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

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.

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. 

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? 

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.