So… Barack Obama won re-election to the office of President of the United States, and Republican challenger Mitt Romney has slipped into obscurity faster than any candidate I’ve ever seen. Aside from futile, quasi-navel gazing posturing on the part of Congress over the “fiscal cliff” upon which the American economy is perched, news coverage since the election has been rife with diversion and non-issues.

We’re already sick of hearing autopsies of the Romney campaign. Suffice it to say that there is a host of reasons that Romney should not have been the GOP nominee, and that he could have run his campaign better. For years, conservatives have been driving home the point that when the Republican Party wants to win, it should advance conservative candidates, which Romney was most assuredly not. They have also rightly pointed out that Romney did not run on any of the party base’s core principles, thus failing to provide a distinction between him and Obama.

Generally, when someone cries foul after a defeat, more often than not the charge is simply sour grapes, thus it is not considered seemly to cry foul without good reason. When the evidence of cheating on the part of a victor is staring one in the face, however, it becomes a moral obligation to at least discuss the matter – and the fact that two-thirds of the electorate aren’t aware that the Obama administration is a fundamentally nefarious one hardly matters in such a pursuit.

As we got increasingly closer to the 2012 general election, it was my assertion that Obama would not be re-elected without employing widespread fraud of one form or another. Given the character of the Obama campaign, I took it for granted that fraud would be rampant, but the extent to which it might affect the election was then unknown. Now, at a week out from the election, there are still US congressional races that remain in question, and voter turnout numbers that just don’t add up. From counties across America showing well over 100% voter turnout, to precincts reporting 99% voter turnout for Obama, to military ballots being delayed or destroyed in plane crashes, to the illegal ejection of Republican inspectors from polling places, and much more, we have scenarios that would have every Democrat operative in the country screaming from the rooftops if the shoe was on the other foot.
Now, it appears that Americans are being asked to presume that Obama “would have won anyway.”

After the election, we moved on – almost too quickly – to discussions of immigration reform, and subsequently the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus, ostensibly over an extramarital affair, but also in the wake of the Benghazigate, which reeks of criminality on the part of the Obama administration. It is a shame that such a renowned military man is being brought down over a lurid scandal that might have threatened national security, but what’s really surprising is not that Petraeus resigned when he did, but that he isn’t getting fist bumps from Obama cabinet members in public for being such a stud.

The pre-election data simply did not point to such a decisive win for Obama. Cyberspace is awash in verifiable reports of polling place and fraud complaints, as well as inordinate voter turnout. I don’t doubt for a nanosecond that technical tampering would be beneath this administration either, and with Obama’s affinity for technology, his connections in the high-tech industry, and available government resources, such tampering would have been child’s play.

For the same reasons that few in positions of power have been willing to pursue investigations of Obama on any level (whether it is on the issue of his eligibility, lifelong radical ties, the murder of former associates, unconstitutional executive orders, Fast and Furious, his hand in the Arab Spring, fraternization with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist terror supporters, or Benghazigate), they will fail to do so now. As sad and sickening as it sounds,