Dinesh D’Souza – indicted Campaign Finance Laws –Equal Treatment Under the Law

The New York Times is reportingthe the Conservative, Author and Filmmaker (Obama 2016), has been indicted on charges stemming from reimbursing donors to a NY Senate Campaign, whereby he had exceeded the maximum personal contribution limit.

Although it is, today, the first thought that anyone conservative who is asked to an audit, or indicted is obviously being targeted, perhaps in this instance, given his high profile the odds are greater than average that this was the case.

That said, D’Souza is a smart guy, and should have known better, even if he was, as his lawyer states, helping a friend, and apparently was misguided (New York Times), it is the individuals reasonability to ensure that all is right with any arm of the government that requests one give them cash.

At the age of 16, this blogger was audited by the Massachusetts DOR, having worked perhaps 3 months of that year; it was intimidating to say the least. The agent suggested these were random, and that all was in order, however, what that made clear to me, was to insure that my taxes, both state and federal were up to “snuff”, running multiple audit tests to insure any forms were perfect.

All American’s should have a healthy respect for an agency that wields so much power – frankly I’d like to see a flat tax so that there would be no need to have the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. But, that’s another issue.

Others have broken the same laws, and one understands that there is a slight difference when say it is the finance director of a Clinton Campaign(Fox News 2005), or the fact that certain administrations (Clinton’s) had multiple indictments against their associates with some repercussions(Washington Post, 1988)

Therefore, it’s a 50/50 coin toss as to persecution or basic, you broke it, you fix it with the Feds

The reason it ranks as persecution tall is the fact that conservatives have been targeted by the IRS, therefore a prominent conservative would have a large target on their bank accounts. However, again, he should have known better. The question is, will he be able to walk away, like Rangel, Frank, or so many others who have made ”mistakes” in filing – including this Administration’s Tim Geithner.

That is doubtful. One will get a flavor of a witch-hunt, once the media starts to rally (as of this morning), as to which way this story will spin out of Washington. If D’Souza did, in enthusiasm, break the law, he should suffer the same fate as say, tax cheat Charlie Rangel, and be immediately elected to Congress.

2016 Pre-Update – Rand Paul suggested as likely GOP front-runner – Making Sense of Changing Attitudes in Political Think

Senator Paul, during his filibuster, attracting both left and right over personal liberty - image Sioux City Journal

The Atlantic article titled “Rand Paul is the 2016 Republican Frontrunner” suggests the obvious, assuming that Chris Christie was a serious contender for 2016, or even considering it, and the same can be said of the Senator from Kentucky. If what the Atlantic article suggests were verified in the next 6 to 12 months, that both men were announced candidates for the nomination, there is no doubt that Paul would be the frontrunner.

The reasons are fairly simple, the first being that the media (certain progressive circles) attempt to minimize Paul at every step, from absurd charges of “racism” due to an affiliation with a staff member (who was summarily fired) to charges of “plagiarism” – which was based on the correctness of footnotes, the petty is playing large, as frankly, there is nothing else about the Senator that is remotely touchable. That has to scare a few analysts. He is popular with both bases, as a Libertarian, he is grounded in the Constitution, pleasing the right, whiel at the same time, anti-war, which pleases those on the left. He’s likable, young, a doctor, and does not tread the normal byways of the GOP.

He is the one candidate that one might consider to be free of political sin, and furthermore, not vested in Washington for Decades.

Should he decide to run, in due course, he would certainly be a front-runner. For those who approve of a little push-back against both parties, and Congressional procedures such as a filibuster, Paul ranks the highest in the current “fantasy presidential candidates” sweepstakes. The fact that John McCain referred to him as a “dangerous wacko bird” is just the icing on the cake.

He just might be the next shiny new Presidential candidate, as the left is geriatric at best, with names seen too often, with one exception, Elizabeth Warren, who, although a darling of the left, may not have the juice to unseat a Hillary Clinton (there is the super-delegate though), and should she do so, has less time in the Senate and no practical experience running anything –as a college professor.

Also is it doubtful that Paul would play into the power struggle that was the GOP – after the last two debacles – Romney & McCain, it’s time to recast the party – the Libertarian branch is reminiscent now of the “Know Nothings”, that first formed a viable national party – the Republicans, and elected one Abraham Lincoln. Possible, and probable – Paul is the one to watch for now.

Wendy Davis and Hillary Clinton – Matter Much? – Yes and No

Wendy Davis, Democrat from Texas who is seeking the Governor’s office, apparently has had a few problems in the past. She was the gunner for the pro-abortion lobby, and ensured that Texans had the “right to choose”, yet her past is catching up with her. The Washington Post suggests that although she may have problems with her resume (which is not, when right and left clash in print, the only problems), but she had to run for Governor and lose.. The aforementioned makes no sense at all – in the real world, instead of making excuses for Ms. Davis, ahead of a loss in Texas in 2014, why not vet her first, find a credible female Democrat to run in her stead (surely there is one that hold Progressive tenets and has no .. scandals or misdemeanors or jail time in their past?)

Hillary Clinton is being ballyhooed as the front runner for 2016 – Politico reports that she is cleaning Chris Christies clock in the polls – a veritable shoe in, a done deal. While other news reports suggest that perhaps Benghazi may come back to haunt her – are either a factor?

First Christie, not necessarily the candidate of choice for the Conservative does not have yet to declare, nor has anyone else for that matter, and polls taken only pit Christie against Clinton. The danger there is that the public is led to believe that she is infallible and Christie is the only one running. Secondly, Clinton has run and was, quite clearly, robbed of the nomination in 2008, but that was history – the two major political parties appear to play a game of “the loser get’s the second chance”. In other words, should one come in second, one will come in first the very next opportunity. Never mind that there may be baggage now that was not there in 2008, given her close association tot his administration, and the additional fact that the public is growing sick of the Washington elite.

Yet, depending upon who does run, Clinton may be the best choice – baggage and all. If another female with impeccable credentials, a Governor perhaps, who has held the seat for at the least one full term, would do.

Sadly, the public is weary, both sides of the aisle and their respective media outlets, have hammered the Republican versus Democrat battle to the point where one can’t even stand to read an article, listen to a newscast or even get the energy up to care a whit – which is good news if a candidate is not the darling of either media, or exclusively branded with a major political party. Yes, once again, America needs a shiny new toy, to hold up on a pedestal, but this time, the low information voter may not be so quick to choose, and may want more in the way of leadership than slogans.

Which begs the question for both sides of the aisle and both genders – is there anyone at all, without the baggage or the brand -who would risk the backlash and the cash to take on the nightmare that surely will be the next President’s inheritance?

If a woman does run, regardless of which one, for which race, one would hope that the criticisms of which there will be many would focus on their political acumen, their management skills, rather than their personal lives and/or their wardrobe.