CREW Under Investigation by the IRS

My how the tables have turned between O’Donnell and CREW. Only a couple of months ago, CREW was calling O’Donnell a thief and a liar and had pending investigations with the U.S. Attorney and the FEC. Now, all the charges against O’Donnell have been dismissed as false on their face and CREW is being investigated by the IRS for their violations of their 501(c)3 charter. Here is a press release from O’Donnell’s PAC detailing the latest move by the IRS:

Complaint Against Soros-Funded
CREW Moves Forward in IRS
Left-Wing Organization has Long History of Targeting Republicans
Wilmington, DE—This week, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notified ChristinePAC that it has referred the group’s complaint against Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to its Dallas office for further review. ChristinePAC has asked the IRS to strip CREW of its tax exempt charitable status for engaging in partisan political activities in violation of federal law.
Christine O'Donnell and ChristinePAC filed an official complaint against the organization with the IRS, asking the agency to revoke CREW's tax-exempt status. Acting as a "charitable organization," CREW is barred from intervening in political campaigns ("electioneering") as well as participating in discriminatory activities. Over a period of several election cycles, however, CREW has misused its tax-exempt status by acting on behalf of the Democratic Party as well as establishing a pattern of racially discriminatory activities.
“The justice system should not be used as a political weapon, and CREW's partisan campaign intervention in my US Senate election are well documented. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize an organization that acts in blatant violation of the law. CREW has illegally posed as a non-partisan political watchdog keeping Washington politicians in check. However, in reality, CREW has misused and abused its tax exempt status by intervening in partisan political campaigns and disproportionately targeted attacks against Republican candidates and officeholders, while outright ignoring scandals involving Democratic candidates and officeholders,” said former Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell.
ChristinePAC has also called for an investigation of CREW’s Executive Director Melanie Sloan for knowingly filing a false federal claim against Ms. O’Donnell, a claim that was later dismissed. Ms. Sloan has worked for some of the most strident liberals in Congress, including Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). She also failed to disclose using her own father, a Delaware voter and major Biden donor, as her complainant against O’Donnell in CREW’s FEC Complaint filed only days after Christine O’Donnell won the Republican nomination for the US Senate in 2010.
“The IRS must scrutinize CREW’s expenditures and will find a history of CREW’s blatant political activities, supported by its liberal sources of funding, which include George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and the Tides Foundation,” said Cleta Mitchell, Attorney for ChristinePAC. “There is no question that CREW has forfeited its charitable status and the IRS can draw no other conclusion.”

For more information on the case it has mounted, please visit http://www.christinepac.com/CREW
ChristinePAC is committed to values that strengthen our country as a whole and to empowering Americans to become more involved in the political process. It seeks to empower Americans through voter education, in which voters learn more about the election process, voter fraud, and how to harness the great responsibility we have as Americans to vote for the leaders of our country.

O’Donnell has already taken down one giant in former longtime Congressman Mike Castle and now is poised to strike a blow against the Soros funded CREW organization that has taken on every conservative from Andrew Breitbart to Sarah Palin. In fact, O’Donnell has already succeeded where no one else has. CREW has not been investigated before but now, with criminal charges pending in both the State of Delaware and at the federal level for CREW’s lies against O’Donnell and their filing of false reports, the IRS has decided to move forward on their investigation. The Capital Research Center details CREW’s left leanings in both staff and monetary support, their focus on conservatives over liberals and their ethics problems in a recent report. An excerpt from their report details the real purpose for why CREW was built:

“Sakol alerted Hillary and her staff about the newly forming group and its need for ‘Democratic progressive money,’” the book says. “The hope was that CREW would prove to be a perfect counterbalance to Judicial Watch, the corruption watchdog that had tormented the Clintons with lawsuits and press conferences throughout the 1990s.”

“CREW could do things the senators couldn’t do,” Sakol said, according to the book. “And once CREW’s charges ‘were out in the press,’ Sakol noted, other people could cite the findings of the group, which was usually portrayed as nonpartisan in news accounts.”

Its point was to be a left wing attack group and it’s certainly succeeded in that goal but it’s done so while pretending to be non-partisan. Now, they are finally being investigated and face serious ethics and criminal charges for their filing of false affidavits and their violations of their 501(C)3 charter. Even those on the right who have attacked O’Donnell should be thankful for her response to CREW and supportive of her fight against their attacks. She is once again leading the charge against a giant and once again her stones are landing.

O’Donnell tells Piers Where to Stick it

No doubt the News Journal “reporters” are hammering away at their keyboards after Christine O’Donnell’s appearance on Piers Morgan’s CNN show. O’Donnell was on to promote her book and the interview started out fairly well. She was amiable and Piers was nice enough but throughout the interview, Morgan continued to turn the topics away from the subject matter of the book, which is a return to our founding principles and an embrace of fiscal responsibility, limited government and a breakup of the crony capitalist system. Now, CNN’s website only shows the last few minutes of the exchange but for those of us who watched the show, Piers went on and on throughout the interview about witches, masturbation and gay marriage which were simply not the topics he brought her on to discuss. Here’s the end of what was at least 15-18 mins of O’Donnell tying to redirect Piers who was acting like a lovesick teenager fresh into puberty.


I say “Good Job Christine!” Piers has a history of asking ridiculous questions of his guests, especially women:

Piers Grills Condoleeza Rice for Being Single - "Are you high maintenance?"

Piers Morgan asks English Prime Minister Gordon Brown about the “mile high club”

Piers attacks Ann Coulter with Personal Questions

So Christine, after 15 mins of deflecting the engorged Morgan from discussions about sex and witches, decided that the interview was not worth continuing as she had other engagements to attend to. I say good for her and while I know that the News Journal will print something filthy and that her political opponents will trash her over it but I say let them talk. It’s time these elitist pricks in our media system realized that they are not only replaceable but EASILY replaceable. Oh, and one more thing, why do we keep accepting the rejects from overseas? Piers Morgan, Farid Zakaria…is it really such a thought desert on the American left that our national media outlets can’t even pull from OUR pool of idiots?

*UPDATE*I recieved a quote from Christine O'Donnell on the interview with Piers:

"If you watch the full interview, you'll see I was more than a good sport with his prior inappropriate/double standard line of questions. We had already gone over our time limit and were late for a Women's National Republican Club speech being shown on C-SPAN. Piers' is a liberal host with his own agenda, so no hard feelings and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors. There are major crisis in our country and in our world today. Those are the discussioins we try to address in Troublemaker and everyday Americans want to talk about, not Piers admitting he is a pro-masturbation talk show host (or something to that effect)."

Reviewing a Troublemaker

So the News Journal got their copy of Troublemaker and true to form they set out on a campaign to not only destroy the book but to destroy the author. I was mad, REALLY mad, but just moments before I started writing this post, I read the following hit piece from Chad Livengood at the News Journal. It should have made me mad. Should have…but it didn’t. As I read through the piece, through the long list of backstabbers and second guessers. Through the list of names of people who campaigned for Mike Castle, who developed the “Kill the girl” strategy that the Delaware GOP imployed in a vain attempt to stop O’Donnell from taking down the most liberal member (former) of the U.S. House of Representative, a guy who had destroyed the credibility of every candidate he’d run against and not their policies, I realized something. These are sad examples of what politics has become. Some of these people were great success stories. Some have TREMENDOUS talents. Others are just corrupt political scoundrels. None of them have escaped with their souls intact. 

I’ll tell you, I could go on and on about Maria Evans’ failed career in media (I bet most of you have never even heard of Delaware Talk Radio have you?), Priscilla Rakestraw’s record of making false allegations to the employers of candidates she doesn’t like and Tom Ross’ outright sabotage. I could go on about the failure of the Delaware GOP to hold on to their seats long before the TEA Party came along. I could point out that in politics, it’s apparent that NO ONE is trustworthy or decent. I could…but I won’t because it doesn’t matter. 

Ken Grant can enjoy his time on stage tearing down the work of one of the finest human beings I have ever met (thanks for the extra book sale), laughing it up with all of the Delaware political monsters in the crowd. Priscilla Rakestraw can live out the rest of her short time on Earth being as mean and nasty as she wants to be. Maria Evans can take solace in the fact that she’s assisted in the personal destruction of someone just trying to make a difference. Steve Grossman can sleep well tonight knowing that he stabbed a person that he supported in the General Election in the back. Chad Livengood can rest easy knowing that he has taken an impressive career and splattered it with a huge black spot. Tom Ross can smile knowing that he, as Chairman, ensured she’d never win and Mike Castle, king of Delaware kings, can sit up on his throne in Chateau Country with Chablis and some brie and be content knowing that Christine has been beaten down.

The bottom line here is that all of this, from Day 1 of her getting into the race till now was predictable. Anyone who is anyone saw this coming. The News Journal has always been just a tin can and string away from the DNC HQ and let’s face it, the Delaware GOP elites have long ago realized that “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”. Nothing I can say, no evil words, no backroom truth, no startling revelations about these cats is going to undo what they’ve done. So none of these people (except Mr. Grant…again, thanks for the book sale) is going to read Christine’s book. That’s fine, she didn’t expect you to. She didn’t write it for you. She wrote it for the people who TRULY supported her, not the ones who showed up just for the paychecks. She wrote it for the people who bucked the establishment trends, not those who buckle underneath it because they were born into it. She wrote it for the people who want to CHANGE politics, not the people who are desperately trying to keep it the same. She wrote it for conservatives and independents, not for progressives and liberals. 

Truth be told, Delaware is the small town of states. Just like any small town upstart who challenges the lifelong political culture of a backwoods North Carolina town, a challenger to the Delaware establishment will be ostracized and beat up. If that North Carolina challenger wrote a book, after facing down a popular Mayor in a heated election, it’s unlikely many town members would buy their book. The same thing is happening here. I don’t believe that many people in Delaware will buy Christine’s book, not because it’s bad, but because they are too closed-minded to see beyond their own irrational hatred of a true patriot. They hate me too and I just don’t care. Because you see, I know something they don’t know. I know that for every plank they tear out from underneath our feet, we receive yet another Blessing from God. By the time they have ripped all the planks out, we’ll be able to float away.

So the title of this blog said “Reviewing a Troublemaker” and we’ve spent a lot of time reviewing Chad Livengood’s predictable and sad hit piece. Now I’d like to take some time to do what a decent reporter in Chad’s shoes would have done which is to review the book. I’m not going to pluck out a sentence here or there about the most damaging parts of it though. I think Chad’s covered that, thanks Chad! What I’m going to do is tell you what you’re going to see in the other 350 pages that Chad didn’t bother to read.

“Troublemaker: Let’s do what it takes to make America great again” is a fantastic book that really brings you into the struggle that the TEA Party faces. For those of you who don’t know who the TEA Party are and what they stand for, Christine shows you who they are: They’re you. You’re frustrated by the lack of jobs, so is the TEA Party. You’re upset at the down economy, so is the TEA Party. You’re angry at the corrupt political class in Washington, so is the TEA Party. You’re worried about the future for your kids, so is the TEA Party. You’re scared that out nation is going in the wrong direction, so is the TEA Party and so is Christine O’Donnell. You see, Christine got one thing right in the infamous “Witch Ad”, she is you. We’ve all said things that we wish we hadn’t, we’ve all quoted something kooky from a story we read and we’ve all questioned authority. The difference is that the TEA Party has simply acted on that questioning and so has Christine O’Donnell. She stood up, like the TEA Party did and said “Enough is enough, we want our country back from the political elites and the special interest groups.” That’s why she took on her own party first. You see, Christine ran a write in campaign in 2006 when she was asked by some of the political establishment and some close friends (for different reasons) to do so. Her write-in candidacy was designed by the political establishment to do one thing, stop Mike Protack (another person who bucks the establishment trend and scares the crap out of the elites). For Christine, it was an eye opening look at politics in America. In 2008, she had think long and hard but she decided to seek the party’s nomination to challenge Joe Biden. Not because she liked the smears and lies and distortions from the 2006 campaign but because she loved Delaware, loved America and thought that Joe Biden was not the right answer for either one. Truth be told, most people in Delaware agree with her but elections here are more about WHO you know than WHAT you know (a simple glance through the current and recent Delaware political class will prove that). 

For a girl who grew up in a small house with a big family, Christine is surprisingly outgoing in public. Behind the scenes, as I came to know her, she’s quiet and thoughtful. She reminds of, well of me to be quite honest. She’s dealing now with what I dealt with throughout Jr. High and most of High School. She’s right on the edge of cool, right on the edge of being part of the crowd but there’s one problem, she won’t go along with their dastardly plans. She won’t drink that vodka or take that hit. She’s got one thing I didn’t have though, the willpower to see through convictions. See I eventually took that hit, drank that vodka and drove the getaway car. She won’t. I think that’s what inspires me about her. It’s what makes me want to defend her every chance I get, whether it’s using the left’s own science against them (Mice with human brain cells: Live Science & National Geographic) or calling them to task for using the same tactics against her that they rail against. The fact of the matter is that, as Christine explains in her book, she’s a Troublemaker because she won’t play ball their way. Yea, you’ll read about her childhood, her father as Bozo the Clown (and what a great guy he is) and her reversal from political liberal and pro-choice to pro-life conservative. She’ll walk you through her 2008 Senate campaign against Joe Biden and her 2010 Senate campaign against Mike Castle and Chris Coons. Sure, you’ll read a little about the infamous “Witch Ad” but you’ll also read about the real sad shame of the Widener debate when Chris Coons, a long time lawyer and a crowd of up and coming lawyers in the auditorium had trouble explaining the First Amendment to the Constitution. You’ll see how the political class will stop at nothing to derail those who it sees as obstructions to their goals and how they really just don’t care who they affect or how. I am personally well aware of this fact, their false accusations against me, labeled me a campaign finance violator and have cost me employment outside of politics. The book isn’t exclusive to political campaigning though. Christine offers some real solutions to Americas problems and many of them harken back to the original problem solvers, America’s founding fathers. While some will question these policy suggestions, those in the TEA Party and those with common sense will see them as excellent ways to move our country forward while returning our nation to the timeless principles of liberty that our founders held dear. 

Christine tells a story that many of us in the TEA Party could tell but there are so many different reasons to read this account. For TEA Party members, it will validate much of what you’ve felt over the last 10 years. For those going into politics, it really runs down the problems that you are going to face with taking on the established political class. For women, Christine shows the incredible double standard among not only the politicians but among the liberal media as well. If I had to summarize that part, I would say that the women’s lib[eration] movement only works if the woman in question is a lib[eral]. If she’s a conservative, feel free to bash away. Christine doesn’t come away whiney or downtrodden but rather stronger for the criticism she’s faced and wiser for the experience. She comes away more convinced than ever that conservatism is the right answer to America’s problems and you will too. The book is a must read for TEA Partiers, political novices and young women. It’s a snapshot of what Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and even Hillary Clinton to some extent, have faced over the years and it’s evidence that the political class is running in abject fear of the TEA Party and conservative thought.

Chad Livengood: Lies Packed In with More Lies

If you've been reading over the last few days, it's not secret that Chad Livengood of the news journal is nothing more than a Democrat smear machine.  His latest blog piece, posted as though fact, is more evidence that journalism is dead.  Unfortunately, Livengood relies on the political stylings of the well travelled  Maria Evans, who, desperate to remain relevant, is writing a book about Christine O'Donnell.  It should be pointed out that Maria Evans doesn't know Christine O'Donnell and certainly doesn't know enough to write a book but if the rest of the Delaware political establishment are any means test, I imagine there will be fewer words than pictures.  The Delaware political establishment culture talking or writing about something they know nothing about is really just par for the course.

Chad Livengood, a once decent reporter whose story on timecards shed light on the dirty Democrats in Dover, now has a history of leaving facts out of stories, smearing candidates and now, flat out lying.  The crux of Livengood's latest piece is an audio tape provided by the same people who were found yesterday to have flat out LIED to the FEC about Christine O'Donnell.  I'm sure Chad didn't know that though, he takes their word for the gospel.  His argument for believing them?  Maria Evans provides audio...oh well, gee, audio has never ben doctored before, and because Maria Evans (who helped develop the failed strategy of attacking O'Donnell with lies during the 2010 election) provided it, well why not take it for the gospel right?  Well Chad might get a pass on this, he clearly doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.  In his blog, he cites a blog as "conservative" but for those of us who know "Hube", we know he is anything BUT conservative.  He's one of the Maria Evans, Mike Castle, Tom Ross RINO's.  In fact, here's video of one of their buddies, Mike Stafford, who was discredited during the 2010 campaign for being a liar and one of the most corrupt people in the party, siding with the liberal progressives.  For someone who calls themselves "conservative" I think this is pretty radically leftist.  I guess we should be wary of allowing people to define themselves huh?

The reality is that I would trust Christine O'Donnell's version of events over the establishment Republicans version 7 days a week and twice on Sunday but I don't have to do that.  Why?  Well because Haley Barbour's own words in print, back up O'Donnell's claims. 

The truth is that when O'Donnell says that it took Haley Barbour to introduce her, it's factual.  When she says she wasn't invited, DESPITE being the U.S. Senate candidate, it's TRUE.  When she says that Haley Barbour gave her accolades, well this letter proves that he's certainly done that.  Meanwhile, Maria Evans and the Delaware GOP leadership claimed that O'Donnell violated campaign finance laws and THAT was a lie, as the FEC reveals in their finding of NO WRONG DOING...I'd like to point out that I have not seen this reported by Mr. Chad Livengood at the News Journal.  Wonder why that is, maybe I should ask Maria Evans to send it to him.

Where do I go to get my Reputation Back?

Today I recieved some news that is just, well vindication that the Truth shall set us free. After being publicly smeared as a campaign finance violator by the Delaware Republican Party simply for supporting Christine O'Donnell over Mike Castle. The FEC had previously reached a split decision on the matter but the investigative committee found no reason to believe that the O'Donnell campaign nor I had done anything wrong. Here is a link to the entire report and here is the excerpt that vindicates me.

Finally, the complainant alleges that the O'Donnell Committee's press secretary stated on his Facebook page that he speaks to TPAC "daily. The complainant also states that TPAC was planning a radiothon during which O'Donnell would make an appearance. OGC recommended finding reason to believe that violations of the Act occurred based on those facts. We disagreed.

We note again that "opening an investigation to determine whether we could discover a basis for those suspicions runs counter to the statutory constraints imposed on the Commission. That "reason to believe" requires more than mere speculation has been established in prior enforcement matters. For example, in MUR 4960 (Hillary Clinton), the Commission summarized the requirements as follows:
The Commission may find "reason to believe" only if a complaint sets forth sufficient specific facts, which, if proven true, would constitute a violation of the FECA. Complaints not based upon personal knowledge must identify a source of information that reasonably gives rise to a belief in the truth of the allegations presented...

Unwarranted legal conclusions firom asserted facts, see SOR in MUR 4869 (American Postal Workers Union), or mere speculation, see SOR of Chairman Wold and Commissioners Mason and Thomas in MUR 4850 (Fossella), will not be accepted as true. In addition,... a complaint may jbe dismissed if it consists of factual allegations that are refiited with sufficiently compelling evidence provided in the response to the complaint...

Similarly, in MUR S467 (Michael Moore), the Commission stated that "[purely speculative charges, especially when accompanied by a direct refutation, do not form an adequate basis to find a reason to believe that a violation of the FECA has occurred." Therefore, under the Act, before making a reason-to-believe determination, the Commission must assess both the law and the credibility of the facts alleged. To do so, the Commission must identify the sources of information and examine the facts and reliability of those sources to determine whether they 'reasonably [give] rise to a belief in the truth of the allegations presented." Only if this standard is met may the Commission investigate whether a violation occurred. These requirements are not met here.

Assuming that the radiothon was paid for by TPAC, mentioned the candidate, and was broadcast shortly before the primary election, the available information, including the Facebook posts at issue, provides insufficient basis for a reason-to-believe finding. First, the Facebook posting for the event does not indicate whether or not O'Donnell was set to appear. While a Facebook post by Evan Queitsch, apparently directed to a WDEL radio station employee, reads "@Jensen 1150 WDEL let me know if you want to know about the Tea Party Express as I speak w/them daily," OCiC states that the posts on their face do not satisfy the conduct prong. We agree. And even if TPAC and the O'DonnellConmiittee were in daily contact, such contacts would not be sufficient to meet the conduct threshold. More specific information is necessary.

Our unwillingness to find reason to believe a violation occurred based on the O'Donnell Committee's original response is bolstered by later confirmation that Mr. Queitsch was not a member of the O'Donnell campaign during the primary campaign. Therefore, the complainant's accusations in this matter, including one of which was based on tiie incorrect factual implication that Evan Queitsch was the O'Donnell Committee's press secretary, provide insufficient basis to find reason to believe.

My question is, where do I go to get my reputation back? When do I get to repair the damage that this false complaint has done to my career and potential political aspirations?   Mr. Tom Ross, do you even care that you've destroyed the career of an innocent person?  What about you Michael Toner?  Do you care that your false allegations have impacted my career? 

Also, to the media, you were quick to print my name in your articles alledging that there was wrong doing involved here.  Now that Christine, TEA Party Express and I have been cleared of wrong doing, will you print your retraction and apology on page A-1? 

More Shoddy Reporting at the News Journal (yea, again)

Fresh off his enlightening piece about links on Amazon.com’s website that lead to porn when Christine O’Donnell is searched, the News Journal’s intrepid reporter Chad Livengood enlightens us with his review of the first few pages of Christine O’Donnell’s book.  Chad has apparently gotten the Gannett memo “Kill the girl, kill the girl, yes master, yes master, tee hee, tee hee, tee hee hee hee hee.” (Thanks to Bill Cosby for that quote by the way).  One could ask (and I have) why Chad chose to focus his last blog posting on research surrounding her Amazon.com store instead of say, the partisanship of CREW who has literally a more than 3-1 bias of attacking conservatives and Republicans vs. Democrats OR the fact that CREW violated their 501(c)3 mandate to remain apolitical when they attacked Christine O’Donnell during the campaign season.  Agree or disagree with their (lies) position, the fact is that they broke the law.  He’s not yet provided an answer.  I assume he was busy with his latest concoction.  This Sunday he released his review of O’Donnell’s book (or at least the first few pages) and WOW are there factual errors.  I’m going to go through his piece (you can read the full piece here) and tackle some of the more egregious errors.

“Just like in her campaign, the impact of the witch ad is a central theme of her 358-page book, which combines O'Donnell's life story with reflections on her three failed Senate campaigns in Delaware and a tea-party-inspired manifesto for changing the country's direction.”

The ad is discussed in the book on a few pages but it’s not what one would consider a “central theme”.  The “Witch Ad” as it is known, is so well known, to leave out the story surrounding it would have been disingenuous. 

“O'Donnell claims someone from Hollywood-based television producer Fred Davis' staff "leaked" the "I'm not a witch" ad to the press and Internet without her permission.

"Within one day, it became the most-watched video on the Internet ... all before I'd seen any footage, let alone approved the final cut," O'Donnell wrote…

…O'Donnell's version of events that transpired last fall are already being disputed by Republican consultants who dealt with the campaign and contradicted by emails her own campaign manager sent to Davis and his staff.”

If I may, I was a campaign worker after the Primary election (clarified for legal reasons) for Christine O’Donnell and I performed many duties.  On the day of the commercial shoot, one of the things I was asked to do was to help track down supporters who would like to be in ads for O’Donnell.  I knew that the campaign had been directed by the NRSC to utilize Fred Davis, a famous and highly touted Hollywood producer as their campaign ad man.  Given Davis’ endorsements, I thought it was odd to be getting a call the day of the shoot and not sooner to allow us time to find people.  Fortunately, Christine had a lot of VERY good supporters and we were able to find a number of people.  Another staffer and I rode with the participants to a Philadelphia studio that was apparently once a warehouse of some sort.  After some snacks and some time spent in the Green Room while Christine shot her portions of the ad we were called in.  Only later did I find out why we were called so late.  Oh I had heard the rumblings that they were concerned with the potential content of the ad Davis had planned to create but I had so many other duties to attend to that I didn’t delve further into that.  I figured that this guy was a professional (and he is) and that it would all work out in the end.  Like Christine, I was a little concerned that going with a high end Hollywood producer was a little over the top but I was just a regular guy and what did I know.  I should have spoken up, I should have said something.  I feel like part of this is my fault for not confirming Christine’s own thoughts.  Of course, I couldn’t know what she was thinking but still, I could have said something.  When we finally entered the studio, Mr. Davis had each participant sit and answer some basic questions like why they supported Christine and what they thought of her and Mr. Coons.  Mr. Davis and his staff were nice but there was something weird, they were almost TOO nice.  After now having been around politicians and media types, I know the feeling for what it is a divine warning that the person talking to you is a slime ball.  The supporters that had come to be in the commercial were impressive and their words were powerful.  I felt uplifted hearing Bob, Melissa, Councilman Brown and Mike (a lifelong Democrat) speak and I remember saying to myself that given Fred’s talent and the supporters words, this was going to be an incredible set of ads.  It was raining out and so after chatting with Christine, the supporters and some of the crew from the shoot I pulled the campaign truck (talk about grassroots, the “campaign truck” was my 1997 GMC Sierra 1500 which I had decked out with yard signs taped on the back and sides…we were truly “grassroots” and yet, we’d just hobnobbed with people from Hollywood) around to the door and loaded up the gear.   I noticed a person I hadn’t seen earlier and I asked who they were.  I was told that the person was a New York Times reporter and that they’d wanted to do a story about Fred working with Christine but that the content of the commercials was still unknown to them.

What’s weird is on the way back, the tension in the truck was such that you could literally feel the air being sucked out.  We lightened it with some discussions about faith (yea, it was THAT tight) and some small talk.  Later, as I was in and out of what I called “The War Room” where the review of the ads was taking place, I found out that the NYT reporter had apparently been leaked a copy of the “Witch Ad” which to that point had not been approved or even SEEN by the candidate.

“Kyle Roberts, a media buyer from Alexandria, Va., who purchased O'Donnell's TV time, said "proper procedure was followed for all advertisements aired on behalf of the campaign."

"This includes creative approval by campaign officials," Roberts said in a statement.”

Unfortunately, Chad’s reporting here is shoddy and to be honest, he knows it.  I’ve seen the emails sent by Campaign Manager Matt Moran to Chad about this exact issue and the fact is that Kyle, the media buyer did follow procedure.  However, Kyle had NOTHING to do with the creative side.  He had nothing to do with which ad ran.  THAT is the crux of the issue.  Of all the ads that were shot that night, Fred Davis and his team only prepared the ad that Christine had specifically told him that she did NOT want to run.  The problem was that there was no time to wait for the other ads, the ones she’d specifically said she wanted to run with, to be delivered.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars in media buys had already been spent and there was a deadline.  The campaign was up against the wall and with Christine on the campaign trail; Matt was forced to pull the trigger on an ad he knew was trouble.  The alternative was to literally piss away hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Chad Livengood was made acutely aware of these facts but somehow they didn’t make it in.  Then again, there’s a lot that Chad knows that isn’t in the piece.

“Emails obtained by The News Journal show O’Donnell’s campaign manager, Matt Moran, approved the witch ad, telling Davis “solid message Fred … well scripted and delivered despite the horrible hair (assume that was intentional to help reverse her negatives with women?).””

Having been in the room when some of these discussions took place, I can attest that NOONE was happy about the ad and that of all the people involved, *I* was the most positive about it.  I thought if nothing else, it addressed the issue and that if there were other, stronger ads backing it up, like those cut by her supporters that fateful night, that it really wouldn’t be that big of a deal.  Of course then I realized it had gone viral on the internet.  I can attest to the sarcasm in Matt’s voice and emails.  He was FAR from even content with the situation but he had no choice.  Even the AP’s Randall Chase reported Matt’s sarcasm while Chad decided to leave that part out.

"No media company is going to leak the ad on behalf of a campaign," said one Republican consultant, who declined to be named because of what he said was O'Donnell's history of retaliating against critics. "If that actually happened, Fred's firm would no longer be working with O'Donnell…

... Moran and O'Donnell would not explain why Davis' firm continued to work for the campaign if they felt sabotaged by the airing of the witch ad as O'Donnell claims in the book."

Anyone else a little tired of reading about anonymous sources that more times than not, don’t have the foggiest idea what they’re talking about?  Chad seems to take issue with the fact that Christine paid Davis despite this problem and that she continued to work with him.  Moran explained in his email to Chad that the situation around “The Witch Ad” was not good and they there were backed into a corner.  Remember also that Christine O’Donnell had been all but TOLD to use Fred Davis by the NRSC and she was between a rock and a hard place.  To put it simply, she was the Republican nominee and she needed the support of the party.  She was rebuilding her name within the party and doing all she could to repair bridges that had been burned during the contentious primary with RINO Mike Castle.  So Christine took some advice that he gut told her was flat out wrong.  She took a few thing on “hope” and given the money on the line, she really didn’t have a ton of choices.  Moran went on to explain to Chad that after that initial disagreement on strategy, Davis’ firm worked quite well with the campaign and created some really great ads like “Principles”, “Tax Man”, “Shame on You Chris” and “What I’m Made Of”.  Emails obtained by this blogger show that Chad Livengood was made ACUTELY aware of these facts and these ads before he published his piece.  Why didn’t they make it into the story Chad?

“Throughout the book, O'Donnell continues to show her distrust of the media and what she calls "unscrupulous reporters," though she doesn't take any to task by name.”

Christine didn’t take them to task by name but I will.  One is Randall Chase at the AP who has a history of leaving facts out of stories, another is Ginger Gibson whose reporting during the campaign was shoddy at best and flat out hit pieces and Democrat propaganda at worst and another is Mr. Livengood himself.  Between his report on porn while ignoring CREW’s political bias and their violation of the law and his seriously flawed “book review”, Chad is more than making the case for his inclusion as an “unscrupulous reporter”.  That’s really a shame too because his tenacity on the timecards of Tony DeLuca and other double dippers was much appreciated.  I’m disappointed in such tabloid journalism.

“With some of her campaign apparatus still intact, O'Donnell also has continued to deal with allegations from her past two campaigns that she used donations for personal expenses. At the same time, O'Donnell's campaign has gone after her accusers, filing complaints with the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Attorney's Office and District of Columbia Bar Association against attorneys and a political watchdog who have called into question her campaign ethics.”

Actually Chad, as you are WELL aware, the U.S. Attorney in Delaware has cleared O’Donnell of any wrong doing and the FEC has found no anomalies with her campaign finances.   O’Donnell has launched investigations into the outright lies by her accusers and asked the IRS to look at CREW’s blatant violation of their 501(C)3 charter.  She’s also filed complaints to have CREW Executive Director and bar member Melanie Sloan investigated for her role in filing knowingly false affidavits on behalf of admitted liar David Keegan.  The so called “watchdog group” has a more than 8-1 record of accusing Republicans over Democrats while historically, more Democrats have been investigated for ethics violations than have Republicans.

“O'Donnell uses the book to settle a few scores with her political adversaries in the Delaware political establishment, claiming "the state party didn't lift a finger to help our campaign" in 2008 and sabotaged her bid for the seat long held by Joe Biden in 2010…

"…It shows how ill-informed Christine O'Donnell is about the history of our party, its leadership and the pro-life candidates in Delaware," said Rakestraw, who added that she doesn't plan to buy O'Donnell's book.”

The reality is that O’Donnell is right.  In 2008, O’Donnell was “endorsed” by the state party but the party did not feel confident that anyone could beat Joe Biden.  That has been the MO of the Delaware GOP for 10 years now since the Democrats took control of Dover.  The Delaware GOP has been running defeatist campaigns ever since and to be quite honest, I have questioned the dedication of the Delaware GOP leadership.  The fact is that the following video more than sums up what the Delaware elites think.  In the video, National Committeewoman Priscilla Rakestraw is very candid about Christine O’Donnell and Glen Urquhart:

Christine raised a reported $7 million during her campaign however, she beat Mike Castle by raising far less than $2 million.  Perhaps this video shows you a little bit more about who Priscilla Rakestraw is:

The bottom line here is that the leadership in the Delaware GOP is not committed to winning.  It’s my SINCERE desire to see John Sigler change things but let’s call a spade what it is.  The Delaware GOP leadership simply has not been committed to winning.  The folly of the 2010 election really needs no recount but to remind you, former Delaware GOP Chairman Tom Ross, who was in fact the active chair at the time, said that Christine O’Donnell could not be elected dogcatcher and as you can see above, Priscilla sure had some strong words about Christine O’Donnell as well.  In fact, it’s well known inside party circles that Priscilla Rakestraw orchestrated the smear campaign against O’Donnell.  Rakestraw has also been implicated in a smear campaign against State Party chair candidate and Delta Airlines Pilot Mike Protack that resulted in trouble with Protack’s private market employer.  Protack is considering taking legal action against those who used their influence to attack him with unfounded allegations. 

“O'Donnell also alleges that Biden and Castle personally warned a supporter of the "consequences" of raising money for her in the 2008 Senate race against Biden. Like many of O'Donnell's allegations of campaign dirty tricks detailed in the book, the individual involved is not named.

Castle said O'Donnell's claim is "wholly inaccurate" and "the figment of somebody's imagination."

"I don't remember doing anything of that nature," Castle said Saturday.”

First of all, the “I don’t remember” line is not exactly smacking of surety of his statements.  The fact is that evidence suggests that Mike Castle did actively work to sabotage her campaign, that Karl Rove (a key advisor to Castle) actively worked to sabotage her campaign and that there is a long held understanding that Castle, Biden and Carper are thick as thieves. 

“She accuses Ross of abusing party funds by paying for robo phone calls against her in the primary.

Ross said there was nothing illegal about spending state party funds to help elect Castle, who won the party's backing at the state convention last May before losing the primary to O'Donnell.”

Sure is odd that the RNC’s position has been to stay out of primary races while Tom Ross and the rest of his leadership decided to inject themselves into this one in an UNPRECEDENTED manner.  It may not be illegal to spend the money on those robo-calls but it sure is an abuse of party funds especially now that we know if they’d saved that money, they would have had more to spend on electing Republicans.

“After GOP delegates endorsed Castle, the party decided to launch a negative campaign against O'Donnell because it seemed the best option for helping Castle breeze to victory for the U.S. Senate seat and make gains in the state Legislature, Ross said.

"While my dogcatcher statement may have been a little harsh, the truth of the matter remains, Christine O'Donnell is not a viable statewide candidate in the state of Delaware," Ross said in an interview. "We had the biggest Republican year in a hundred years, and she lost by a very, very wide margin, while bringing down the rest of the ticket."”

Well Mr. Ross is continuing to double down on his stupidity from the 2010 campaign.  This is a guy who named ME as Christine O’Donnell’s Press Secretary when I wasn’t even part of the campaign until AFTER the primary campaign was over.  Also, this is apparently a guy who ignores the facts.  You see, Ross claims that O’Donnell brought down the rest of the party but the facts actually bear out the OPPOSITE as the case.  You see exit polling from the Delaware Senate race shows that O’Donnell actually HELPED down ticket Republicans.  You see O’Donnell drew more Republicans and Independents to the polls and fewer Democrats by percentage than the registration gap bore out.  It's interesting that 18% of Delaware Republicans cost Christine the election and likewise, 18% of Delaware Republicans consider themselves more liberal than moderate.  I wonder if THAT is the reason those Republicans down ticket lost…because of Tom Ross’ failure to put together a Republican Party that represents Republican values.

CREW Exposed

A new website out today delves into the realm of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). You may remember CREW from previous posts on this blog as well as from the recently dismissed charges against Christine O’Donnell. Like most CREW complaints, the one against O’Donnell was dismissed by the U.S. Attorney because they were completely fabricated. As we broke here on this blog, CREW violated their IRS mandate to remain non-political when they attacked Christine O’Donnell during the campaign and they violated federal law when they filed a knowingly false affidavit signed by David Keegan whose entire smear campaign of lies was simply designed to keep Christine from running again.

The new website also delves into the partisanship of CREW. A quick look over the founders of CREW shows the partisan angle. Norm Eisen who was Deputy General Counsel to Obama’s transition team joined Daniel Berger, a massive donor to Democrat campaigns (including Christine O’Donnell’s opponent Chris Coons) and Clinton pollster Mark Penn to start CREW in 2003 as a way to compete with the conservative ethics groups that had questioned Bill Clinton’s philandering in the White House. They needed a face for the organization and so they tapped another ultra-liberal Democrat to head up CREW, Melanie Sloan. Sloan came with plenty of leftist credentials, she’d worked for Representative John “Read the bill” Conyers in the House, she then worked for Senator (now VP) Joe “Stand up Chuck” Biden and she also worked for NY Democrat Chuck “3 branches of government?” Schumer when he was in the House of Representatives. Sloan isn’t the only leftist in the mix, in fact, the website finds that “there isn't a single current or former CREW staffer with comparable experience working for a conservative organization or Republican politician.”

As if that weren’t enough, the new site exposes CREW’s record of attacks against Republicans over Democrats. The chart below clearly shows that CREW files more complaints against Republicans than Democrats and it clearly shows that the actions taken by the ethics committees lean more toward Democrats than Republicans. What does that mean? It means that CREW is either REALLY ineffective as a “watchdog” or it’s just out to be a Democrat Attackdog.

Let’s look at the Senate ethics complaints as an example. As you can see above CREW’s Senate ethics complaints are around 90% against Republicans. Meanwhile, the Senate ethics committee actions are 60% against Democrats 40% against Republicans. This is simply a perfect illustration of the reason why Christine O’Donnell’s complaints about CREW are entirely valid. They are a partisan group out to destroy Republicans, prop up Democrats and do the bidding of radical leftist donors like George Soros. Their list of donors reads like a Who’s Who of radical leftwing groups. The Open Society Institute, the Democracy Alliance, the Tides Foundation and the Silberstein Foundation to name just a few are all major donors to CREW. Interestingly, CREW was also a MAJOR advocate for the DISCLOSE Act (written by Delaware’s own Mike Castle) which would have required groups to disclose their donors if they engaged in any political activity. However, CREW refuses to disclose its own list of donors. 

In the end, the new site shows the bias and hypocrisy of CREW at a time when their legal status has come into question. With O’Donnell fighting back against their lies, this new website exposing CREW’s left wing motivations is yet more evidence that CREW is everything O’Donnell says they are. Mean, nasty, partisan hacks doing the bidding of left wing billionaire extremists like George Soros and left wing political machines like the Democrat Party. Kudo’s to The Center for Consumer Freedom for standing up to CREW and calling them out on their hypocrisy.

American Spectator Interviews a Troublemaker

Jeff Lord at the American Spectator recently sat down with a real troublemaker for an interview. 2010 U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell sat down with Jeff and the first copy of her new book “Troublemaker” for a chat. I’ll let you read most of Jeff’s piece over at the American Spectator but I thought that the following excerpt aptly described O’Donnell’s campaign.

THE REAL POINT HERE, as more and more Americans get with every passing day, is that this is precisely the game played with non-Establishment politicians right from the get-go. A viewing of the 1939 classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington​starring Jimmy Stewart -- this scene

 from the film gets to the guts of O'Donnell's 2010 race and then some with the exception that in the end Mr. Smith wins and O'Donnell loses -- says only in cinematic fashion what O'Donnell has lived in real life.

 O’Donnell faced down Mr. Potter and all his friends in former Congressman Mike Castle who she defeated in the 2010 Primary. They tried their best to take her down and they wounded her enough that she was unable to win the war but she made sure to take down Goliath along the way. It took dive bombs from Karl “Tokyo” Rove, smears by the Delaware Republican Party leadership, the withholding of support by the national party and constant insults from high powered magazine editors like Bill Kristol from the Weekly Standard to try and stop her but still, the respectable members of Delaware’s Republican Party were undeterred and selected her as their nominee.

Still the party know-it-alls like the ancient and detestable National Committeewoman Priscilla Rakestraw, whose reign will hopefully mercifully come to an end in 2012, refused to support O’Donnell. Likewise, the crotchety Castle refused to hold to his promise to support Christine if she did “somehow” win the nomination. Even when asked by O’Donnell’s father, to whom Castle had promised to support her, Castle refused. He claimed he was insulted by an attack on his sexuality launched by a former campaign vendor to the O’Donnell campaign but the truth is that King Castle had never lost an election and he simply didn’t know how to lose.

 O’Donnell spills the beans on this and many other Republican Party secrets in her tell-all. She explains the push to use certain vendors once she’s secured the nomination discusses the shenanigans behind the infamous “Witch Ad” and points fingers at the puppet masters who balked at a nominee whose strings they couldn’t pull. She’ll talk about a once grand old party, with names at the top like DuPont and Roth who in 2006 nominated Jan Ting to run against Tom Carper. Ting would go on to not only switch parties, but become state coordinator for the Obama campaign in 2008.

 Oh, she lays it down…and this is just the beginning. Get your copy of what is sure to be, a New York Time Bestseller (whether they like it or not) today!

Why O’Donnell’s Fight Matters

Over the last year, I have maintained Christine O’Donnell innocence. Whether on the payroll or off, I have consistently defended her against many of the charges against her. In June and July of this year, both complaints against O’Donnell were found to be lacking any evidence and we subsequently dismissed. In June, the FEC dismissed a complaint against O’Donnell that she colluded with the TEA Party Express because the key evidence against her was simply an outright lie. That didn’t stop the lame stream media from continuing to attack her, despite the dismissal and the facts of the case. They claimed that the 3-3 split decision was a political boon from 3 Republicans on the FEC committee but there are a few holes in that story if you understand the complaint. First, Christine O’Donnell may have won the Republican nomination by slaying the dragon that was Mike Castle but she was not well accepted by the establishment elites. In fact, she spent almost the entire Primary and General election campaign running AGAINST the Republican establishment. It was Republican elitist lawyers who pushed Mike Castle, Republican elite pundits like Karl “Tokyo” Rove, Bill “Don’t break the” Kristol and Charles Krauthammer who pounded on O’Donnell almost as much as Bill Mahr did and even the Delaware Republican Party Chairman said she “couldn’t be elected dogcatcher”. Second, the complaint was filed by the Delaware GOP and GOP elite lawyer Michael Toner (and former FEC chairman) who, according to former GOP Chairman Tom Ross, was sent to file the claim by the NRSC. It seems strange that 3 Republican FEC attorneys would turn around and side with the anti-Republican establishment, TEA Party backed candidate over one of their own and their establishment friends. In July, the U.S. Attorney in Delaware (a Democrat) dismissed a complaint filed by the partisan hack group CREW. The George Soros funded attack organization specializes in attacking conservatives like Sarah Palin, who they pursued for her wardrobe. That complaint was found to be frivolous, as are most complaints that CREW files. Similar to the complaint about Palin, CREW’s attack on O’Donnell was based on lies and fabrications and came DURING an election. This is a clear violation of their IRS mandate to remain apolitical as a 501c3 and CREW’s Executive Director, Melanie Sloan is on record saying that she hopes the voters take into account her accusations when they go to the ballot box. Now, O’Donnell has filed to have the IRS revoke CREW’s 501(c)(3) status, she’s asked Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden to bring charges of perjury against accuser David Keegan who admitted to lying in the affidavit that CREW filed on his behalf in which he alleged that O’Donnell committed theft from her campaign funds and she has filed with the U.S. Attorney in Delaware and Obama Justice Department to have CREW held accountable for knowingly filing a false complaint against O’Donnell.

Here is O'Donnell and her attorney explaining their case:


So, why does her fight matter? Her fight is our fight. The TEA Party uprising in America that turned the tide of politics in America and gave voice to the silent majority of Americans who believe in the American Dream of our founders is a struggle to regain our voice. Our nation was designed so that WE the people would maintain control of our government and so that it would not grow outside of our control. That design required us to be vocal, engaged and active with our votes. We stopped doing that in the 20th century. Since 1960, voter engagement has fallen in Presidential election years from 61.3% in 1960 to 56.8% in 2008 and it’s plummeted in non-Presidential years from 48.4% in 1966 to just 37.8% in 2010. In 2010, the voting age population was 235,809,266 while only 90,682,968 voters actually turned out. The historic 2008 elections produced a much higher than normal turnout and still just 56.8% of America’s voting-age population turned out. In 2006, an off year election, only 37.1% of voting-age Americans turned out to vote for the national elections. 80,588,000 people turned out to vote out of 220,660,000 Americans of voting age. Voter registration numbers show that 84,710,400 voting age Americans never even bothered to register to vote. 38.4% of voting age American never registered to vote and only 59.3% of registered voters decided to turn out to vote. We as Americans have walked away from politics because we believe we are too small for it. We don’t believe our voice is being heard and we don’t believe that we can stop the big money, big influence, big government from taking over our nation. O’Donnell is showing us that we CAN stop the rich, the powerful and the connected from running roughshod over us. She’s trying to help us understand that America’s system of government is still rooted in the defense of the innocent and that no one is above the law. Her fight is our fight. Her story is our story. She grew up in a small house with 5 brothers and sisters. Her father worked three jobs at times to make ends meet and she has faced adversity in her lives the same as many Americans have. She was caught in the housing crisis, financed her college education and has searched for her true faith throughout her life. She’s really no different than many of us and she’s under attack from billionaire currency killer George Soros and his left wing attack group CREW. We’ve GOT to support her.

It’s VITAL that O’Donnell defeat these forces and that she expose them for the frauds they are. I say, if you agree with what you’ve read here, if you believe in government of the people, by the people and for the people, please support Christine by reserving your own copy of her new book “Troublemaker”. In it you will hear her personal story and experience her battle against the Mike Castle machine, the liberal media and the political establishment. It’s an inspiring story of perseverance, determination and faith. Pick up a copy today and support a real citizen who took on the establishment.

CREW Clearly Violated 501(c)(3) Mandate

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington violated their 501(c)3 mandate when they set out on a politically motivated smear campaign against former Delaware U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell. The IRS has laid out criteria for organizations who receive special tax exemptions and rates and one of those criteria has to do with political activism. Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)) distinguishes that 28 different types of nonprofit groups are exempt from some federal income taxes. For the purposes on this discussion, we will focus only on organizations listed under the 501(c)3 designation but you can find a more complete list of these groups by clicking here.

 In short, a non-profit group that takes money from donors is required to register with the IRS and along the way they may choose to register as a non-profit group under Section 501(c) of the IRS code. 501(c)3 organizations are described as: Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, to promote the Arts or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations. The corporation, fund, organization or foundation applying for the 501(c)3 tax exemption MUST be organized operated exclusively for the above activities and none other. In addition to this, most 501(c)3 organizations also apply for a “170 waiver” which makes the donations to a 501(c)3 organization tax deductible for many donors. Many times, these deductions are key to a non-profit organizations survival and loss of a 501(c)3 status can be hard to overcome since most other organizations and corporations do not give to groups without that deduction status. There are two classifications of exempt 501(c)3 groups:

Public Charity – receives a substantial part of its income from the general public or the government and public support should be broad, not limited to a few individuals or families.

Private Foundation – receives most of its income from investments and endowments which are used to make grants to other organizations rather than being dispersed directly for charitable activities.

In order to obtain 501(c)3 status from the IRS, a group has to file Form 1023 and accompany that form with a filing fee ($850 if gross receipts are $10,000 or more/$400 if gross receipts are under $10,000). This certifies that the group fits the mold of 501(c)3 organizations and that the group understands the restriction placed on groups that receive the 501(c)3 deduction. One such restriction is on political activities. 501(c)3 organizations are absolutely prohibited from conducting political activities that intervene in election to public office. Specifically, the IRS website states:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.

There is a clear and obvious violation of the 501(c)3 charter by CREW in the first line of the IRS link above. CREW filed a very public FEC complaint against Christine O’Donnell in an attempt to derail her political campaign. Here’s video of CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan very publicly attacking Christine O’Donnell just 5 days after she won her primary and had begun her General Election run:
Click Here for the video

We’ll get back to the fact that Melanie Sloan knew that the accusations she was making against Ms. O’Donnell were completely false. First, I’d like to show yet another video, only 3 days later in which Melanie Sloan calls O’Donnell a crook and accuses her of stealing.

Now it should be pointed out that Christine has been cleared of all charges by the U.S. Attorney in Delaware and also that the FEC has yet to find an anomaly with her campaign funds. Also, the “former campaign manager” was with the campaign for two weeks and was let go (as she had been by a number of campaigns previously) for being ineffective in her job.  Finally, the complaint from CREW relies on knowingly false statements made by David Keegan. In the following audio clips, Keegan admits that what he said was “political”, “worthless” and “heresay”.

• David Keegan calls his own motives “political”
• David Keegan says he did not want O'Donnell to win
• David Keegan says he wanted to make sure Christine O'Donnell doesn't run again
• David Keegan admits what he is saying is all 'hearsay' -- he learned of it, did not witness it, and does not know if his complaints are true.
• David Keegan admits he does not know if his accusations are true. He does not know if Christine O'Donnell used any campaign funds to pay her rent. Keegan admits it could be something completely different than what he thinks.

Clearly, from the audio clips above, CREW was engaged in a partisan attack (not to mention a criminal misuse of taxpayer dollars) against Christine O’Donnell that was based on knowingly false statements made by David Keegan. This clearly contradicts the statement made by CREW on their IRS Form 990 where they state that the engaged in no “direct or indirect political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office”.

Below, Anderson Cooper gets Melanie Sloan to flat out admit that this attack is political in nature and an attempt to influence the election. She also doesn’t dispute the fact that all of CREW’s leadership is made up of Democrats and Democrat supporters.

O’Donnell Shoots Down McCain

On Wednesday, longtime Arizona Senator and failed Presidential candidate John McCain bizarrely decided to attack the TEA Party and even former U.S. Senate candidates. John McCain, a one-time war hero and a POW in Vietnam has consistently soiled his good name over the years but Wednesday he finally disgraced himself to the point of no return. For the many conservative Republicans who had seen McCain for the RINO that he is for some time, his comments came with little surprise. He has always had severe contempt for the TEA Party uprising of the American people and the lack of support for his Presidential campaign by conservatives. The fact is that the only Republican candidate of 2008 that could have allowed Socialist Barack Obama to win the Presidency was in fact John McCain. McCain used an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal to display his ire at the TEA Party and under the guise of “reading from the column” he proceeded to blast TEA Party members as “Hobbits”, question the intelligence of freshman members of Congress and then turned his insults to Republican U.S. Senate candidates.


While reading the article, McCain made the following comment, "The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue and the public will turn en masse against Barack Obama....Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea party hobbits could return to Middle-earth...This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell into GOP nominees. The reality is the debt limit will be raised one way or another." Before we jump the gun, let’s hear Senator McCain in his own words, as he defends his lunatic statements:



FYI, McCain’s “conservative voting record” is light on substance. His record is more like that of Mike Castle who was defeated by one of the candidates that he cited in his little rant. McCain took a cheap shot at Christine O’Donnell, who smacked down his friend Mike Castle in 2010 and Christine fired back by saying, ".... I think that it is inappropriate to insult the judgment of the majority of Republicans in Nevada and Delaware and that the implication that nominating RINOs somehow means we win was irrefutably disproven by McCain's own presidential candidacy debacle. After that nightmare, McCain had to veer right so fast he almost got whiplash from all his flip-flopping just to keep his Senate seat. It doesn't help him to attack those conservatives and Tea Partiers who graciously gave him another chance to keep his job...." 

We concur Christine, we concur, in fact, consider John McCain’s next opponent, my new favorite person. Mr. McCain, you WILL be replaced. Many of the people that you insulted and refused to apologize to from the TEA Party, were split on your reelection in 2010 against J.D. Hayworth and that split allowed you to keep your job. That split won’t happen again now that we Main Street Americans clearly understand what you think of us. Christine has shown in recent weeks that she will NOT be attacked without retaliation anymore. CREW tried to smear her and they will now face criminal charges for their actions. Senator McCain did nothing illegal, but his statements were incendiary, ridiculous and called into question his belief in the voters of his own party.

CREW continues to attack an exonerated O'Donnell

So, Melanie Sloan, the Soros attack animal who leads CREW, still hasn’t gotten the message.  Very well then.  Enough is enough.  America is sick and tired of these kinds of unfounded, wasteful accusations based on politics and not evidence.  It’s time we had a new dialogue in America.  It’s time that we talked about the issues and really discussed facts and not fear mongering.  We’ve got to get away from the President erroneously claiming that “I cannot guarantee that Social Security checks will be sent out on Aug. 3 if a debt ceiling agreement isn’t reached.”  This is complete hogwash, the facts are that there are two kinds of spending in Washington, Mandatory spending, like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Defense; and the second is Discretionary spending which encompasses everything else the government spends money on, like shrimp fitness, Jell-O wrestling and curbing the drinking of Chinese prostitutes.  While Obama and the Democrats are pressing the idea that simply increasing our spending limit is the answer, Republicans are looking to make the cuts to sustain our nation.  Ask yourself this, if you made $20,000 per year, owed your credit card company $140,000 and your debt limit is $150,000 which has already been increased a dozen times, is the answer to curbing your debt limit another increase?  Any rational thinking person knows the answer is no, it’s cutting your debt, paying off that credit card and understanding your limits.

The reality is that simply cutting discretionary spending, even if you cut all of it, wouldn’t fix our debt situation.  The real beef when it comes to our federal budget is in the Mandatory spending.  In 2011 (as of 9AM on July 22), our largest budget items are Medicare/Medicaid ($822.5 Billion), Social Security ($715.4 Billion) and Defense ($701.8).  They are followed by Income Security/Welfare ($421.8 Billion), Interest on the Debt ($212.6 Billion) and Federal Pensions ($212 Billion).  We have a national debt over $14.5 Trillion that works out to $46,577 of debt for every man, woman and child in the United States.  Think about that for a moment when you hear “fair share”, if you’re pregnant or just had a baby, your child automatically owes $46,577.  As soon as he/she is born, they start life with more than $46,000 of debt.  Do you think it’s fair to start your son or daughter out owing money before they can even crawl?  We have to start addressing the largest items in the budget instead of ignoring them.  The Democrats would have you believe that income tax revenue is the answer, taking as much as you can from the richest Americans is the answer and attacking corporations is the answer.  You can explore that here, where you will see what happens if you go ahead and “soak the rich”.  The current federal tax revenue is almost $2.2 Trillion while our budget is more than $3.5 Trillion (the Big 6 budget items above, total $3.086 Trillion alone) and the top 50% of wage earners (over $33,048) pay more than 97% of the taxes.  With that said, the top 1%, those earning more than $380,354, pay more than 38% of the federal personal income tax.  What’s fair?  Should they pay 40%, 50%, 60% of the federal income tax?

I’ve laid out facts above and I’ve asked questions of you, as a person.  What’s the right answer?  Is there any way to get to even without cutting spending on the Big 6 budget items?  After watching the Eat the Rich video, seeing the facts about taxes and our debt, can you see any way to get around some cuts to our largest budget items?  So why are the Democrats stalling with a discussion about raising our debt limit?  Because they can use the line, “Well, ok, the Republicans can play chicken with America’s credit rating if they want to but we can’t guarantee that Social Security checks will go out on time.”  They know that you, the average American, the senior, the soon to be retired, the bleeding heart will panic and demand that we continue to be irresponsible with our money.  It’s totally ridiculous.  The Big 6 get paid before the shrimp treadmills, before starving artists and before Jell-O wrestling.  It’s time to stop believing it just because it scares us.  Look it up, find it be true yourself, do your own homework and don’t take my word for it.  Look up the facts I cite and decide for YOURSELF what is true.  I ask you to do the same thing for Melanie Sloan and Christine O’Donnell.  Sloan’s attacks are purely politically based and they are not rooted in any facts.  The few so-called facts she has cited turned out to be outright lies by a man who had no knowledge of any of the events of which he spoke.  We’ve got to question everything she says and take her words with a grain of salt.  Every charge thrown at O’Donnell has ended up being totally false and yet how can we continue to levy a stigma against her?  Imagine if someone accused you of molesting their child who you had never even met and those charges were found to be completely false.  Would you want that accusation to remain on your record regardless of the outcome?  Is that “fair”?