauna as well as the harvesting these plants. The acts are also in violation foreign laws. As a result, the federal government seized important materials, products and computer information from the Government. However, what makes this raid so fishy is that Gibson's competitor,  C.F. Martin & Co, was not subject to federal raids even though they use the same materials that Gibson uses in making the guitars. What's the big difference between these two companies? Read below:
Grossly underreported at the time was the fact that Gibson's chief executive, Henry Juszkiewicz, contributed to Republican politicians. Recent donations have included $2,000 to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and $1,500 to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
By contrast, Chris Martin IV, the Martin & Co. CEO, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee over the past couple of election cycles.
Several important questions are justifiably raised here. Does Chris Martin IV have any contacts with officials in the federal government or with Democratic party operatives who might agree to use the government as a means to improperly gain an advantage over their competitor? Why was Gibson Guitar Corporation targeted for raids by the federal government for allegedly violating laws but not Martin & Co.? Was Gibson Guitar Corporation targeted merely because the Chief Executive donates to Republican candidates? Was this raid a form of political intimidation or revenge? Who authorized this raid and why? How high does the approval of this raid go? Was the White House aware of the targeting of this raid?

If Congress is willing to investigate how the IRS targeted conservative Tea Party groups, then Congress should also investigate why the IRS engaged in a systematic and wide-scale harassment of Romney donors via IRS audits. I believe that if Congress investigated this matter, they will eventually find themselves asking whether or not the President ordered the IRS to target Romney supporters in order to win the 2012 election. I also believe that Congress needs to appoint an independent special investigator/prosecutor to look into the allegation of harassment of Romney supporters and donors. 

Obama Engaged In Illegal Campaign Fundraiser Activities 

While the Obama Administration was busy targeting conservative groups and auditing Romney campaign supporters in order to reduce their financial influence in the 2012 elections, it was also busy in engaging maximizing the amount of campaign donations to his campaign by engaging in illegal campaign donations by accepting online campaign donations from anyone in the world. Obama got campaign donations from Osama Bin Laden from Pakistan even though he was already dead. Twice. Other known terrorists such as Saddam Hussein, Bill Ayers and “Nidal Hasan”were able to make campaign contributions in the 2012 election. These illegal donations were not done by the real terrorists but were conducted as part of a test after multiple media reports of Obama accepting campaign donations from foreigners around the world.

Not only were fictional terrorist donations accepted, but real foreign individuals, like British citizen Chis Walker, were able to make donations to the Obama Campaign during the 2012 elections: 
Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.
Walker said he used his actual street address in England but entered Arkansas as his state with the Schenectady, NY, ZIP code of 12345.
“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”
In September, Obama’s campaign took in more than $2 million from donors who provided no ZIP code or incomplete ZIP codes, according to data posted on the Federal Election Commission Web site.
...
Walker said it should have been clear to the Obama campaign’s computers that his donations came from a computer with a foreign IP address.
The Obama campaign says it “screens all credit-card contributions that originate from a foreign IP address” and requests proof of citizenship if questions arise.
But not only did Walker’s Obama donations go through, but he said he began receiving two to three e-mail solicitations a day to give more. The e-mails asked for $188 or more.
If Walker gave $188, his total contribution to Obama would be $198 — less than the $200 threshold at which campaigns have to identify the donor to the FEC.
The Obama 2012 campaign could have easily put in electronic safeguards and verifications systems to prevent illegal foreign campaign donations. Bit they didn't. Here's why:
The prospect of illegal foreign donations is an especially thorny problem for the Obama campaign. Here’s why: The Internet site Obama.com isn’t owned by the Obama campaign. It’s owned by China-based American businessman Robert Roche, CEO of Acorn International, a large media company. As Mr. Schweizer and Mr. Boyer note, 68 percent of the some 2,000 visitors each day on Obama.com are foreign in origin.
It is clear that the Obama administration had no interest in verify whether or not the online donations were from U.S. citizens or from foreign non-U.S. citizens. In contrast, Mitt Romney’s campaign website  placed safeguards against such efforts. The acceptance of foreign contributions is strictly illegal under U.S. campaign finance law.

What's even more fascinating is that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) found that the 2008 Obama election team were violating federal disclosure laws and issued the largest fines ever ever handed down by the FEC. The Obama administation was fined for the  failure to disclose or improperly disclosing thousands of contributions to Obama for America during the then-senator's 2008 presidential run. 

The FEC must investigate these allegations that Obama intentionally engaged in illegal campaign fundraising during the 2012 campaign. If the Obama 2008 campaign was accepting foreign donations in 2008 and was found guilty by the FEC for failing to disclose campaign donations in that election, there is also strong evidence that Obama engaged in these same illegal activities in the 2012 election. Not only does the FEC need to investigate this matter, but so does Congress. Additionally, Congress needs to appoint an independent special investigator/prosecutor to look into these allegations.  

Voter Fraud and Voter Suppression

Dean Chambers, who is a controversial figure for contesting the 2008 Presidential election and the 2012 election, believes that Obama engaged in voter fraud and voter suppression that resulted in "at least 2-3 million more votes gained in the Obama column via voters fraud in several key swing states." He believes that "the Obama Regime definitely won the election by suppressing Romney votes and supplementing the votes they won with massive voter fraud in the key swing states."

However, Dean Chambers isn't the only individual who believes that Obama engaged in illegal voter fraud and suppression. Many conservatives as well as Romney supporters who have created websites focusing on voter turnout in relation to that area's history of voter turnout, multiple voting by a single Obama voter, and the inconsistencies in polling and actual voter turnout.  There is plenty evidence of suspicious activity that rises to the level of having a Congressional investigation as well as a independent special prosecutor to look into this. 

The IRS targeting of conservative groups is also tied to the issue of voter fraud and voter suppression. As the Republican National Lawyer's Association points out, "the Tea Party has a strong interest in stopping vote fraud and there can be little doubt that was part of the reason for the IRS targeting. By handcuffing the smaller state based Tea Party groups interested in honest elections in their states, the IRS made studying voting let alone stopping vote fraud more difficult."

Benghazi 

The Obama administration had prior knowledge that there might be a potential terrorist attack on the Benghazi consular compound. Repeated requests for additional security personnel and security improvements to the building  was made prior to the attack but repeatedly denied. There were reports of suspicious individuals surveying and scouting the compound prior to the attacks from the CIA and from the Benghazi consulate. 

When the attacks occurred, we now know that repeated requests for security teams to be flown into assist in the defense of the compound was repeatedly denied. We also know that the CIA, the State Department and other government officials immediately classified the assault on the Benghazi compound as a terrorist attack. Yet, the Obama administation did nothing to help and actually told people to stand down and not help. 

Finally, we now know that there was no spontaneous riots at the compound but that it was a preplanned and coordinated attack by terrorists. We also know that an Internet video was not responsible for what happened in Benghazi. We know that the Obama administration made numerous edits to the official talking points that removed key details and facts that showed that this was a terrorist attacks. We also know that Barack Obama, Hilliary Clinton and other officials in the Obama administration repeatedly lied to the American people about what happened. 

The Sacking Of General Petraus 

There is some questions surrounding the timing of the investigation into General David Petraeus’ affair with his Biographer Paula Broadwell and the withholding of the news of this investigation and the timing of when the General resigned. The reason why this is suspicious in light of the 2012 election is explained below: 
Reports indicate the FBI initiated an investigation over the summer regarding General Petraeus’ extramarital affair and the potential related threats to national security. However, the agency never alerted Congress of the potential compromise of confidential information.
The Obama administration has also insisted it was never notified by the FBI of the pending investigation prior to the election. However, many critics now conclude the White House intentionally delayed the announcement of Petraeus’ resignation to avoid any impact on Obama’s reelection bid.
Obama and The Media 

We also know that the Obama administration was not without help from the media. The media assisted Obama whenever it could including during the 2012 Presidential Debates when moderators stepped out of their role to "correct" the facts about Benghazi. The media also didn't aggressively investigate into the Benghazi attacks despite the glaring evidence that this was a terrorist attack and that Obama as well as his administration wasn't being truthful about what happened that night. It is unfortunate that the media is just now taking an interest int his story when there's a congressional investigation and strong evidence of a cover up and allegations of hiding, suppressing and threatening witnesses. In some cases, witnesses were either demoted at their jobs or fired. Had the media done their job, Obama most definitely would have lost the election because no candidate could not have survived that kind of bad press unless the press was willing to ignore or downplay the attack. 

But most importantly, the Obama administration engaged in illegal and unconstitutional investigations into several reporters who were receiving leaks about Benghazi. Obama had the media in the tank for him but he needed to suppress those members of the press who were actually doing their jobs in order to win. He had to violate the several key provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to get federal officials to snoop on these reporters.
Conclusion 

Mitt Romney was right all along. Obama would do anything to win. He went to great lengths to do whatever it took to win the election and maintain his hold on power. Obama "won" the 2012 election mostly, if not entirely, through illegitimate and illegal election activities. Many of these activities are also criminal. 

Each of these events alone are troubling and require Congressional investigation as well as an independent special investigator. However, the real problem is that you have to look at the big picture and how all of these illegal activities tie together. All of them were conducted with one purpose in mind: win the election at all cost even if it means violating local, state, federal law or the Constitution. In looking at the totality of these illegal activities, it is clear that Obama was successful in doing whatever it took to win.  It was all a coordinated effort to help Obama win.

Obama's illegal campaign activities has forever changed this country. It has certainly changed the way we view elections in the future and the way both parties will conduct them in 2016 and beyond. The lengths Obama went through to win the election is similar to the way dictators and tyrants "win" their staged elections.

But the most disturbing aspect of the 2012 election is that Obama was willing to do anything necessary to win and that meant disregarding the Constitution to get that second Presidential term. Obama's acts of investigation and suppression of his enemies is similar to how tyrants deal with their opponents. The Constitution was trampled upon and seriously weakened and we don't know how effective this document will be in protecting the rights of individuals in the future. 

America is no longer America any more.