You are browsing the archive for United States.

A More Perfect Union

May 20, 2013 in United States

The IRS falls on its own sword.

Mainstream media turns on Obama.

Republicans state the obvious about the relationship between the IRS and Obamacare.

Obviously, those that control government and media have changed their agenda.

Instead of supporting Obama’s move towards socialism, they have suddenly put on the breaks, reversed course, and are looking for a more profitable path.

And, not a moment too soon.

Consider what we have learned during this scandal.

The IRS targeted conservative groups. In one series of questions, they asked about the content of a group’s prayers.

NTEUThe employees who worked in these departments were members of a union, The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU).

This union supported Democratic politicians almost exclusively.

Think about that.

The IRS employees who worked in the tax-exempt department were part of a union that largely supported Democratic politicians.

I’ve prepared taxes for more than thirty years and I wasn’t aware that IRS employees were unionized. Obviously, I wasn’t aware the union was politically active either.

From their position, NTEU members could further support their political agenda by demonstrating a bias against organizations associated with Republicans.

The union was in a perfect spot to have maximum influence.

Then, the person who headed that department was rewarded by being placed in charge of the IRS department that enforces Obamacare.

Do you see the ramifications?

A union of IRS employees, supported by the highest ranks of Federal Government, acted with prejudice while conducting its day-to-day job responsibilities.

Members of this same union will soon have access to medical information regarding the American public.

Will they behave in a similar manner, using the healthcare information with prejudice against those with certain philosophical beliefs?

Those who control government and media have recognized the urgency of the situation and have given orders.

Socialism was OK as long as it served their purposes.

However, when the socialists and the union workers began to use their power for purposes that undermined the agenda and profits of the elite, the elite pulled their support.

Now, the Obama administration is scrambling.

Instead of solidly establishing the socializing of the United States, it is fighting for its life.

The greatest feather is its cap, Obamacare, may not survive its partnership with the IRS.

Obama and his team gambled with their faux power.

They lost…

…this time.

If Obama gets back in line, he may be allowed to finish his second term.

However, if he continues to push for his agenda in a manner that harms the powerbrokers, impeachment will likely be the next step.

An Indirect Attack

May 19, 2013 in United States

ObamacareIs, as I proposed yesterday, the IRS scandal really an indirect attack on Obamacare?

Let’s consider the facts.

The Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) has a great deal of support.

And, it has much opposition. State governments have filed suit over it, voters have voted against it, and doctors have closed offices because of it.

The plan takes most of the profit out of the medical and health insurance industries. It sets up a national healthcare database, virtually eliminating medical privacy.

In spite of these drawbacks, the plan rides its support and moves forward, ignoring the opposition.

Therefore, an indirect attack against Obamacare through a direct attack on the IRS appears to be a better tactic.

The IRS targeting scandal is tailor-made for this purpose; its timing carefully planned to make the maximum impact.

A look into the past reveals that the Internal Revenue Service has been targeting conservative, religious, and anti-tax organizations for more than a year. Ben Swann first reported on IRS efforts against the Tea Party in March of last year.

The IRS didn’t stop there.

It investigated the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, a well-known Christian organization, after the group ran political ads last fall urging voters to support candidates with biblical values.

Other organizations have reported similar treatment.

In other words, IRS targeting of these groups isn’t new information.

Therefore, the question that begs to be asked is, “Why now?”

One possibility is a planned attack on Obamacare.

If there is any doubt about the timing and purpose, breaking stories over the past day and a half have removed it.

We have learned that the IRS actually planted the question that allowed the scandal to break. Yes, there was an admitted IRS conspiracy to rat on itself.

We see Obama’s biggest fans in mainstream media continue to abandon him. Even CNN’s Piers Morgan, who has campaigned relentlessly for gun control, claims he is beginning to understand the argument for guns in light of the “tyrannical behavior” of the IRS.

Democrats have joined mainstream media in abandoning Obama.

And, we see Republicans jumping on the opportunity to overthrow Obamacare.

They have pointed out that the IRS official in charge of tax-exempt organizations during the targeting is now the person in charge of enforcing Obamacare for the IRS.

They have produced a short video, featuring Maryland Representative Andy Harris, that says, “…the IRS needs less power, not more.” It is a direct attack on Obamacare, including a call to repeal the bill.

As a tax preparer, I am acutely aware of how Americans detest the IRS.

Opponents of Obamacare have successfully seized this hatred and turned it towards the new law.

It appears this was the plan from the beginning.

  1. The IRS willingly fell on its sword.
  2. Mainstream media and Democrats dropped their support for Obama.
  3. Republicans followed by stating the obvious.

Stay tuned. I’m sure there is more to come.

The Underlying Agenda

May 18, 2013 in United States

Obama scandalsWhat are the agendas behind this week’s Capital Hill scandals?

The one at the forefront is removing Obama from office by linking him with the cover up of a crime.

Although congressional members are reluctant to use the “I” word, it is clear that impeachment is a consideration.

Obama’s critics, who thought Benghazi was the key to this strategy, are concerned that the IRS and AP scandals are releasing the pressure from last year’s 9/11 attack.

They think the White House can be tied directly to Benghazi and the administration can distance itself from the other two scandals.

However, events over the past week indicate there is another agenda, perhaps one of a greater priority, bubbling underneath the surface.

The first clue is the amount of time the media has given to covering the scandals and criticizing the president. This causes the scandals to stick to Obama and, for the first time during his presidency, he appears afraid of mainstream media.

This shift in coverage is a likely indicator that the president has disappointed those who previously supported him.

Earlier this week, Jon Rappoport documented how Richard Nixon’s impeachment was the result of trade tariffs that hurt corporate interests in general and Rockefeller interests in particular.

The people behind the curtain corrected this situation by removing Nixon and Vice-President Agnew from office, replacing Nixon with Gerald Ford, and replacing Agnew with Nelson Rockefeller, David’s brother.

The current array of scandals, combined with the shift in coverage, indicates Obama may have upset corporate interests just as Nixon did.

While Benghazi could be the scandal that removes Obama from office, the IRS scandal gives us a clue regarding the area of the president’s misdeeds.

As it stands now, Obama’s legacy will be the socializing of the United States.

I wrote last October about Dinesh D’Souza’s work that claims Obama’s personal philosophy is to level the world’s playing field through disrupting America’s basic principles.

Corporate interests are OK with these acts as long as they can profit.

However, Obama, in the true spirit of socialism, apparently believes no one, except government, should profit. Therefore, he has implemented policies that take individual resources and put them into the hands of government.

This is especially true in the area of health care.

The Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), hailed by many as the solution to America’s healthcare woes, is now being called a potential train wreck by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Estimates say it will raise insurance costs at least one hundred percent and possibly as much as four hundred percent.

The only financial solution is to reduce medical profits or to increase taxes, especially taxes on the rich.

Corporate leaders aren’t happy with either solution.

This is especially true of those who have methodically produced the legal chemicals used by much of the human race.

They have realized that the IRS is in position to level the playing field according to Obama’s agenda. The Service now has the power to both enforce Obamacare, reducing medical profits, and enforce the tax code, taking thirty-five percent of those reduced profits.

Impeaching Obama won’t help corporate leaders unless they can also neuter the IRS.

Therefore, the focus has shifted from Benghazi to the Internal Revenue Service.

To be continued…

A Defensive Posture

May 17, 2013 in United States

President Obama defensivePresident Obama sees the efforts to remove him from office and he has taken defensive actions.

Two days ago, the While House released more than one hundred pages of emails regarding the Benghazi action.

On the same day, the president told Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to demand the resignation of Steven Miller, the acting IRS commissioner

The day before, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed he knew nothing about the illegal seizing of AP phone records.

These defensive actions were more sizzle than steak.

The emails generally discuss the talking points used to deceive the American public. However, they do not tell us about the discussions that happened during the attack.

In fact, the date of the earliest email is 67 hours after the attack began. I suspect national security will be cited as an excuse not to release earlier emails.

Acting IRS commissioner Miller was working under the terms of a 210-day contract that was scheduled to end June 8. He likely would have left his post in three weeks had his resignation not hastened his exit.

Interestingly, there is no indication that he has left the building.

Miller’s resignation letter says he will assist in an “orderly transition.” It appears, he will still be around for a while.

Holder’s admission that he knew nothing is either a lie or an indication that he has people within his department who feel comfortable violating standards established as a result of improprieties committed during the Nixon administration.

None of these defensive acts carries substance with them.

They are political in nature, designed to diffuse the energy of the accusations without admitting guilt.

The Obama administration effectively used similar techniques in prior situations.

However, they don’t seem to be working this time.

The media has suddenly changed its actions and seems to no longer support Obama.

This could be energetic.

A defensive posture invites attack.

There could be other reasons.

Jon Rappoport believes the media’s withdrawal of support for Obama is by design and, in yesterday’s post, he wondered if Obama had upset the Trilateral Commission.

Rappoport cites Chris Matthews’ sudden turn on Obama as an indicator that someone has given the order to tighten the screws on the president.

The day before, Rappoport provided background on how Nixon’s trade tariffs angered those who would benefit from global free trade and were the real reason for his impeachment. It is a compelling argument that has prompted me to look closer at what the underlying motives are in the current situation.

I must admit that something has changed.

Obama has lost his Teflon.

Accusations are starting to stick to him.

For the first time, he appears afraid of mainstream media.

What has changed?

I found some clues late last night.

I’ll tell you what I found in tomorrow’s article.

Resolving the Dissonance

May 16, 2013 in United States

One of the most challenging parts of the impeachment process is convincing the general public that impeachment is necessary.

The evidence alone isn’t enough to do this.

Those pursuing impeachment must overcome resistance to the idea that the person elected by the majority of American voters is now unfit to serve.

This is more than persuading someone to change.

It is convincing people that they made a mistake.

DissonanceIt is resolving the cognitive dissonance that comes when two conflicting thoughts attempt to occupy the same mind.

Cognitive dissonance happens whenever you encounter a new thought that contradicts your belief system. You must decide whether to hold to a life-long philosophy or accept the new thought.

The easiest thing to do is to abandon the new thought and cling to the old one.

Therefore, if those with the agenda to impeach the president are going to get the general public to support impeachment, they must skillfully market this new idea to the people who initially supported Obama.

One way to do is this through making the current new idea look like a previous new idea that gained support.

I believe this is what we are seeing.

The Benghazi scandal has enough evidence to impeach Obama.

His refusal to act resulted in the loss of American lives.

Then, he conspired to lie about it.

However, the evidence alone isn’t enough to persuade the American people.

Enter the IRS and AP scandals.

The accusations of unfair targeting by the IRS and the seizing of AP phone records by the justice department feel like things that happened during the Nixon administration.

Those of us old enough to remember the 1970s remember the Watergate scandal that resulted in the resignation of President Nixon prior to his inevitable impeachment.

Nixon’s downfall was lying about what he knew regarding the break in of Democratic Party headquarters (Nixon was a Republican) located at the Watergate office complex. The purpose of the break in was to photograph documents and install illegal listening devices.

The subsequent investigation uncovered Nixon’s “enemies list” that he targeted with the CIA, FBI, and IRS.

It also revealed hours of taped White House conversations, including some that had been erased “inadvertently” during transcription.

The cover-up, rather than the crime, ended Nixon’s presidency.

The comparison between Nixon and Obama is obvious.

Those working towards the impeachment of Obama are using the same script, the same terms, and the same techniques.

They are attempting to expose the crimes committed in the Benghazi incident.

They are claiming there is a cover-up.

They have revealed the IRS targeting and attempted to link it to Obama’s “enemies list.”

They have linked the seizing of AP phone records with the wiretapping in the Democratic Party headquarters.

They are attempting to resolve the cognitive dissonance of the current situation in the same manner used to resolve the cognitive dissonance surrounding Nixon.

Obama knows this.

He has dug in his heels.

He is responding much differently than Nixon responded.

I’ll detail those responses in tomorrow’s writing.

A Look Ahead

May 15, 2013 in United States

Look AheadIf Barack Obama has an agenda to remain president and Republicans have an agenda to remove him from office, what may we expect in the next few days?

Insiders tell us to look for more scandals – according to a CIA source, a fourth one is about to hit.

This means more accusations, more denials, and more spinning of information.

I wrote yesterday about the three current scandals.

  1. The September 11, 2012 killing of four Americans in Libya
  2. The IRS’s targeting of groups with anti-administration policies
  3. The justice department’s illegal seizing of Associated Press phone records

Since then, Obama has issued a statement condemning the IRS employees who did the unfair targeting.

However, as this story unfolds, it isn’t just the targeting that is coming under fire.

This morning, Politico reported that the IRS asked these groups for printouts of Facebook posts and lists of the books they read.

This information, along with the organizations’ donor lists, would allow the administration to make a thorough “enemies list” based on specific criteria.

Conservatives are quick to use the term associated with President Nixon, who had his own list of enemies that he targeted with the IRS.

Conservatives are also quick to remind us that Ambassador Stephens, who was one of the four Americans killed in Libya, may have been on that list, or something like it.

Numerous questions remain about Obama’s inactions before, during, and after the seven-hour attack.

As Commander in Chief, his lack of response was an obvious dereliction of duty.

The question that remains unanswered is “Why did he not act?”

Today, five house committees continue to attempt to answer this question while there are increasing calls for the House to appoint a special committee that focuses only on Benghazi.

The House actions are significant because the impeachment process starts in the House of Representatives.

And, as the scandal evolves without certain answers, the impeachment of President Obama is a possibility.

I don’t say this without reason.

We know Obama had access to information regarding the attacks and he did not act to prevent or intervene in them.

We know there were several resignations of key American leaders soon thereafter including the head of AFRICOM, the head of the naval strike force in the area, and the head of the CIA.

Rumors, one substantial enough to be reported by The Washington Times, indicate at least one of these may have been related to attempts to disobey stand down orders during the attack.

If Obama did, in fact, purposely issue orders that allowed the Ambassador and his staff to die, impeachment seems more than possible.

It appears likely.

What happens next?

I see several things:

  • The House will continue to investigate what happened in Benghazi on 9/11/12.
  • The other two, and possibly three, scandals will be used to further discredit The President.
  • The Obama administration will respond to these investigations through a variety of techniques.
  • One of these techniques could be to create a story so big that it pushes these scandals out of the headlines.

False Flag Alert

May 14, 2013 in Opinion, United States

On September 11, 2012, an attack force killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya.

A couple weeks later, I wrote two articles with questions and answers about that fateful night.

Article one

Article two

Today, five House committees are investigating many of the questions I asked about that attack.

The government investigations don’t stop there.

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Way and Means Committee are investigating whether the Internal Revenue Service unfairly targeted conservative groups, including non-profits.

And that’s not all.

Last night, the Associated Press reported the Justice Department sought its reporters’ phone records, with a special emphasis on those who work in the D.C. area.

This series of scandals has writers whispering the “I” word – even though Obama may not be directly responsible for this series of scandals

False Flag alert

And, it has those who are aware of how agendas work saying the likelihood of a false flag event is high. 

Mike Adams of Natural News says, “…the Obama administration is under intense fire right now and needs a quick distraction.”

Dave Hodges of The Common Sense Show says Sunday’s shooting on New Orleans may have been an attempt at that distraction.

However, the shooters didn’t kill anyone so the event didn’t quite grab enough attention to push the scandals out of the headlines.

Therefore, many website owners have reposted Mr. Adams’ idea. They agree that a false flag event is likely.

They remember how previous administrations used international events and domestic crises to distract from White House scandals. These often provided just enough time for key witnesses to disappear, sometimes through a reported suicide.

If I was a conspiracy thinker, I would be frustrated and upset at this series of events. I would respond fearfully to what might happen this week.

Instead, I see the agendas.

President Obama has an agenda to remain president.

Republicans have an agenda to remove him from office.

Defense contractors and law enforcement have an agenda for job security.

Mainstream media has an agenda to align behind whomever is in power.

I have an agenda for world peace that comes from individual Peace of Mind.

Therefore, I watch closely; aware of these agendas.

Within these observations, I can anticipate what might happen next, as well as the possible explanations given to us by mainstream media.

And, I can maintain Peace of Mind in the process.

I’ll explain how to do this in tomorrow’s article.

A No-Brainer

May 10, 2013 in Finance, United States

Many factors likely influenced Apple’s innovative strategy to avoid taxes by borrowing money.

It is even possible they realized they were not avoiding taxes, only postponing them.

I have noticed that most people look for ways to postpone taxes. They assume they can do this indefinitely.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume this was Apple’s only goal.

However, based on the mainstream media articles and based on behavior I have witnessed in thirty plus years of preparing taxes, I suspect something else is going on here.

no brainerMarketers, fulfilling agendas, have trained us make unwise financial decisions.

By “unwise,” I mean we make decisions that reduce the amount of money we keep by spending more than is necessary.

Obviously, if someone is being generous, giving to humanity, and serving from a heart of love, this is not “unwise.”

However, if the goal is to acquire assets and reduce expenses, increasing overall expenses in an effort to reduce taxes is unwise.

More than once, a client has walked into my office and announced an unwise financial decision under the guise of receiving the reward of a tax deduction.

He is surprised when the barely affordable ten-thousand dollar expenditure only results in a tax savings of a couple thousand dollars.

My explanations about tax rates usually fall on deaf ears.

A few years later, he repeats the behavior.

He continuously does the opposite of what he claims he is attempting to do.

He has bought into the marketing that says avoid taxes at all costs.

Apple’s strategy may have come from the influence of this type of marketing.

The conversation between the decision makers, brain-washed by such ideas, could have gone like this.

“We need funds to buy back stock. We have it in the accounts of our overseas subsidiaries. Is there any reason we can’t use it?

“Well, you’d have to pay a 35% tax to bring it into the country.”

“Ouch! We can’t do that. Are there other options?”

“Let’s see… If you used the overseas funds as collateral, you could likely borrow the money at a low percentage rate, probably less than 3%.”

“That’s a great idea. Paying 3% interest sure beats paying 35% taxes. Let’s do it.”

No one asked questions about the effects of reducing annual cash flow by more than three hundred million dollars.

No one considered the net cost of borrowing that would total more than two hundred million a year.

No one said the amount of tax on the income earned to pay back the loan would be the same as the tax to bring the funds into the country.

After the fact, someone may have asked questions – in private.

Before those questions could work their way to the surface, someone issued a press release praising the strategy.

The marketers saw this as an opportunity to fulfill their agenda.

“Apple, haven of the geniuses and supercool company of the past three decades, was practicing innovative tax strategies.”

It was perfect.

The marketers proclaimed the wisdom of avoiding taxes, figuring that if someone realized the strategy didn’t avoid taxes, it only postponed them, they could still portray this as a wise decision.

They lauded the wisdom of paying interest on borrowed money as another great way to avoid paying taxes. They pointed out the 308-million interest payment and praised it as a 100-million tax reduction.

Then, because double meanings and humor are great marketing tools, they got a senior vice president of Moody’s to say this decision was a “no-brainer.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The Cost of Avoiding Taxes

May 9, 2013 in Finance, United States

One of the agendas of mainstream media is to get Americans to make poor financial decisions in an attempt to avoid taxes.

They shine up these decisions and make them look very attractive.

Awareness requires us to look under the façade.

A month ago, I wrote about Craig, my client with the one hundred and twenty thousand dollar tax bill.

It was part of my series about how tax breaks are part of an agenda to get taxpayers to do something they otherwise would not do.

I pointed out that Craig’s business and financial success was directly tied to his ability to accept and pay taxes.

I mentioned that avoiding taxes is often one of the excuses I hear for people not making wise financial decisions. American taxpayers take on mortgages, purchase health insurance, contribute to charities, and participate in retirement accounts because all of those behaviors come with tax breaks.

They do this even when it is not in their best interest to do so.

Even though Craig understands that avoiding taxes isn’t the primary goal of business, he still looks for ways to reduce his tax bill.

After all, he is a businessperson.

Apple logo shineTherefore, I wasn’t surprised when he sent me a link to this article a few days ago.

Apple’s debt strategy saves $9.2B in taxes (plus $100m a year in interest deductions)

Craig has offshore connections and he wanted me to be aware of how Apple used their offshore assets to save domestic taxes.

I read the article and cringed.

It was typical advertising: Praise the benefits. Don’t mention the harm.

Apple wanted to use its offshore cash to buy back stock. However, the cost of bringing offshore money into the United States is a 35% tax.

Therefore, rather than use the offshore cash, they borrowed money for the stock purchase.

Since the interest on the loan was less than the tax on importing the cash, the article praised Apple’s financial creativity.

As a tax strategy for one year, it was a good idea.

There was lots of shine.

However, when we get past the shine, there are significant financial ramifications.

For example, the money to make the non-tax-deductible payments on the loan will come out of profit.

The tax on that profit will be 35%.

Therefore, this strategy doesn’t produce tax savings.

It produces tax postponement.

Long-term, Apple will pay the same amount in taxes.

The consequences don’t stop there.

The decision to borrow the money reduced Apple’s annual cash flow by hundreds of millions of dollars.

According to the article, the loan will carry more than three hundred million dollars in annual interest. Even though this is a deductible expense, Apple doesn’t receive dollar for dollar benefit.

They will pay the lender three hundred million and only save one hundred million in taxes.

That’s a two hundred million dollar drain on cash flow the first year – it will be less in subsequent years as the loan balance decreases – and I haven’t included the amount of the principal repayment in my calculation.

If Apple remains profitable, and it must to repay the loan, the IRS will still receive one hundred percent of its revenue.

In addition, the lender will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in taxable interest income.

There is no tax savings.

Apple’s expenses increase.

Mainstream media shines it up as a great decision.

This is how the agenda works.

To be continued…

Suppressing Revolution

May 8, 2013 in United States

Those who market the world’s conflicts do so to generate profit.

Moreover, in the United States, they do so to distract from the conflict that could be the most disruptive to the defense industry.

An armed revolution, one that directly takes on the current American power structure, would harm, and possibly destroy, the manufacturing capability of the United States.

Subsequently, it would plunge the world into a deep economic depression.

This would make profits difficult, virtually impossible.

Therefore, marketers must keep a fresh enemy or a fresh reason to have an enemy in the forefront of their message.

They must maintain the agenda of suppressing revolution.

Otherwise, the one-in-three registered American voters who believes armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years will act on those beliefs.

Malcolm Gladwell has demonstrated that the tipping point for societal change is ten percent, give or take a percentage point.

A recent Farleigh Dickinson University study says there is nearly three times that level of support for armed revolution in the United States.

Consider that.

Twenty-nine percent of America’s voters believe the country needs an armed revolution.

One writer says, “All it needs is a Fort Sumter type moment.”

The longer marketers can keep us focused on an enemy other than government, the longer they can keep the revolution from happening.

whiskey rebellion flagSuppressing revolution, even when it is necessary, has always been an agenda of government.

George Washington, the country’s first President, knew the dangers of government. He said, “Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

He would know.

He used his position as Commander-in-Chief to suppress the “Whiskey Rebellion,” a near-revolution that happened during his presidency.

Author William Hogeland tells us that Washington was just as interested in enforcing rent on his Pennsylvania land as he was in collecting the whiskey tax when he led the U.S. Army into the area.

Consider that.

The first President of the United States used government power for private interest while enforcing a whiskey tax that was as unjust as the tea tax instituted by England a few years earlier.

Today, suppressing revolution has become the agenda of mainstream media too.

And, at least some of government’s leaders are aware of how the media cooperates with those marketing the message.

New Hampshire Representative Stella Trimblay recently made several bold statements about the Boston bombing.

According to reports, she believes government did it and she has wondered aloud about why mainstream media won’t ask obvious questions.

After reading this article, you know why.

The answers to those questions might encourage an armed revolution. Therefore, those questions do not fit within the agendas of those who control government and the media.

Those agendas include maintaining a profit for those in the defense industries while suppressing a conflict that would destroy those industries.

Marketers fulfill these agendas in other areas too.

I’ll give you an innovative example of how this works in the banking and tax industries in tomorrow’s article.