ACTION

Being a Tea Party member places a HUGE target on your back.  The tax exempt scandal proved that the IRS will go to great lengths to deprive honest Americans their constitutional rights.  I contacted the IRS Criminal Investigation Unit on May 9^th, 2014 and informed them that I could verify whether President Obama was a tax fraud in 1 minute!  The IRS sent me a letter on May 20^th, 2014 stating that my Whistleblower Form 211 didn’t contain an original signature.  This was a blatant lie on behalf of the IRS.  I suspect the IRS “lost” my signed original in the same manner they lost Lois Lerner’s emails.  I mailed a second “signed” Form 211 on May 30^th, 2014.  The IRS has never launched an investigation to determine whether Barack Obama committed a felony by willfully failing to pay his federal taxes.   

5 WAYS TO PROVE PRESIDENT OBAMA COMMITED FRAUD! 

1. Chairman Dave Camp of the Joint Tax Committee can request Barack Obama’s IRS Account Transcript for 1990.  At a minimum, this would confirm that BO failed to pay social security taxes on his book advance and currently owes the U.S. Treasury between $43,000 and $130,000.

2. Congress can subpoena Barack Obama’s social security earnings records for 1990.  Don’t worry about the CIA trying to redact these records.  If 1990 isn’t available, then subpoena every year from 1991 through 2014.  Records can be altered but computer forensics will leave a complete picture of the fraud.

3. American Center for Law and Justice Attorney Jay Sekulow can file a lawsuit to obtain the release of Barack Obama’s social security records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).    

4. Subpoena Harvard Law School financial aid department to verify timing of $43,000 in student loans from 1988 through 1991.  Did BO defraud the federal government by pleading poverty on his student loan applications after he was flush with cash after receiving a $75,000 book advance?

5. Congress can extract Barack Obama’s 2006 Senate Financial Disclosure Report.  Did President Obama submit a fraudulent report by failing to report an outstanding federal tax liability approaching $40,000. 

5 REASONS I BELIEVE PRESIDENT OBAMA IS A FRAUD 

1. Barack Obama would have needed to write out a check to the Internal Revenue Service for $26,490 just four and ½ months after receiving his $75,000 book advance in November of 1990.  BO’s personal accountant may have filed an amended tax return in later years but he would have conveniently forgotten that the book advance required BO to pay the IRS $8,370 in social security taxes. 

2. Barack Obama was incompetent when he prepared his 2001 tax return.  He made 10 math errors, prepared three different versions, claimed phantom income of $21,000 and overpaid his taxes by $7,300.

3. BO remembered grass falling from his grandmother’s apron in the book Dreams From My Father.   How is it possible that BO could recall events that happened 25 years ago but can’t remember the content of his speech he read five minutes earlier without the aid of a teleprompter?

4. Barack Obama accumulated 17 parking tickets while attending Harvard and paid just two in February of 1990.  Nine months later BO received a $75,000 book advance but made no attempt to pay his delinquent parking tickets.

5. Barack Obama received book income of $1.5 million in 2005.  Why did BO wait to pay his delinquent Harvard parking tickets just two weeks before announcing his candidacy for President in 2007?

 I’m the only Certified Public Accountant that has been involved in an Impeachment Trial of a presiding Governor in the last 70 years. If I’m wrong about President Obama being a tax fraud I will personally pay my way to Guantanamo Bay.  Let the water boarding begin!

It’s everything you’d expect from All In With Chris Hayes, and so much less … less common sense, less intellectually honest, and less respectful of faith. Renowned Jesuit author Fr. James Martin looks at times like he’d accidentally wandered into a lunatic asylum during this segment, and after watching five minutes of Chris Hayes and Harvard’s Christopher Robichaud treat the now-cancelled “black mass” event like an actual religious practice rather than a hate-speech mockery of the Catholic Mass, Fr. Martin will not be alone in that confusion:

Martin offers a very close analogy when he suggests that Harvard wouldn’t have tolerated the burning of a Koran, even if wrapped in pseudo-religious practice. Muslims see that as a desecration of their religion, just as Catholics see the “black mass” — and given the nearly step-by-step mockery of Catholic liturgy in the latter, Catholics have a much better case to make. The entire point of this “service” is hatred towards Catholics in particular. Instead of addressing this point, though, both Hayes and Robichaud accuse Martin of spouting “false equivalencies” and start moaning over the power of “major religions” to keep the “marginalized” out of the debate.

POLL: Has the Obama Administration turned its back on Israel?

Father Martin is not some finger-wagging, down-shouter of a shepherd (all-pulpit-no-pasture and forever on the harangue), and because that is true, and because his easygoing manner is well-known, you would think that his sobriety, here — his stark refusal to budge on the subject of Satanism, and the offensiveness inherent to any Black Mass being “re-enacted” in the public — would make an unusually strong impression on the host, Chris Hayes, and other guest.

You might think it, but sadly, you’d be wrong. No one in this video clip is thinking, “gee, Martin is no lunatic, and his gravity is palpable, so maybe there’s more to this than I know…” Rather, Hayes seems incapable of fully masking his amused condescension toward Martin’s concerns, and is willfully choosing not to hear his words; the two men prefer to travel campus-comfortable tracks, ranging from the predictable to the bigoted to the silly, with a side-trip to pick up a straw man. …

Notice, Martin addresses the “Black Mass” situation on Harvard Extension’s own terms. That body characterized the insult as a “cultural” event and compared it to a re-enactment of a Shinto Tea Ceremony; Father Martin suggests that a similar “re-enactment” of an anti-semitic or racial horror, like a lynching or a cross-burning, would quite rightly be a denounced as having no place on any campus or indeed in any public place. Why, then, would the mockery of the Catholic Mass be an acceptable insensitivity?

The answer does not come. Instead Hayes and Harvard’s Christopher Robichaud tries to rebut with overarching smugness. Unable to admit “rem acu tetigisti”, Robichaud suggests that Martin is intellectually “sloppy” and risks credibility by rejecting the priest’s very accurate question as a “false equivalency”; his argument essentially boils down to this: “marginalized communities” deserve sensitivity protections and respect, but “big powerful religions” do not. I wonder if he’d be fine, then, with a public burning of the Koran, since Islam, claiming a billion members, is a “big powerful religion.”

He and Harvard would most certainly not be fine with that. They would chalk that up as oppression of a marginalized community too, although the true motives would almost certainly be a little more in line with their survival instincts.

The chief absurdity, though, comes from the religious-liberty equivalency argument Hayes and Robichaud make in regard to the Satanists and the “Pastafarians,” a juvenile and tiresome satirical group of atheists mocking religious practice in general. The event was not staged as a religious event but a cultural event, and in any case the controversy wasn’t about the rights of Satanists to do what they do on their own property. It was about Harvard’s decision to host and sponsor the event, directly and indirectly, while claiming to be opposed to hate speech, marginalization, etc etc etc. Religious freedom wasn’t the issue at all, but that was the dodge Hayes and Robichaud used.

SEE VIDEO AT:  http://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/16/msnbc-panel-mulls-the-rights-of-satanists-as-a-marginalized-community-or-something/