Chambers: IRS Scandal Explains Unskewed Inaccuracy

Dean Chambers cracks me up. He seems to be made up of three equal parts: delusion, self-aggrandizement and stupidity. After his epic fail in last year’s election, you’d think he would have just faded from view and spent the rest of his life trying to overcome the shame, but he’s now been thrown a rope — sure, he was dead wrong about the election results, but only because of the IRS scandal!

Yes, he actually argues that the IRS scandal is how Obama stole the election and that if not for that, his predictions would have been spot on. His modus operandi is to note the four states he missed on, point out that there may have been a conservative group in that state that was targeted by the IRS for additional scrutiny and then declare, with no evidence whatsoever, that if that group had only gotten their tax-exempt status, Romney would have won that state and he — Dean Chambers — would have been vindicated as the sage soothsayer he truly is.

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 and other activities, that I believe clearly denied Mitt Romney the election that clearly would have won by about the very margin I predicted on November 5 of last year. The 2012 election is proven to be bogus, and I have no doubt that the Obama Regime stole that election with a variety of tactics and strategies that suppressed at least 7 million Romney votes across the country, as well as at least 2-3 million more votes gained in the Obama column via voters fraud in several key swing states.

In the officially reported results, Obama won the popular vote by 65.9 million votes to Romney’s 60.9 million votes, or a margin of 5 million votes. I predicted Romney would win about 66.4 million votes to Obama’s 64.1 million votes. If you remove the voter fraud-accounted vote from Obama’s total and add the likely suppressed votes to Romney’s total, you’d arrive at numbers quite close to that projection.

I was only wrong in those projections because I was not aware nor did I calculate in the voter fraud and the voter suppression, both of which exceeded the margin by which Barack Obama was declared the winner of that election last Fall. In the five states discussed about, Mitt Romney lost those states collectively by only 847,329 votes, or 527,589 in the other four states not including Pennsylvania, which are the very four states where I projected Romney winning and the official results shows Obama winning. 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. An honest election free of voter fraud and vote suppression would have been won by Mitt Romney by a margin quite close to what I predicted.

That’s almost kinda cute, isn’t it? He actually believes that 2-3 million people committed voter fraud without getting caught. Seriously, how delusional do you have to be to believe such a thing?

"We need a new term to describe this kind of mentality especially in light of ..."

AL Governor Thinks Moore Did It, ..."
"Again, he didn't specify they were all human females."

OH Gov. Candidate Defends Franken by ..."
"Oh, please. Ankh-Morpork has had elections before. It's just that you were disqualified from running ..."

OH Gov. Candidate Defends Franken by ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • blf

    The 2012 election is proven to be bogus…

    Citation needed.

  • CaitieCat

    Seriously, how delusional do you have to be to believe such a thing?

    Given the demographic pattern of Republican vote-suppression attempts, I’d say the appropriate question is more probably “How racist do you have to be to believe such a thing?”

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    So what he’s saying is that their 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)s are really political groups, which they can’t be to be 501s, meaning the IRS, which shouldn’t have been looking closer at their applications, did its job by looking closer at their applications.

  • Randomfactor

    Bingo, Modus.

  • unbound

    Modus beat me to it. Yep, Dean pretty much admitted that the GOP actively runs fraud schemes.

  • lclane2

    And of course if Chambers’ allegation is true then the IRS was absolutely correct to be skeptical of these applications.

  • http://drx.typepad.com Dr X

    @3, bears repeating.

    I wonder how many people ranting about this scandal are upset primarily because they feel that the political influence of these groups was negated by the pre-election delays? I’ve read a number of conservative blog comments arguing that the delays were consequential precisely because they came before the election, but isn’t that an admission that the groups should have been scrutinized and rejected?

  • kantalope

    Anyone know – the funds that the 501’s collect is not taxed and are the contributions also tax deductible and then the distributed funds do they get taxed on that end?

  • Ben P

    Anyone know – the funds that the 501′s collect is not taxed and are the contributions also tax deductible and then the distributed funds do they get taxed on that end?

    Section 501(c) describes groups that are tax exempt nonprofits. That is, the entity itself does not have to pay corporate income taxes (or sales or property taxes in some circumstances). There are 29 different categories.

    501(c)(3) is the important one, not only is a (c)(3) organization itself tax exempt, donations to a 501(c)(3) may be deducted from personal income as charitable donations. In general a 501(c)(3) must be for “religious, educational, charitable or scientific purposes.”

    Getting 501(c)(3) status is a fairly onerous process. You specifically have to fill out an application, and the application has to be granted before any exemptions take effect.

    A 501(c)(3) is not allowed to endorse any political candidate and is heavily restricted from lobbying (they may not spend a “substantial part” of thir income on lobbying, although this may be up to $1m a year.

    501(c)(4) allows nonprofits that are “Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees” to claim tax exempt status. (c)(4) status requires only a declaration, but may be subject to investigation if the declaration is insufficient. A 501(c)(4) may support political candidates and engage in lobbying, but its purpose may not be “primarily political.”

    Donations to a 501(c)(4) are not tax exempt by the donor, but the organization itself is tax exempt.

    A separate section, Section 527 of the Internal revenue service governs political nonprofit groups, which are also tax exempt. Section 527 covers any group that is “created primarily to influence the selection, nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office.”

    The catch is that a 527 group specifically must disclose all of its income sources, and identify donors. Thereby rendering the whole anonymous election spending thing moot.

  • kantalope

    thanks BenP

  • Matrim

    So what he’s saying is that their 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)s are really political groups, which they can’t be to be 501s, meaning the IRS, which shouldn’t have been looking closer at their applications, did its job by looking closer at their applications.

    QFMFT. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I hear conservatives talking about the effects of this IRS “scandal.” One the one hand they are cutting the throat of their own argument, on the other nobody seems to care.

  • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    By the way, Ed, just for your amusement, here’s what else Chambers is up to at the moment.

    (Warning: autoplay video at link target)