Did Mitt Romney Recently File Documents To Run In 2016?

People have long suspected that Mitt Romney wanted to run in 2016. It appears that the inevitable has happened. See the document below. 

On second thought...it appears that Mitt didn't file any documents to run in 2016. 

If you look at the document, This could be just an update of his address, not a filing for candidacy. Mitt's organization still exists and if his address is changed, he is required to notify the FEC. The other thing that is a bit strange is the dates on the form. One date reads 10/26/2015 while further down on the form says 01/30/2016. The date seems odd for someone who is deciding to run for President. Finally, the address appears to be bogus. 

Mitt Romney has repeatedly said he won't run for President in 2016. But he has said that he's willing to accept the GOP nomination if a brokered convention happens Republican National Convention later this year. On the other hand, Mitt has said that he will eventually endorse Rubio, Cruz or Kasich sometime in the future. Mitt might be tipping his hand on who he's endorsing by doing robocalls on behalf of Rubio in Florida.

Mitt might be laying the ground work for himself in the event that there is a brokered convention and become the GOP or he might not be doing that at all and simply endorse a candidate. The point is that Mitt Romney is keeping people confused and guessing so that people aren't sure exactly what he's up to.

ObamaCare: A Continuing Study on The Art of Political Deception

Back in October of 2013, I wrote an article about detailing how ObamaCare is an excellent study in how politicians manipulate, deceive and mislead the American people. In fact, the conception, passage and fragile survival of ObamaCare is probably the best example of political deception in modern American history. Someday, Obama will be known as the "great manipulator" in the same way that Regan will be remembered as the great communicator.

More details continue to emerge about Obama's campaign of deception in making ObamaCare the law of the land. We continue our study in the art of political deception with a video has been circulating around the Internet of Obama's 2008 Presidential run in which he aired a commercial that attacked John McCain's health care plan. 

The reason why this old 2008 campaign ad has suddenly become relevant today is because of how well Obama deceived the public on his health care plan.  Obama ended up adopting policies that were proposed by Hillary Clinton and John McCain even though he was initially against them during his 2008 campaign: 

And Obama, who has argued against adopting an individual mandate, as proposed by Hillary Clinton, ended up embracing exactly that option—and even accepted a variation of an idea from McCain that he criticizes in this ad.

What part of McCain's 2008 healthcare plan did Obama incorporate into ObamaCare? The high risk pools. The high risk pools was one of the criticisms Obama had against McCain's health care plan that was mentioned in Obama's 2008 campaign ad above. Its funny that every argument Obama had about McCainCare was, in hindsight, criticism of ObamaCare. 

This isn't the first time Obama attacked an idea before adopting it into his own plan. Obama went after Mitt Romney on RomneyCare's individual mandate before he ultimately incorporated Hillary Clinton's 2008 health care plan which included the individual mandate into ObamaCare.  Barack Obama's claims that Mitt Romney's healthcare plan was the basis for ObamaCare is a lie based on his own admission. There are many conservatives (as well as liberals) that argue that Obama got the idea for the individual mandate from Mitt Romney. That claim is not supported by the facts.

The truth is that 99% of ObamaCare is based on Hillary Clinton's health care plan with a few ideas from McCain's 2008 health care plan mixed in.

Obama sold himself to the public as young politician who would never lie his way into office and tell people what they wanted to hear. However, now that we have seen Obama in action as a politician as the President of the United States, he's everything he claimed he wasn't. He's a smooth talking, lying, do-whatever-it-takes-to-win, politician. Obama hasn't transcended politics. He's deep into politics.

The fact that Obama was against certain ideas contained HillaryCare, McCain Care and RomneyCare isn't case of a politician flip flopping. This is a case of outright deception in which he publicly opposed these ideas but secretly supported them. Obama had to scare voters away from supporting Hillary, McCain and Mitt Romney so that he can win the 2008 and 2012 election only later work to convince the American people to accept these proposals as part of ObamaCare that he advocated against as a candidate.

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: 

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?

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.

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.

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. 

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, Dean Chambers 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.  

My Prediction For Tuesday: Romney 295-Obama 243

A lot of people have been predicting what the Electoral College map will look like on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. One article gathered 9 different predictions gathered from various sources that show Obama winning a second term. 

However, Karl Rove has Romney winning at least 279 electoral votes and Michael Barone, a columnist for the Washington Examiner, is predicting that Mitt Romney will win 315 electoral votes. 

Two University of Colorado professors, Michael J. Berry's and Kenneth N. Bickers published an article back in August that that Mitt Romney would win the election by 330 electoral votes while Obama gets only 208 electoral votes and still won't back down from that prediction. Michael J. Berry's and Kenneth N. Bickers do not base their predictions on poll numbers but on economic data which are extremely accurate in predicting the outcomes of presidential elections.

While many election forecast models are based on the popular vote, the model developed by Bickers and Berry is based on the Electoral College and is the only one of its type to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions. They included economic data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. [...]

The Bickers and Berry model includes both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors. The new analysis includes unemployment rates from August rather than May, and changes in per capita income from the end of June rather than March. It is the last update they will release before the election. [...]
In addition to state and national unemployment rates, the authors analyzed changes in personal income from the time of the prior presidential election. Research shows that these two factors affect the major parties differently: Voters hold Democrats more responsible for unemployment rates, while Republicans are held more responsible for fluctuations in personal income.

Despite some high profile names predicting Mitt Romney winning the election, I'd like to offer my humble prediction of how I think the Electoral College numbers will be. Look below and tell me if you think I'm right or wrong: 

By the way, predictions are just predictions. Don't get excited or depressed by what you see on the news or read in print or online. The important thing is YOU get out and vote. Your vote does matter. You and the millions of Americans who will go to the polls on Tuesday will decide if America will keep Obama or make him a one term president. Go Vote on Tuesday!!

PSA: Don't Forget To Change Your Clocks And Your President

Folks, I've been absolutely swamped with law work that I haven't been able to post an article for many days now. However, I would like to put out a public service announcement to remind you to change your clocks and your President. 

Please go out and vote early or on election day. I have seen articles claiming that Obama is ahead and that he will win the Electoral college. I have seen articles that have this race being very close. I have also seen predictions that Mitt Romney will win. I personally believe Mitt Romney will win this election. However, to make that happen, you have to go out and VOTE.  Let us make Obama a one term President. 

Video: Mitt Romney At The Al Smith Dinner

Mitt Romney displays his sense of humor at the annual Al Smith Dinner at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel. He does a great job poking fun at himself and negging Obama. I don't want to ruin the video but Romney got me laughing pretty hard especially when he mentions Obama and Sesame street. 

Watch below:  

Who Won The Second 2012 Presidential Debate?

The first indication that Mitt Romney won the debate came immediately after the event had ended and CBS News released this tweet: 

After that, other results started to come in. CNN posted these results on television: 

MSNBC had a panel of undecided voters who gave their opinion that Mitt Romney won tonight's debate.

Fox News had a similar panel in which Frank Luntz found out that they were also swayed to support Mitt after the debate.

I think it is safe to say that the immediate reaction is that Mitt Romney won tonight's debates. Further polls that will come out in the next few days will most likely confirm this. 

This has been one of the most aggressive and fierce Presidential debates I've ever seen. I think everyone benefited from watching the debates tonight even if you are a hard core Romney or Obama supporter. I learned alot about Obama and Mitt from this debate. For the undecideds, it looked like this debate was influential in who they will ultimately vote for on November 6, 2012.

6 Things Obama And Romney Could Learn From The UFC For The Next Debate

Obama is currently cramming for the next Presidential debate on Tuesday in order to make up for his terrible performance in his first debate with Mitt Romney and Joe Biden's odd and rude debate with Paul Ryan. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney knows he won't face a pacified Obama in the second debate and is preparing for an Obama who promises to be more aggressive with Mitt. 

While Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are preparing for the debates, I'd like to offer some lessons on debating from an unlikely source: the UFC. Here's some lessons the candidates could learn from the UFC.

1. Take Your Training Seriously: As any UFC fighter or Coach will tell you, be serious about your training and train hard. Apparently, Obama didn't train hard or seriously in his first debate. As a result, his lack of preparation and not taking it seriously was obviously apparent. If UFC President Dana White could offer advice to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, he would probably tell them, "If you want the f***ing belt, train like you f***ing want it."

2. Stick To The Game Plan: Many UFC coaches and training will tell you that sticking to the game plan as established in the training sessions will increase your likelihood of wining in the Octagon. Apparently, Obama didn't stick with his prearranged game plan that in the first debate:  

In an extraordinary insight into the events leading up to the 90 minute showdown which changed the face of the election, a Democrat close to the Obama campaign today reveals that the President also did not take his debate preparation seriously, ignored the advice of senior aides and ignored one-liners that had been prepared to wound Romney.

The Democrat said that Obama's inner circle was dismayed at the 'disaster' and that he believed the central problem was that the President was so disdainful of Romney that he didn't believe he needed to engage with him.

'President Obama made it clear he wanted to be doing anything else - anything - but debate prep,' the Democrat said. 'He kept breaking off whenever he got the opportunity and never really focused on the event.

'He went into the debate armed with a number of one-liners to throw at Romney, including at least two about Romney not caring about 47 per cent of the country. But he decided not to use them.'

The Democrat, who is aligned with the Obama campaign and has been an unofficial adviser on occasions, said that David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, was stunned that the President left the stage feeling that he had won the debate.

'To his credit, the President believes that debates are about substance rather than performance. He felt that his argument about the direction this country should take was much stronger than Romney's. Unfortunately, that's not the way modern debates work.'

During his debate preparation in Henderson, Nevada, Obama broke off to visit a campaign field office. There, he joked with a volunteer about how his advisers were 'keeping me indoors all the time' to practice. 'It's a drag. They're making me do my homework.'

By playing it safe and letting the judges score the fight rather than going for a decisive knock out, Obama may have thrown away his chances of winning the election. Will Obama stick to his advisor's game plan in the second debate? That remains to be seen. 

3. Its All About Cardio: You can be the strongest fighter in the world but lose many fights if you are not able to sustain your energy throughout the entire match. In watching the debate, Obama appeared to me to come out strong but gassed out shortly after the debate began. You can see it when Obama tells Jim Leher, the moderator, "Jim, I -- you may want to move onto another topic." To me, that was an admission from Obama that he was losing the energy to stay in the fight with Mitt. To make matters worse, Romney took advantage of that lack of preparation and sucked out whatever remaining energy Obama had left by keep throwing those laser guided punches.

Another piece of evidence that Obama had no stamina for the first debate was that he never maintained eye contact with Romney. He could not look Romney in the eye which revealed that he could not muster the confidence or energy to defend his own record. By contrast, Romney kept his gaze on Obama which made Obama appear weak, small, and not at all presidential

Given Obama's lackluster performance at his first debate, does Obama really have the stamina to go toe to toe with Mitt Romney for another 1 hour round with Mitt? Can Mitt Romney repeat his performance at the first debate a second time in his second match with Obama? If both candidates want to win, they must be able to look strong, sharp and have the energy to endure the brutal debate. Neither one can afford to gas out in this match.

4. Don't Let It Go To The Judges: Dana White, the President of the UFC, has consistently told fighters to not let the fight go to the judges because victory is left in the hands of someone other than you. In his first debate, Obama clearly was willing to let the debate be decided by the judges, in this case, the American people. The American people overwhelmingly thought Obama lost that debate. In contrast, Mitt Romney didn't play it safe but came out swinging. That's why he won the debate. 

I didn't see the debate live and so when I was reading and watching the post-debate news, the media made it appear as if Romney gave Obama a beatdown. When I finally saw the debate, Obama didn't perform as badly as the media portrayed him to be but that Romney gave a perfect debate in terms of technique and style and Obama simply wasn't ready for it at all. Romney picked Obama apart with precise and hard punches. When the debate ended, the judges, the American people, clearly gave Romney the victory in that debate.

5. Be Selective With Your Punches: This lesson comes from the Vice Presidential debates and I think both Obama and Romney should review the tapes of this debate in preparation for Tuesday's debate. Its a simple and basic lesson but the Obama campaign apparently hasn't learned this lesson yet. 

I am 100% positive Peggy Noonan doesn't watch the UFC but she makes a great point about confusing strength with aggression. In the UFC, one can be strong and not need to be aggressive to win a fight In contrast, you can be aggressive and still end up losing the fight. Joe Biden was wildly aggressive towards Paul Ryan but there was no strength behind his attacks. He was throwing haymakers but not landing any punches on Mitt's running mate: 

Joe Biden came out swinging at Paul Ryan, flailing wildly and landing a few punches on his own jaw as well as his opponent's. He showed the kind of spirit and populist anger that President Barack Obama was so conspicuously lacking and has cheered up many demoralised Democrats.

Obama campaign advisors are openly stating to the media that Obama will be like Joe Biden in the next debate. Obama should be careful in with that strategy since Biden attempted to have a bar fight with Paul Ryan but ended up losing because Paul Ryan's debating style is much like Mitt Romney's in terms of executing patient, precise and hard punches against his opponent. One commentator correctly named the Biden-Ryan debate The Bully v. The Wonk.

Mitt Romney could learn a thing or two from his young Vice Presidential running mate in reviewing the debate tape of the Vice Presidential debate. It will help him review the fundamentals of debating that he executes so well. It will also help Romney in terms of how to be on the defensive when Obama starts throwing his punches and how to return fire. Although both men are known to be well informed policy wonks who love to get deep into the details, I think Paul Ryan is much better than his older in finding that balance of educating the voters with facts and details while landing the hard punches on his opponent.

6. What Happens After The Debate Is Just As Important As What Happens During The Debate: Its clear that Obama didn't take the debate seriously when preparing for it. However, sometimes UFC fighters can make up for their loss by how they act after the fight. About 99% of the time, most UFC fighters are humble and pensive about their losses. Rarely do they get cocky about which can diminish the way the fans view the fighters. For Obama, he negatively influenced the way Americans look at him when it was revealed that the President thought he won the first debate immediately after he left the stage. To make matters worse, Obama still thinks he won the debate and claims that people will judge him as the winner if they read the debate transcript. In this day and age, I don't think anyone reads transcripts anymore. I don't think making that statement helps Obama at all. 

Obama also went after Mitt Romney after the debate had debate had ended by calling Mitt Romney a liar and running ads about Sesame Street. I think the American voter wasn't amused by Obama's post debate behavior and it will hurt him in the long run. 

In contrast, Mitt Romney simply went out on the campaign trail as if victory was natural to him. It also made him look very Presidential. This will help him tremendously in building the momentum for November 6th and sharpening the contrast between himself and Obama.

It may appear that the UFC and Presidential debates have nothing in common but by reviewing these basic lessons, a Presidential candidate can be well prepared for a debate. Obama needs to learn these lessons badly while Romney simply needs to review them in preparation for Tuesday's debates.

What other lessons from the UFC do you think Romney and Obama could learn in getting ready for the debate?

2012 Presidential Debates: Mitt Romney's Economic Record

Many of you have been doing your due diligence of conducting your own research into who you should vote for in November. Tonight's 2012 Presidential debate will focus on the economy. A few months ago, I wrote a series of blog articles analyzing various aspects of Mitt Romney's record which will help you educate yourself in preparation for tonight's debate. You can now read the entire series below: 

1. Getting To Know Mitt Romney's Record 
2. Mitt Romney's Faith & Economic Leadership
3. A Look At Mitt Romney's Business Career
4. Mitt Romney's Rescue of the Salt Lake Olympics 
5. How Mitt Romney Turned A $3 Billion Deficit Into A $2 Billion Surplus 
6. Govenor Mitt Romney's Record On Taxes And Fees 
7. RomneyCare 
8. Govenor Mitt Romney's Impressive Record of Job Creation 
9. Mitt Romney's Leadership Style 
10. Concluding Thoughts About Mitt Romney's Record

2012 Presidential Debate: The Facts About ObamaCare & RomneyCare

Many of you have been doing your due diligence of conducting your own research into who you should vote for in November. Tonight's 2012 Presidential debate will focus on the economy. Quite naturally, there will be a debate between Obama and Romney on health care. I have collected a series of articles I have written that you can read in preparation's for tonight's debate. 

The Facts About ObamaCare

1. Obama's Failed Promise Under ObamaCare
2. 5 Reasons Why ObamaCare Is Bad Law 
3. ObamaCare Unconstitutional, RomneyCare Constitutional
4. ObamaCare Unconstitutional, RomneyCare Constitutional 
5. See The Big Differences RomneyCare And ObamaCare
6. Another Democrat Admits ObamaCare Is A Trojan Horse For Single Payer Universal Health Care 
7. Obama Was Against RomneyCare Before He Was In Support For It 
8. Obama Did Not Use RomneyCare As A Template
9. ObamaCare Pays Off Big Business and Big Unions, RomneyCare Doesn't. 

  The Facts About RomneyCare

1. A Simple Way To Destroy Obama's New Attack Ad On RomneyCare
2. Ann Coulter On RomneyCare
3. Part VII: RomneyCareRomneyCare Not Socialized Medicine
4. Mitt Romney Would Repeal ObamaCare On The First Day Of His Presidency
5. The Truth Behind The Costs Of RomneyCare
6. In Defense Of RomneyCare (Updated: 4/4/11)
7. Please Call It MassDemCare, Not RomneyCare