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.  

Obama Inaugural Speech Is Not Anchored in Reality

Like many conservatives across America, I choose not to watch Obama's second Inaugural Speech. I chose to spend the holiday with people and enjoying my favorite restaurant. However, I did read a transcript of his speech. I wasn't impressed because what his speech is hollow and empty because I know that while Obama gives good speeches, it is not anchored in reality. He presents a progressive interpretation of American history and its future which is not anywhere close to the truth about the history of the United States. He also cannot give an accurate or honest description of where America is at the present moment. The best example of this is when he talks about the economy, unemployment and being able to persue the career of your dreams: 

An economic recovery has begun. (Applause.) America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it - so long as we seize it together. (Applause.)

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. (Applause.) We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American; she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own. (Applause.)

We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. So we must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed. 

Despite his speech, Obama was never serious about improving our economy or reducing unemployment.  Obama promised at the beginning of his term as President that unemployment would not rise above 8% if we let Congress pass the bailout/stimulus bills. As of today, unemployment still isn't down to 5.8%. 

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. 

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.

Get Yourself Prepared For Tonight's 2012 Presidential Debate

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

In contrast, I have prepared a few articles which highlight's Obama's economic record. 

1. Obama's Economic Record: Hope Is Fading For Americans
2. Obama's Dismal Economic Record
3. Who Has A Better Economic Record: Obama Or Romney? 
4. President Obama Has Never Been Serious About Reducing The Deficit 
5. Obama Still Isn't Serious About the Economy
6. Obama Now Irrelevant On The Economy
7. David Axlerod Not Telling The Truth Mitt Romney's Economic Record
8. A Contrast In How Obama And Mitt Romney Have Handled A Down Grade In Credit Rating
9. Obama's Numerous Broken Promises To Focus on Jobs
10. Who Is Right: About What Is The Biggest Driver Of Our Deficit: Obama or The CBO?

Quite naturally, there will be a debate between Obama and Romney on health care. I have collected a series of articles you can read in preparation's for tonight's debate. 

The Facts About ObamaCare

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

  The Facts About RomneyCare

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

I know its a lot of reading but you can use this to help you arm yourself with the facts so that you can be prepared for tonight's debate. You can also bookmark this page and come back to it to do more reading in preparation to decide who to vote for on November 6th. 

Government Employees Died, Then Obama Lied

It is now evident that the Obama administration lied about what happened in Benghazi. They insisted that it was a spontaneous and unscripted riot prompted by an obscure anti-Muslim video. They stuck with that narrative despite the fact that evidence was building that it was a planned attack designed maximize embarrassment and destruction on a day that is sacred to many Americans. We now know that the attacks were planned by Al Qaeda.

You didn't have to be an intelligence officer to discover that. If regular citizens with no access to intelligence agencies know that we were attacked and the President is telling the American people something else, its lying. Prior to this revelation by American intelligence agencies, Mark Steyn made the case for how the Obama was willfully turning a blind eye to the evidence of a terrorist attack: 

As I say, I’m inclined to be generous, and put some of this down to the natural torpor and ineptitude of government. But Hillary Clinton and General Martin Dempsey are guilty of something worse, in the secretary of state’s weirdly obsessive remarks about an obscure film supposedly disrespectful of Mohammed and the chairman of the joint chiefs’ telephone call to a private citizen asking him if he could please ease up on the old Islamophobia.

Forget the free-speech arguments. In this case, as Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey well know, the film has even less to do with anything than did the Danish cartoons or the schoolteacher’s teddy bear or any of the other innumerable grievances of Islam. The 400-strong assault force in Benghazi showed up with RPGs and mortars: That’s not a spontaneous movie protest; that’s an act of war, and better planned and executed than the dying superpower’s response to it. Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey are, to put it mildly, misleading the American people when they suggest otherwise.

As the old saying goes, If you repeat a lie often enough, people will take it as truth." The Obama Administration was trying to get the American people to accept their lie as the truth despite the clear evidence that this was an attack on the U.S. Consulate because it would be a clear admission that Obama's foreign policy is a complete failure: 

"The attacks on US embassies and consulates in the Arab world can not be justified in any way. If it turns out that al-Qaida is behind the attacks, as some US officials suspect, then they are acts of terrorism committed under the guise of religion. If they turn out to be uncoordinated actions by angry believers, then they are an expression of a frightening ignorance. A crazy individual US citizen has uploaded a movie onto the Internet which denigrates the Prophet Muhammad. The US government can not be held responsible for that. But that clearly does not help US President Barack Obama very much. He has to bear the political consequences of the recent events by himself."

"Four years ago, Obama pledged to seek reconciliation with the Muslim world. Now, it is doubtful whether he has succeeded. The US and its European allies now have to ask themselves how much support they still enjoy in the countries of the Arab Spring."

Obama must be held accountable for his policy of leading from behind in world affairs and how it has been a utter failure. The fact that the Obama Administration has openly and brazenly lied to the American people cannot be tolerated either. The best way to hold him accountable is to give him the pink slip on November 6, 2012.

Mitt Romney Officially The GOP Nominee At The GOP Convention

Today, Mitt Romney officially become the Republican nominee. They conducted a finall delegate tally and he received 2,061 delegates which is well above the 1,144 delegate needed to become the nominee. 

Its been a long journey for Mitt Romney who ran for President in 2008 and like Reagan, decided to make another run for the White House. He fought hard in each of the primaries in the 2012 election and built a strong momentum that helped him win Super Tuesday. He endured tough debates and took on multiple Republican challengers. Mitt Romney had to endure attacks on his faith and his successful career by people within the GOP party. Finally, Mitt Romney was able to get enough delegates needed to win the GOP primaries.  Looking back on the 2012 primaries, Mitt Romney mastered the fundamentals of running for office and that's why he's the GOP nominee to go head to head with Obama.

I have heard and read comments from some people who are still unhappy with him as the GOP nominee. There were numerous attempt to stop Mitt Romney. Each primary was an opportunity to stop Mitt. Republican voters had alternatives to choose from if they didn't want to vote for Mitt. However, Mitt proved himself to be an effective, smart and \superior candidate who deserved to win the nomination. 

Looking forward to the election in November, Mitt Romney is a serious threat to Obama. Obama has been relentless in attacking Romney and has burned through alot of money to unsuccessfully take him down. Mitt Romney has been just as aggressive with Obama as he has with his GOP competitors in the GOP 2012 primary. Mitt Romney has also been an aggressive fundraiser for which Obama may not be able to compete with him since due to the amount of money Barack spent during the summer against Mitt. 

Based on Mitt's experience in the private and public sector, looking at how he campaigned in the 2012 primaries, how well he's done so far,  picking Paul Ryan to be his VP and going after Obama, Mitt Romney will be our next President in 2012. 

P.S. I want to thank fellow Mitt Romney supporters and bloggers and volunteers in helping him become the GOP nominee. I have admired you hard work and dedication. I also want tell you how awesome the people behind Mitt Romney Central are and that they have done a great job keeping people informed about Mitt Romney. Good job everybody!