IRS Agent Involved in Targeting Scandal is Promoted.

PUMABydesign001's Blog

irs intimidating republican supporters

One week ago, I prepared a post in which I named IRS agent, Stephen Seok, as one of several IRS agents directly involved in the targeting of Americans who stand in opposition of the Progressive agenda.

Adding insult to injury, IRS agent, Stephen Seok, who signature is on many letters intimidating tea party groups was recently promoted to Supervisor.

Washington Examiner

Through 2012, then-Exempt Organization Specialist Stephen Seok signed many of the intimidating letters sent to conservative nonprofits. For example, this January 2012 letter sent to the Richmond Tea Party demanded the date, time and location of all group events, as well as copies of all handouts provided at the events, and the names and credentials of all organizers. Seok also demanded the names of all speakers and the contents of the speeches they made.

According to WXIX-TV/Fox 19 in Cincinnati, Seok is no longer an exempt organization…

View original post 121 more words

Say What, California?

Last week California officials were touting low premiums for ObamaCare.  This week a Forbes’ blog article flogs them for their stupidly and misleading information.

Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection an...

Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the White House (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Even though they should know by now that their statements and calculation leaks lies like a saturated sponge leaks water, they still try to defend their suppositions.

Take a look at the article found by clicking on the link below and then decide for yourself if there is any reason to climb aboard the train wreck  ObamaCare has been from the instant it was first approved by an inattentive mostly progressive congress led by Pelosi as then Speaker of the House..

Hugh Rate Increase With ObamaCare In California



New York Times Can’t Cut The Cord

The connective tissue between progressives and the New York Times (a progressive mouthpiece) will forever remain secure, never mind the truth of any tale benefiting the conservative agenda. The Isley Brother’s version of “Twist & Shout©,” routines are common operational technique with the “Times,” and their sister prostituted media.

Twist & Shout (album)

Twist & Shout (album) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Their gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands will forever be the trademark of manufactured excuses placed at the feet of their progressive masters. They will never grasp the truth, or if they do, their lack of conscience and honesty will not allow them to tell it.

The American Spectator offers some perfect examples of the progressive way of reporting imperfectly in the cribs of the publishing houses of ill repute.

The Left-Wing News Bubble

Posted: 29 May 2013 12:59 PM PDT

Kaylin is absolutely right about the recent New York Times article on the IRS scandal. The piece alleges that certain groups applying for tax-exempt status deserved to be scrutinized, and that may be true. But it also ignores two weeks of developments in the scandal, including that conservative applications were blocked entirely for 27 months; that the scope of the audits went far beyond 501(c)(4)s; that the harassment wasn’t just carried out by the IRS, but also the Department of Labor, the ATF, the FBI, and OSHA; and that several applications were inappropriately leaked by the IRS to left-wing news outlet ProPublica.

Now the Times’s myopic article is metastasizing across the left. Here’s Steve Benen:

Given this, it’s simply absurd to assume that every conservative group subjected to lengthy IRS examination is a victim of an out-of-control agency acting on partisan motivations. If our tax laws are going to have any meaning, groups like these should be subjected to detailed IRS scrutiny. These aren’t examples of the agency going too far; they’re examples of the agency doing its job.

And Jamelle Bouie:

None of this is to say an investigation of the IRS’s process is unnecessary. There are documented instances when the agency stepped beyond the lines of acceptability. What this shows, however, is that there’s still no substance behind the idea that it was engaged in political or ideological targeting.

And Think Progress:

Under the law, 501(c)(4)s cannot be “primarily engaged” in electioneering activity. Though the guidelines for acceptable levels of political activity are unclear, organizations with such designations operate under the understanding that they are prohibited from spending more than 49 percent of their funds or time on political advocacy.

The IRS wasn’t engaged in political targeting…when it stalled all Tea Party applications for more than two years while waving through liberal ones? The groups were violating election law…and that’s why the DoL was sent in to audit a Romney donor? It may very well be true that 501(c)(4) status is abused and that several conservative groups should have been more closely examined. But that information must be placed in the greater context of this story.

And for the most part, that greater context has been ignored by left-wing pundits. We’ve sat through a lot of supercilious back-patting over the past few years about how conservatives, unlike liberals, are stuck in a bubble where they only communicate with each other in between painful flare-ups of epistemic closure. But what happens when a real story, amounting to an authentic and widespread abuse of power, is discussed almost exclusively within that conservative bubble? It means that those who don’t follow right-wing media end up gazing at the spectacle through a keyhole, discussing that tiny view with those of like minds while missing out on the lion’s share of the story.

Come to think of it, that sounds a bit like a bubble doesn’t it?


New York Times Behind the Times on IRS Scandal

Posted: 29 May 2013 10:27 AM PDT

Over the weekend, the New York Times published an article asserting that some conservative groups targeted by the IRS deserved it.

The headline, “Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics” makes it sound like the only groups that were targeted were breaking the rules. Then they go on to cite several examples of groups that may have been engaging in too much political activity to be considered a 501(c)(4).

It says:

After the tax agency was denounced in recent weeks by President Obama, lawmakers and critics for what they described as improper scrutiny of at least 100 groups seeking I.R.S. recognition, The New York Times examined more than a dozen of the organizations.

This explanation is incredibly limited. In the past few weeks, the true depth of the scandal has been exposed. It wasn’t limited to a few lower-level employees in the Cincinnati office, which was the original story. It wasn’t even limited to the IRS. Conservative groups have said they were targeted by the Labor Department, the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and even the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

And it certainly wasn’t limited to groups applying for 501(c)(4) status. Romney donors, conservative columnists, and a 34-year-old conservative training organization were harassed too.

The idea that this targeting was limited to 100 groups and that many of them deserved it is outrageous. Did some groups participate in activities that should have disqualified them from 501(c)(4) status? Probably. And I’m sure the same abuses could be found with some liberal groups, too.

But the extent of the targeting is not reflected in the article. It makes it sound like these groups just had their applications pulled aside, which is absolutely false. No conservative organizations applying for 501(c)(4) status had their applications approved for 27 months—not one—while progressive groups participating in similar types of activities had their applications approved without trouble.

Liberals love to complain about a right-wing noise machine that adds no substance to the conversation. It’s clear from this article, though, that the New York Times needs to pay more attention to the reporting coming out of that “noise machine,” because it’s way behind on the facts.

Krauthammer: While Last Two Americans Fought for their lives Obama Plotted Cover Up

Krauthammer say what thousands are thinking.

PUMABydesign001's Blog

Obama Abandoned Four Patriots Benghazi

Krauthammer: I think there is a bigger story here is the one that will in time come out. The biggest scandal of all, the biggest question of all is what was the president doing in those eight hours. He had a routine meeting at five o’clock. He never after during the eight hours when our guys have their lives in danger, he never called the Secretary of Defense, he never calls the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he never called the CIA Director. Who does he call? About five hours in he calls the Secretary of State and after the phone call she releases a statement essentially about the video and how we denounce any intolerance.

It looks as if the only phone call was to construct a cover story at a time when the last two Americans who died were still alive and fighting for their lives. There’s the…

View original post 11 more words

Memorial Day Memories For Memorial Day 2013


A Note From Brandon

Memorial Day, perhaps more than any other holiday, was born of human necessity. Deep inside all of us lies a fundamental desire to make sense of life and our place in it and the world. What we have been given, what we will do with it and what we will pass to the next generation is all part of an unfolding history, a continuum that links one soul to another. Abraham Lincoln pondered these thoughts in the late fall of 1863. His darkest fear was that he might well be the last president of the United States, a nation embroiled in the self-destruction of what he described as “a great civil war..testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.” He began his remarks with those words as he stood on the battlefield near Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on November 19th of that year. The minute’s speech that became known as Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address turned into what might be called the first observance of Memorial Day. Lincoln’s purpose that day was to dedicate a portion of the battlefield as a cemetery for the thousands of men, both living and dead, who consecrated that soil in the sacrifice of battle. Said Abraham Lincoln: “That from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause which they gave the last full measure of devotion…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom…” The next year, a pleasant Sunday in October of 1864 found a teenage girl, Emma Hunter, gathering flowers in a Boalsburg, Pennsylvania cemetery to place on the grave of her father. He was a surgeon who had died in service to the Union Army in that great Civil War. Nearby, Mrs. Elizabeth Meyer was strewing flowers upon the grave of her son Amos, a private who had fallen on the last day of the battle of Gettysburg. Emma respectfully took a few of her flowers and put them on the grave of Amos. Mrs. Meyer, in turn, laid some of her freshly cut blooms on the grave of Dr. Hunter. Both women felt a lightening of their burdens by this act of honoring each other’s loss, and agreed to meet again the next year. This time they agreed they would also visit the graves of those who had no one left to honor them. Both Emma Hunter and Elizabeth Meyer returned to the cemetery in Boalsburg on the day they had agreed, Independence Day, July 4, 1865. This time, though, they found themselves joined by nearly all the residents of the town. Dr. George Hall, a clergyman, offered a sermon, and the community joined in decorating every grave in the cemetery with flowers and flags. The custom became an annual event at Boalsburg, and it wasn’t long before neighboring communities established their own “Decoration Day” each spring. About that same time in 1865, a druggist in Waterloo, New York, Henry C. Welles, began promoting the idea of decorating the graves of Civil War veterans. He gained the support of the Seneca County Clerk, General John B. Murray, and they formed a committee to make wreaths, crosses and bouquets for each veteran’s grave. On May 5, 1866, war veterans marching to martial music led processions to each of three cemeteries, where the graves were decorated and speeches were made by General Murray and local clergymen. The village itself was also decorated with flags at half-mast, evergreen boughs and mourning black streamers. Also, as the Civil War was coming to a close in the spring of 1865, Women’s Auxiliaries of the North and South moved from providing relief to the families and soldiers on their own sides to joining in efforts to preserve and decorate the graves of both sides. A woman of French extraction and leader of the Virginia women’s movement, Cassandra Oliver Moncure, took responsibility of coordinating the activities of several groups into a combined ceremony on May 30. It is said that she picked that day because it corresponded to the Day of Ashes in France, a solemn day that commemorates the return of the remains of Napoleon Bonaparte to France from St. Helena. In 1868, General John A. Logan, first commander of the Grand Army of the Republic issued a General Order establishing May 30 as an official memorial day to pay respect to all those who had died, in war or peace. His order was that the men in his command should spend a portion of that day policing the gravesites, decorating them and supporting whatever ceremonies they could. He hoped that this would spark enough interest to make Memorial Day a permanent national observance. In the intervening decades, Memorial Day has been observed every year, though the day was re-established from May 30 to the last Monday in May. In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson also sanctioned Waterloo, New York as the “official” birthplace of Memorial Day because of the extensive ceremonies established there in 1866. Perhaps General Logan was simply making official what the nation yearned for and spontaneously began to form after the near total destruction of the Civil War. It is that sharing of loss, honoring the sacrifices of those who made possible the lives we enjoy today, and family connections across the generations that keep Memorial Day in our hearts…and always will. SOURCE: “John Shepler’s Writing in a Positive Light.”


“Tribute,” by Robert Steiner US Army Retired


The winter sun glistens on the white marble tomb,

but we sense no remorse, no hint of gloom,

No regret that he marched when others ran,

True to his Homeland, here lies a man!

At a time of turmoil, in a land of cowards,

he went to the strife.

In a steamy Asian jungle, where locals feared to go,

For us, he gave his life;

Under white marble rests this hero, now dead.

But where are the tears that his life’s blood was shed?

Honored he rests in this hallowed ground

Where a sentry’s step is the only sound.

His sleep is eternal, under polished stone,

Except to GOD, forever unknown!

                   Robert  Steiner

COMMENT:  Originally written in the early 80’s, at a time when many Vietnam  Veterans could well-remember being treated less than honorably by their government, and fellow citizens. The writing reflects frustration and the bitterness, then common, among most veterans of that conflict in S.E. Asia.

Often The Names Do Not Tell All

Take the article posted below from OpenSecrets.  While the names of the two organizations seeking 501C(4) status sound very conservative, information discovered about both reveal they are about as progressive as they come, and in their case, we could say they come and go repeatedly.

We post this article under a creative commons license and you may click here to read the terms of the license.

OpenSecrets Blog

Shape-Shifting by Liberal Dark Money Groups Seems Meant to Confuse

IRS employees who sent overly detailed questionaires to some groups applying for tax-exempt status in recent years used words like “tea party” and “patriot” to try to filter out those that planned to be heavily involved in politics (a big no-no).bigstock-tangled-wire-isolated-on-white-21683192.jpgAs it turns out, not only was that improper; it’s not even very effective. For instance, two liberal groups that have faded in and out of the political scene mysteriously and repeatedly over several years bear names that few would associate, at first glance, with progressive causes: Citizens for Strength and Security, and Patriot Majority.

As we’ve laid out in our Shadow Money Trail stories over more than a year, tax-exempt 501(c)(4)s are hard to track: They don’t have to disclose their donors, they don’t have to file tax forms until nearly a year after the close of their fiscal years, and those tax forms require very little detailed information.It’s far worse when the paper trail is full of dead ends — by design.

Here’s what we’ve learned about the evolving identity of the first group, Citizens for Strength and Security:

  • 2009: A liberal 501(c)(4) group, Americans for Stable Quality Health Care (ASQHC), is established, raising and spending nearly $47 million that year. Included in that is a grant to another 501(c)(4), the Foundation for Patients Rights, which had no other source of income.
  • 2010: Foundation for Patients Rights is terminated. It gives what’s left of its funds to an arm of ASQHC that is not a 501(c)(4), but a 527 group. And it’s not called ASQHC, but Citizens for Strength and Security Action Fund. It’s housed at a different address from the first organization, but is run by the same consultants.
  • 2011: Citizens for Strength and Security, the 501(c)(4), shuts down, having spent more than $50 million on “media buys” in 2009 and 2010.
  • Also 2011: The consultants who ran the 527 create a new 501(c)(4): Citizens for Strength and Security Fund (no “Action”). CSSF then starts a super PAC simply called Citizens for Strength and Security.

Through it all, the various groups seemed to have many of the same addresses and board members in common.

Here’s another way to look at it:


To elaborate: In its first year, Citizens for Strength and Security (then ASQHC) raised $47 million with a staff of only two people. The pair — who appear to have been employees of the consulting firm Hilltop Public Solutions — worked an average of two hours a week. They drew no salary from the group, but two firms that share an address with Hilltop — SA Productions and Data  and S&B Public Solutions LLC — were paid more than $3.4 million for “issue advocacy” and “coalition management” in 2009 and 2010.

In 2009, the vast majority of ASQHC’s spending went toward media production and airtime — with at least $40 million being paid to the shadowy consulting firm Waterfront Strategies, a unit of the big media firm GMMB, which did work for President Obama’s campaign, among others. Waterfront was one of twelve contractors, other than SA Productions, to receive at least $100,000 from ASQHC. Since tax-exempt groups are required to list only their top five contractors, we don’t know who else is on the list.
One of the only non-advocacy expenditures made by ASQHC came in the form of a $1.24 million grant to another “social welfare” organization called Foundation for Patients Rights — not to be confused with Center to Protect Patient Rights. That grant made up the entirety of FPR?s 2009 revenues, and most of that money ($1.1 million) subsequently went right out the door as spending on ?media.? (FPR never filed any reports with the FEC, but it’s possible the organization ran “issue ads” that it didn’t have to report to the election agency.)
The Foundation for Patients Rights terminated the following year, after only 15 months in existence — entirely funded by ASQHC’s grants. But before shutting down, it spent more than $800,000 on ?ads and production.” It also gave $180,000 to ASQHC’s union- and industry-backed 527, not its 501(c)(4) — the latter being where all the money had come from to begin with. The “Health Care” component of the groups’ name was gone by this time, though. The 527 receiving the money was called Citizens for Strength and Security. Grantor and grantee shared the same address — a UPS store in Washington, D.C.
Thus, money that had begun in a social welfare group’s account wound its way through another 501(c)(4) and ended up with an arm of the originating group that had fewer restrictions on its political spending. And in fact, the CSS 527 raised and spent close to $10 million, most of it in 2010. One of its top contributors was the Democratic Governors Association, which gave it $3.3 million that year.
That same year, 2010, Americans for Stable Quality Care changed its name to Citizens for Strength and Security Action Fund and filed its first spending reports with the FEC — using the M St. address of another group, Patriot Majority USA (about which we’ll have more later). It reported $1.4 million in spending to the FEC, but the group told the IRS it spent $9.3 million on ?media buys and production expenses? — most of it going once again to Waterfront Strategies. (As before, some of it may have been used for issue ads not reported to election authorities, but the IRS doesn’t require detailed spending reports.)
Like other (c)(4)s, CSS Action Fund can keep its donors’ identities secret. But one surprising benefactor has come to light: the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association.  Its $2.5 million grant — first reported by the Center for Public Integrity — made up about 19 percent of CSS Action Funds’s total revenues in 2010.
In 2011, CSS Action Fund shut its doors. But the same year, a 501(c)(4) called Citizens for Strength and Security Fund (minus the “Action”) set up shop at the old Foundation for Patients Rights address — which a recent Frontline documentary revealed to be a UPS store. And its board members are the same as those of the old CSS 527, Lora Haggard and Jeremy Van Ess. The latter is connected with Hilltop. The new (c)(4) went on to fund its own super PAC, called simply Citizens for Strength and Security.
The new (c)(4) group had a new address and a new employer identification number (the IRS assigns a unique EIN to every distinct organization that has employees) but it was still linked to figures close to the old organization. Its mission, too, was the same, except for the deletion of “health care” from the description — the Affordable Care Act having already been signed into law.
Neither of the two 501(c)(4) groups in the Citizens for Strength and Security family appear to have sought exempt status from the IRS — or if they did, they don’t appear to have received it, something that would have been highly unusual. Still, more than $60 million flowed through these organizations, much of it going into the political arena.
Patriot Majority
Citizens for Strength and Security is not alone in the process of surreptitious rebirth. Another liberal group, Patriot Majority USA — some of whose activities OpenSecrets Blog first reported last year — has been engaged in a similar evolution, employing some of the same tactics that seem designed to mask the doings of the complicated constellation of organizations known as Patriot Majority.


The network includes multiple 527s, a super PAC, and a 501(c)(4). Its 501(c)(4) arm has been killed off twice, each time rising anew.
The first iteration of the group, Patriot Majority for a Stronger America, began as the 501(c)(4) ?Midwest Alliance for Better Government? in 2006. It shut its doors in 2009. Meanwhile, though, another (c)(4), American Alliance for Economic Development, had been formed in 2008 with the same employees — none of whom drew a salary — at the same address. (It was also the same address that Citizens for Strength and Security Action Fund, the group discussed above, would use in later FEC filings.)In 2010, American Alliance changed its name to Patriot Majority USA. Then, as OpenSecrets Blog reported last year, Patriot Majority USA gave large sums of money to two politically active, liberal 501(c)(4)sAmerica Votes and VoteVets. Both of these groups then gave large grants to Patriot Majority’s own political 527 account. In essence, money appears to have gone from Patriot Majority USA’s nondisclosing social welfare account through two other social welfare groups, ultimately making its way into Patriot Majority’s 527 account.

In 2011, Patriot Majority USA began using a P.O. box as its mailing address, then filed a termination report. The same year, another 501(c)(4) called Patriot Majority USA — housed at that very same P.O. box, boasting the same board, and even listing the terminated Patriot Majority USA as an affiliate — filed its initial tax return. It would be Patriot Majority USA version 3.0 that would end up being the first to report to the FEC making direct, political expenditures — rather than passing the money first through a super PAC or 527.
The latest iteration of Patriot Majority USA was very active in the 2012 campaign season, telling the FEC it spent $7 million on ads. Yet despite the fact that it is not supposed to be primarily a political organization, it doesn’t appear to have done much since the elections. Its YouTube page has not been updated in the six months since early November, and its homepage — which, structurally, has been virtually unchanged through the last two versions of the organization — has been stripped down to bare-bones auto-updating content such as a sidebar of “this day in history” facts.
IRS Oversight 
No one affiliated with Patriot Majority or Citizens for Strength and Security responded to our repeated requests to explain why they engage in this complicated process of reincarnation and money shuffling. We tried all of the phone numbers listed on the Citizens for Strength & Security documents, and we contacted Hilltop Public Solutions. Nobody would comment. Craig Varoga, who has overseen the Patriot Majority groups, also did not respond to calls or emails. (Varoga is not anxious to be found; year after year, he lists “no@email” in the email address field on IRS forms for his organization.)
Nonprofit experts contacted by OpenSecrets Blog could not think of a practical motivation for their actions. “It?s hard to tell what is going on here,” said Marcus Owens, former head of the Internal Revenue Service’s Exempt Organizations division, “but starting and terminating organizations makes it more difficult for the IRS to identify who did what when.”
Ellen Aprill, professor of tax law at Loyola University in Los Angeles, speculated that the groups might have feared they’d violated a tax rule and decided it was better to dissolve “either to be good going forward or, if we were to take a cynical, Machiavellian view, to continue to ignore rules by operating briefly and then dissolving to do the same thing again.”
irs logo.jpgWhat we do know is that the IRS is not an agency built for political oversight or transparency, and these groups could very well be using the agency’s weaknesses as an added layer of cover for their activities.
The IRS’s primary legal responsibility is to protect information, rather than disclose it, and that is reflected in almost every aspect of the nonprofit infrastructure.  Groups are not required to get the agency’s blessing to claim 501(c)(4) status, and if they don’t they aren’t included in the IRS summary data listing all the tax-exempt organizations it oversees. Annual tax filings are submitted long after they are relevant; even after they’re filed, the IRS doesn’t provide them  — nor any of the relevant data — online or in machine-readable format.

On the rare occasion that an organization’s exempt status is revoked or denied, little to nothing about it is public. As we described in part five of our recent Shadow Money Magic report, the IRS doesn’t tell the FEC or the public that the group might be required to disclose its donors. Rather, most groups could simply pay their federal income taxes and fade away, except in cases of prominent organizations like Crossroads GPS — which applied for exempt status nearly three years ago and has yet to receive it. (This week a Crossroads spokesman told the Los Angeles Times that his group may have been a victim of the IRS’ heightened scrutiny of conservative groups.) Denial letters are made public only after they are scrubbed of all identifying information. Furthermore, formal denials are often unnecessary because, according to Lois Lerner, IRS Director of Exempt Organizations, “many organizations withdraw their application for exemption when they learn that a denial is forthcoming.”

For its part, Citizens for Strength and Security doesn’t appear to ever have sought exempt status for either of its 501(c)(4) incarnations. Patriot Majority USA, on the other hand, applied for, and received, exempt status at least twice, according to its most recent letter granting exempt status, obtained by OpenSecrets Blog. In that letter and the accompanying documents, Patriot Majority USA acknowledged that it had “substantially similar activities and goals” as the old Patriot Majority USA, which it refers to in the filing by its previous name, Alliance for Economic Development.In the document, it also explains that it had no intentions of hiring employees, opting instead to depend on “a large base of volunteers who will be responsible for contributing to, developing, and disseminating the organization’s message.”  At the time it filed its first annual filing, the organization boasted about $2.9 million in revenues, but no volunteers.
In the course of their evaluation of Patriot Majority USA’s request for exempt status, IRS staffers don’t appear ever to have inquired about Patriot Majority USA’s previous two iterations, and the third incarnation was granted exempt status once again, after a wait of only three months. That was in 2011, a time when many other organizations waited far longer to receive approval as IRS staffers screened (often inappropriately) applicants for hidden political agendas. Ironically, this group’s application sailed through though its name contained the word “patriot,” one of the terms the IRS supposedly looked for, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration.
However, in a final twist, it now appears that the IRS might have revoked the tax exempt status of the last two versions of Patriot Majority USA. The IRS data that includes listings of all exempt organizations no longer contains records for the group. Washington, D.C.’s Corporations Division still lists Patriot Majority as “active,” and there are few other explanations for its absence from the list. “It could mean that their status was revoked after an audit and for cause,” tax attorney Owens says.
But that’s between Patriot Majority USA and the IRS. The public won’t be told anything, and the FEC won’t be notified. The donors behind the millions spent by Patriot Majority in the 2012 election will remain safely on the dark side of Section 6103 of the US Code.
Reporting intern Janie Boschma contributed to this post.

Reminder From Leadership Institute For Training

Leadership Institute

Dear friend,

We write to remind you about our upcoming event: Issues That Unite: Hispanics & Conservatism (ITU) at the Albuquerque Marriott on 2101 Louisiana Blvd NE. We look forward to meeting and chatting with you at our networking reception right at 5 p.m. To learn more click here.

We would like to extend an invitation to our Campaign Management Workshop on Saturday June 1 at 9:30 a.m. (also at the Albuquerque Marriott). We all agree the information discussed on Thursday’s Issues That Unite event is very important, take that knowledge and equip yourself with the tools to run a successful operation. Register using the code ITU and you will receive 20% off.Topics will include:— Designing a winning campaign
— Researching the electoral district
— Building coalitions
— Identifying and activating conservatives
— Developing a persuasive message that resonates
— Raising funds for your campaign
— Turning out your supporters to winRegister to attend the Campaign Management Workshop in Albuquerque on Saturday June 1 at 9:30 a.m.For more information and to register please click here or call us at 909-996-9391.Cordially,Paulo Sibaja
Director of Coalitions
The Leadership Institute

P.S. use code ITU and get 20% off your registration for Saturday’s June 1 Campaign Management Workshop.