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.  

My Open Letter To The GOP: Don't Forget The Disabled

Even though the election ended a few weeks ago, the Republican party is still feeling the sting of losing the election and are reviewing the reasons why the election did not turn out the way we predicted. I've sat and read many articles that attempted to explain our party's loss and identify the problems of the GOP. It seems to me that there is a general consensus that the GOP party and Mitt Romney's campaign failed to seriously take the current and future demographic make up of our country. Our country's make up has rapidly changed and will do so in the foreseeable future. As a result of these huge demographic change, there will be a change in how people view the government and its responsibility to the citizens.

The pundits, columnists, political advisors seem to all agree that our party needs reach out to important voting groups such as women, Asian Americans, Latinos, African-Americans or young people. However, there is one demographic that the GOP doesn't even make an attempt to reach out to that Democrats consistently do and they win by large margins.

Its people with disabilities.

According to some estimates, there are approximately 54 million Americans with some kind of disability. What's so important about this group is that it can be found across every level of society and affects people of every age, race, occupation, education or economic situation.  This means that approximately 1 in 5 U.S. residents, or 19 percent of America, fall into this group. The democrats are very aware of this segment of society and that's why they overwhelmingly win this voting demographic at the ballot box.

But the size of this group isn't limited to just those who have some form of disability. If you include the individuals, single parents, families, educators, law enforcement, the judicial system and businesses who deal with disabilities on a personal and daily basis, you have a large voting bloc. They join in on the concerns and issues that this demographic group is concerned about. Think about it. We all know someone who has some form of a disability whether it be severe or mild and we know the challenges they face. They are deeply concerned about promoting their interests and protecting their rights.

If the Republican party can reach out to this group and articulate how conservative principles will improve the lives of people with disability, it will dramatically change how people, especially minorities, view the Republican party. People will be more receptive to the conservative message and view the GOP in a more positive light if they could see the tangible impact on the lives of the disabled. They will know that if it works for them, it will work others as well.  

In volunteering or working for various political candidates, I have suggested that we reach out to Deaf people as well as people with other disabilities. Nobody takes my suggestion seriously. But then again, the Republican Party and consevatives don't fully understand why they need to. 

Conservatism is a universal yet unique message. Our principles and values apply to everyone regardless of who they are or what groups they belong to because our policies allow the greatest number of people to be successful in society. That is made possible because we believe that paths to success are as infinite and unique as the people who dare to dream to do what they aspire to do. 

Conservatism is a liberating, empowering and powerful message because the individual, can expand or push beyond the limitations that their bodies, circumstances, or background places upon them. It is a free thinking and open minded belief that encourages people to be their best selves and to constantly reach for new vistas of excellence. It allows people to reach their fullest potential by using their intellect and creative powers to solve problems that benefit themselves and others, to create products and services and to make beautiful paintings, art, books, film and clothing.

However, in the conservative world view, the individual isn't an island unto himself. There are times when the individuals rely on othera who freely and voluntarily pool their talents, resources and finances to individuals in need. Families, churches as well as educational and medical organizations are the best venues to help disabled people reach their full potential.

The final point to the conservative message is that we do believe in a limited government. This concept is a message that needs to be better articulated to the public because non-conservatives understand this idea in theory but not in practice. What this means is that government is given specific duties as well as limited responsibilities and powers. In practice, that means that government can be the solution to some problems that are too large for individuals to fix and that provide fairness and equality to everyone.

This is why we need to better explain this message to the various groups. The major, and common, concerns of these different minority groups is their concern about widespread discrimination both in the past, present and future as well as the inability to integrate into American society.

However, Republicans were once fully aware of these concerns and addressed it. After all, Republicans were the ones who got the post civil war Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution passed. It was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Reconstruction Act of 1867 and other civil rights laws in 1875, 1890, 1922, 1935, 1938 as well as the anti-poll tax bills in 1942, 1944, and 1946. The Republican party also passed Civil Rights laws of 1957, 1964 and 1965.

When it comes to helping people with disabilities, it was a Republican President named Abraham Lincoln who established the Galludet University which is a college for Deaf people.

It was a Republican President, George H. W. Bush,  who signed the Americans With Disability Act (ADA). The law is not perfect but as a conservative lawyer who engages in disability discrimination litigation in a deeply Republican state populated by a majority of people who share my faith, I can tell you that this law and other anti-discrimination laws that help people with disabilities is the kind of limited government solutions to big problems that real conservatives endorse.

If the GOP wants to be successful in upcoming elections, they have to clearly articulate and demonstrate that our policies and agendas allow the greatest number of people benefit in a country with different ethnic, racial, social, religious, economic and physical backgrounds. We believe that the free market is the best way for all walks of life to become successful. We also believe that the government can help those who sincerely need it. We do not believe that government should be helping everyone regardless if they need it or not.  

When conservatives talk about limited government, conservatives can demonstrate what they mean by that phrase. The disability community relies on government for assistance, legislation and public funded programs and they are justified in doing so. They don't seek a government handout. These programs help people who truly need it to in order to be independent, to obtain medical assistance they cannot afford, or to become active participants in society.  

Conservatives should tread very carefully when talking about people who receive government assistance because their are certainly those who abuse the system and there are those who truly need it. Libertarians and Conservatives have been careless and not very articulate when talking about Americans who receive public assistance of some kind.  There are those, such as John Stossel, who have openly opposed anti discrimination laws such as the ADA. They fail to realize that they're alienating people rather than attracting people to their political views when they make stupid comments about individuals with disabilities.

I don't oppose people criticizing the ADA since there are valid objections to be made. However, what these critics fail to realize that for people with disabilities, life in the absence of these laws, was not that great. Thanks to these laws, it helps to combat discrimination, allow disabled people to be employed with businesses supplying reasonable accommodations for them and having the technology to become more integrated into our society. Disabled people didn't have these kinds of protections back then.

As a result, the Republican party and conservatives need to do better at making their case to the American people when it come to the discussion of the entitlement society and the people who rely on some form of government assistance. We need to make the distinction clear to the American people that we oppose those who who abuse the system and support government support for those who truly need it.We need to set up policies that understands this distinction and addresses these problems. 

I know that reaching out to people with disabilities is a winning message. I've seen it. When Sarah Palin talked about her commitment to help people with disabilities and to make it a priority as Vice President in her 2008 GOP convention speech, she got conservatives Moms and Dads excited and teary eyed. But if Sarah Palin and others want to reach out to the Disability community, they're going to have to mean it since many the GOP rarely follow through with talk of including them in our party or government policies. 

The conservative philosophy for individuals with disability works. I know because I am an example of it. I have worked hard to overcome discrimination and other obstacles to become one of the handful of Deaf attorneys in the United States. I have received assistance from the government not as a hand out but as a stepping stone to achieving my dreams of becoming an attorney. 

If the GOP wants to become successful, they need stop playing safe in promoting our message but go out and share that message in places we normally don't share it:   

What I am talking about is taking the conservative message, a message that stands to benefit everyone in society, to places the GOP often ignores--local African-American and Hispanic church groups, feminist centers, and left-leaning college campuses, to name a few.   

Will your message face resistance? Yes, and that's okay. It gives you a chance to correct false, media-driven stereotypes about conservatives and conservatism. Will you convert the majority in one afternoon? Of course not; these stereotypes have been inculcated over decades. Opening hearts and minds is a process, not a lunch appointment. 

If the GOP is serious in winning elections in the future, they're going have to get serious about promoting that message. We don't need to change our core values, principles or beliefs. We already have a wining message. We just need to do better in reaching out to those people and helping them understand that conservatives believe that government needs to get out of the way of those who don't need government and to get invovled with those who do need it.

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. 

Prominent African American Leaders Telling People To Leave The Democatic Party

With the 2012 Presidential election coming to an end in just a few weeks, Obama may not be getting as many votes from African Americans in this election as he did in 2008. Many prominent African Americans are telling Blacks to leave the Democratic Party. Watch below a sample of just three prominent leaders sharing that message their community:

Three Videos Every Jew Should Watch Before Voting In November

With the election only a mere few weeks away, Obama is looking to depend on a key voting bloc to help keep him in office. However, many of them may not be there to support him in the ballot box because they have serious concerns about his commentment to Israel. They have legitimate reasons to be nervous about allowing Obama to have a second term. These three videos below will explain why:

Another example of Jewish concern about Obama's commitment to Israel is found in this billboard that was put up recently:

On the other side of the world in the Middle East, Israelis are also concerned about Obama's commitment to their country. Jonathan Spyer, who is a Jewish research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center,  journalist, soldier and author of his first book, The Transforming Fire: The Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict, offers his opinion of how confident the citizens of Isreal feel about President Obama's promise that he won't allow Iran to acquire nukes. Here's what he had to say which I think also similarly reflects how many Jews here in America feel about Obama:

MJT: Obama repeatedly says he will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Do you believe him? How many Israelis believe him? He’s letting Assad get away with murder, but he did go after Qaddafi and bin Laden. 

Jonathan Spyer: I don’t want to interfere in the internal American discussion, but your question is nicely phrased so I can comment without doing that. Confidence in President Obama is very low in Israel. That is because his performance so far seems to suggest that he has little understanding of the Hobbesian world of Middle Eastern politics and the aspects required in order to build firm alliances and proxies here. From his Cairo speech and the abandonment of Mubarak to the vacillating and paralysis on Syria, he just seems to be singing from a different and wholly unsuitable songbook. So I think very few Israelis have confidence that he will act effectively to prevent a nuclear Iran. No coherent red lines, including an outlining of the consequences of crossing them, means the Iranians will keep on moving ahead. Obama wants out of the Middle East, as he himself has made clear. He’ll do counter-terrorism from the air against small, extreme jihadi groups. In Libya, I think it was the Europeans and specifically the French who got that rolling, with the US following on, though of course inevitably doing most of the heavy lifting in the end. And frankly I think many Israelis also have the feeling, which we haven’t had for quite a few years, that the man in the White House right now isn’t a deep friend of our country, that he doesn’t understand or isn’t really interested in the story of Israel and the Jewish People, and consequently lacks a grasp of the deeper moorings which I think should underlie, and have in recent years underlain, the alliance between the US and Israel.

MJT: What is it specifically that President Obama does not understand? Surely he knows the Middle East is a much rougher neighborhood than Europe and North America. What else does he still need to grasp besides the obvious? What would you explain to him if you had his ear for a couple of minutes?

Jonathan Spyer: I would try to explain to him the dynamic of patron-client relationships in our neighborhood. I would explain to him that your clients don’t need to love you, don’t want you to bow to them, and don’t even really need to know that you respect them and empathize with them (though they will need you to at least go through the motions in this regard.) What they need to know is that if they get into trouble (and they will) you will back them and help them to your utmost. If they think you won’t or can’t do that, they won’t want to be your client. They will prefer to be the client of another patron (probably your enemy or rival) who will be willing to do this. As a result, the value of your strategic coin will rapidly decline. Right now, the net result of Obama’s losing Egypt/Tunisia/Yemen, and Iran/Russia/China’s non-losing of Syria, is that US credibility as a patron is low. Obama seems mainly dangerous to his friends, less so to his enemies, the killing of Bin-Laden notwithstanding. This is making allies nervous and enemies happy. This is not good. In particular, the most vulnerable allies (the Gulf monarchies) are very nervous indeed, and are seeking to organize themselves independently because of their impression that the US right now is not there. The trouble is that these countries are too weak for the job. As we see now in Syria, for example, they can’t deliver against Assad. So the end result of Obama’s conceptual error is that the Iran-led alliance, which remains by far the most potent and dangerous enemy in the region, is holding up well, while what used to look like a US-led regional alliance no longer really exists. This, in my view, derives directly from the American President’s failure to grasp the basic rules for behavior as a patron in the Hobbesian space of the Middle East. So if I had a few minutes that’s what I’d tell him. But I’d tell him this without a great deal of enthusiasm, because I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t get it.

Obama has had a long histoy of being flaky on Israel to the point that even life long liberal Jews are wondering about how committed Obama really is to Israel. While Obama enjoyed support from Jews in 2008, he will not get that same level of support or votes in 2012. If enough Jews abandon him at the polls on November 6th, he will not be reelected as 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:  

Obama's Chances Of Getting Reelecteed Is Growing Slim

There are several signs that Barack Obama's campaign is in serious trouble and that there is a strong likelihood that he will not be reelected on November 6th, 2012. With Obama not winning the last two debates and running a poor campaign with no new vision or plans, using lame attacks on Romney over Sesame Street's Big Bird or Romney's comments about getting a binder that contains a list of women he could hire, his campaign is starting fall apart.

One of the best indicators that Obama's campaign is in trouble is RealClearPolitic's electoral map which shows Mitt Romney having an electoral lead for the first time in the 2012 general election: 

T

The second piece of evidence that shows Obama is in real trouble for November 6th is polls show that Mitt Romney has opened up a 7 point lead in the crucial swing states. That is part of the reason why there has been a strong shift in the polls and electoral map that has swung in Mitt Romney's favor. Mitt Romney is gaining support among female voters. 

Even Bob Beckel, a well known liberal on Fox News admits that the writing on the wall doesn't look good for Obama.

While Obama's chances of wining are slipping away from him, it doesn't help the President that Bill Clinton is admitting that Obama hasn't fixed the economy like he promised. One can speculate if this is pay back for Obama throwing Hilliary under the bus or not, but such speculation doesn't really matter. What matters is Bill Clinton's comments are going to matter with moderate Democrats and independents who need a perfectly good excuse to ditch Obama at the ballot box.  

Obama only has 19 days to keep his campaign from sinking. He has one more debate left with Mitt Romney. However, given that Mitt Romney has performed well in the last two debates, only a miracle would help Obama now.

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.

Complete Video Of The Second 2012 Presidential Debate

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