I would be very very surprised if anything comes of this scandal, for the Marxists/Demorats are totally in control of the media and they will not let this go on. I would not be surprised if some of the key players have mysterious accidents.

tomfernandez28's Blog

Biggest scandal since Watergate is brewing right now

Kit Daniels | – APRIL 4, 2017

Susan Rice, the former National Security Advisor under President Obama, seemed uncomfortable when asked if she would be willing to testify before Congress about her role in “unmasking” the Trump team from recorded surveillance.

“Rand Paul is suggesting that you be subpoenaed to testify. Would you be willing to go to Capitol Hill?” MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell asked on Tuesday.

Rice squirmed a little before responding.

“You know, Andrea, let’s, let’s… see what comes. Umm, I’m not going, ahh, you know, sit here and prejudge, but what I will say is that the investigations that are underway as to the Russian involvement in our electoral process are very important and they’re very serious,” she said while stuttering a bit. “Every American ought to have an interest in those investigations going wherever the evidence indicates…

View original post 269 more words

Judicial Watch obtained 695 Pages of Obama IRS scandal Documents

If you can’t get you way one way you get your way through a different way; either way you get your way!

tomfernandez28's Blog

The conservative think tank, Judicial Watch, has obtained and released nearly 700 pages of Obama IRS Scandal documents that show officials used “inappropriate political labels” to screen applications from conservative tax-exempt organizations.


The documents were made available following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch in 2015.

Screenshot 2017-04-04 17.28.56

The FOIA request was made following a scandal in 2013, that revealed the US Internal Revenue Service had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes. The revelation led to wide condemnation of the agency and prompted several investigation, including an FBI order by the US Attorney General Eric Holder.

Initial reports described the selection as nearly exclusively targeting conservative groups with terms such as “Tea Party” in their names but later it was found that some liberal groups were also selected for additional review.

In January…

View original post 419 more words

Dear CNN: Why Is A Former Obama Appointee Reporting On Susan Rice Revelation?

Demorats I mean Marxists are allowed to do anything they want.

tomfernandez28's Blog

Screenshot 2017-04-04 15.18.56

By Jay Caruso

Eli Lake at Bloomberg wrote an explosive piece that set the political world on fire for a few hours yesterday. Lake detailed how Susan Rice, President Obama’s National Security Adviser sought to “unmask” the identities of Trump campaign transition members and his campaign.

From Lake’s story:

White House lawyers last month discovered that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice’s requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government’s policy on “unmasking” the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like…

View original post 338 more words

Socialism Contradicts Freedom of Religion – Why Amish do not Pay Social Security Taxes


In 1935, Roosevelt introduced “The Social Security Act” which passed Congress. However, the act was described “Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.” At first, the Act covered only industry and commerce. It was later extended to include farm operators in 1955. The SS tax was to be at the rate of 3% of income up to an established limit.

The Amish pay taxes because the Bible said: “paying unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” It was in 1956 that the IRS went to tell the Amish they were now under Social Security and they would have to pay. One Amishman was quoted in a November 1962 Reader’s Digest article: “Allowing our members to shift their interdependence on each other to dependence upon any outside source would inevitably lead to the breakup of our order.” The constitutional question that has never been decided, what happens when the taxing power of government violates the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion? It clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Then Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, that there should be “a wall of separation between church and state.” They feared that a minority religion could be subjugated by the Federal Government acknowledging a national religion. The Johnson Amendment, named for Lyndon Johnson, is a provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. If churches involve themselves in politics, then indeed that creates a reverse problem where the state can be taken over by one religion and oppress all others; so it can go both ways. Historically, religions have often seized governments and outlawed all other religions.

In this instance concerning taxation in direct conflict with religion, a group of Amish presented a petition to Congress, with 14,000 signatures. Naturally, Congress ignored them. The Amish reasonably questioned what possible harm they could do by not paying into Social Security. “We do not want to be burdensome, but we do not want to lose our birthright to everlasting glory, therefore we must do all we can to live our faith!”

The IRS moved to go after the Amish and seize their bank accounts. The problem was – they had none! The IRS then sought to go after anyone buying milk from the Amish and attach their payments to divert them to the IRS. Most simply refused for such a scheme would happen just once and end the business. The IRS, refusing to consider any religious principle, moved in to seize property. In this case of the Amish, that meant cows and horses. They would rather have the Amish die than respect anyone’s rights to religion.

Valentine Byler of the Amish community in Pennsylvania, owed four years of IRS taxes. The IRS, of course, tacked on interest and penalties to raise it up to $308.96. Byler argued his religion forbid paying insurance. The IRS said that was a “technicality” and that it was really just a tax. Vyler has no bank account to seize so they issued a summons to appear in court for a charge of contempt. The judge in Federal District Court in Pittsburgh, Pa, according to a Reader’s Digest article, “angrily demanded of the IRS agents, ‘Don’t you have anything better to do than to take a peaceful man off his farm and drag him into court?’” The Judge then dismissed the case.

The IRS never gives up. The IRS had to issue a statement on April 18, 1961 in which they said:

Since Mr. Byler had no bank account against which to levy for the tax due, it was decided as a last desperate measure to resort to seizure and sale of personal property.

The IRS seized three of Byler’s six horses while he was actually plowing the ground for the spring planting. The IRS then sold the three horses at auction on May 1, 1961 getting $460. They then used this to satisfy the $308.96 and then charged him $113.15 in expenses and graciously returned $37.89. The incident made national news and was being used by the Communists to show how capitalism was ruthless. The New York Herald Tribune, reported the story with the bold headline: “Welfarism Gone Mad.”

The IRS Chief of Collections was forced to respond claiming he was unaware of the plowing situation. “Plowing never occurred to me. I live in an apartment.”  To show the mentality of those who are bureaucrats, he then said: “We don’t ask people their race or religion when we administer the tax laws. People have no right to use their religion as an excuse not to pay taxes.”

The IRS was then compelled to issue a press release in 1961, stating the Amish stance that “Social Security payments, in their opinion, are insurance premiums and not taxes. They, therefore, will not pay the ‘premium’ nor accept any of the benefits.”

The Amish met with the IRS Commissioner in September, 1961 in Washington, DC, They cited several Bible passages, including I Timothy 5:8, which says, “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.”

The public outrage at the conduct of the IRS was international. The Amish argued they were entitled to an exemption based on the First Amendment. The IRS agreed it would stop further seizures until the case was settled. Now, senators promised to try to pass a bill in Congress and everything stopped. The Amish hired a lawyer to challenge this conflict between the taxing power and the First Amendment. However, as the court date approached, they realized if they lost in court, it was over. They then looked to Congress to pursue a legislative exemption. Finally, in 1965, the Medicare bill was passed by Congress. Congress realized that if the Amish went to court and won, then others could challenge the right to tax conflicting with the First Amendment. Congress quietly put in on page 138 a clause exempting the Old Order Amish, and any other religious sect who conscientiously objected to insurance, from paying Social Security payments, providing that sect had been in existence since December 31, 1950. The Senate approved in July, and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law on August 13, 1965.

The open question remains simply this; the first explicit references to the tithe appear in Genesis 14, where Abraham tithes to Melchizedek, and in Genesis 28, where Jacob promises to give God “a full tenth.” But where did the idea to tithe come from? Many argue Abraham and Jacob were simply following the customs of the surrounding nations. But Scripture points in a different direction. In Genesis 26:5, God says, “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” In the New Testament, Jesus upholds the tithe in Matthew 23:23 (cf. Luke 11:42). He condemns the Pharisees for their tedious commitment to one part of God’s law, the tithe, while neglecting “the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” Then he states, “These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”

One of the Five Pillars of Islam, zakat is a religious obligation for all Muslims who meet the necessary criteria of wealth. This too is not a charitable contribution, but is considered to be an obligatory tax or  alms. The payment and disputes on zakat have also been controversial in the history of Islam. The zakat is based on income and the value of all of one’s possessions or property. It has been traditionally set at 2.5% above a minimum amount known as nisab, which has also been greatly debated.

In Judaeo-Christianity, the “tithe” was a one tenth of annual produce or earnings, formerly taken as a tax for the support of the church and clergy in Christianity. The question is, does exceeding the level prescribed as a “tithe” violate the First Amendment? If true, then any income tax imposed beyond 10% would violate the First Amendment. Since the Ten Commandments also prohibits coveting anything that belonged to a neighbor including his wife or property, it would appear that Socialism championed by Karl Marx violates the First Amendment and any tax should not exceed 10%. Hence, progressive taxation would be unconstitutional if not a flat tax. Some argue it also violates Equal Protection of the laws. The Tax at the time of Jesus’s statement of give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, was less than 5%.

Marx Religion Opium of Masses

Gorilla-ThinkingHistorically during the Roman Republic, the tax imposed was 1%. During time of war, the taxes would rise to 3%. Ever since Karl Marx, who said religion is the opium of the masses, politicians have loved Marxism and used it to exploit the people to the point governments are averaging now 40% of the entire economy. They have outpaced all other businesses beating the bankers and multinational corporations. They have become the 800 pound gorilla in the corner of the room nobody notices is even there. Politicians always preach against the “rich” which increases the wealth of government. As the IRS commented: “We don’t ask people their race or religion when we administer the tax laws. People have no right to use their religion as an excuse not to pay taxes.” This is obviously the spirit of Karl Marx.


The Conflict of Law – USA/England v Europe


Vattel Emer de (1714 – 1767)

COMMENT: I believe you are wrong about the meaning of natural born citizen in you blog Does it Matter If You Are Born Outside USA to be President? You are a natural born citizen only if BOTH parents are citizens.

REPLY: The site you refer to notes the definition which comes from Emer de Vattel (1714 – 1767) who was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat. Those who were trying to make arguments against Obama were relying upon Vattel because it suited their desired result. Vattel’s definition was in his 1758 “the Law of Nations”:

Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.


This is all fine and good. However, there is a conflict of law between the English “Common Law” and the law of Continental Europe. This is taught in the very first semester of law.  Emer de Vattel was NOT any real influence in establishing the US Constitution. That distinction goes to William Blackstone (1723-1780).  Blackstone wrote the Commentaries On The Laws Of England. This is what the framers of the Constitution relied upon for here is the interpretation that the Supreme Court will turn to – Blackstone not Vattel.

Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62.

When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.

Those who relied upon Vattel to support their argument that Obama was not a natural born citizen simply were looking for someone to agree with them. Then McCain would not qualify either or anyone born to an ambassador while posted overseas or a child of someone in the military stationed overseas. Even in the tax code, Canadians with one single American parent born in Canada were all being sent notices from the IRS that they owed taxes in Washington because they were citizens. I had a friend in Switzerland who married an American girl and they had a son. When he was 13, they took him to the bank to open his first account. The bank refused to allow the child to open an account because he was an American and they would have to report under FATCA to the USA everything he did.

The definition is clearly different from that of Continental Europe. You could have applied for an EU passport even as an American if your grandfather was born in Europe. If your grandmother was born there instead of your grandfather, you were not eligible. The right to citizenship only followed the male line – not the mother.

There is a huge conflict of laws between USA/UK and that of European which is based upon Canon Law from the Catholic Church. Under the Common Law (USA/UK), the only privilege is that a wife cannot testify against her husband. They can force your children to testify against you. Under Continental Law, nobody in your family can testify against you even a brother or sister-in-law – NOBODY. There are those who argue it is time to change that as well

Freedom Caucus & Big Bang

Freedom Caucus

I have been warning that we are headed directly into the collapse of socialism; not capitalism, simply because politicians have been bribing people’s votes with all sorts of promises they never planned on providing. Social Security may have began as a good idea, but then the money was really just a tax and the fund was stuffed with government bonds denying the average person the very right to invest for his future as do the “rich” who make most money from investment – not wages.

The core of that crash and burn in socialism is pensions. The scheme of pensions when blended with politics is a lethal combination. Politicians are NEVER prosecuted for fraud. Had any employer promise what politicians did and then engaged in every scheme to circumvent it, they would be in prison or hung by a mob in the good old days of social justice. Today, we have politicians who are just so dishonest and they constantly feed the flames of class warfare to divert any responsibility for what they have done.

Examples are surfacing from every corner. In Ohio, beginning in 2019, retired cops and firefighters will no longer receive health care benefits through the Ohio Police & Firefighters Pension Fund. Instead will receive a stipend to buy coverage on the open market. Why? Because the stipend can be fixed, whereas health care costs keep going up more than 5% annually with no end in sight. Health care is bankrupting the economy and is totally out of control.

The Freedom Caucus, also known as the House Freedom Caucus, is a congressional caucus consisting of conservative and libertarian Republican members of the United States House of Representatives. It was the Freedom Caucus, that brought down John Boehner as the leader of the Republicans. They were the ones constantly blocking the increase in a debt ceiling. It was the Freedom Caucus who stopped the repeal of Obamacare, not because they agreed with it, but because they are ultra conservative trying to stop any new debt. Trump responded: “The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast,” in a tweet. He continued: “We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!”

BIG BANG ECM 2015.75

Big Bang began in 2015.75, with the peak in government and everything has been turning down rapidly ever since with interest rates rising. Even Trump won the presidency effectively as a third party candidate from within the Republican Party. Nothing like that has ever happened in American Politics. Everywhere we look we see the world headed into more chaos with BREXIT and political insanity in Europe, to China regulating Bitcoin to stop the capital outflows.

The Freedom Caucus is out in never-never-land. While yes we are dealing with a debt crisis, their solution of blocking the debt ceiling increases and repealing Obamacare is frivolous. Why? Because it is just totally impractical. To block any increase in debt is to invite Big Bang, social unrest, and the high probability that the USA will be pushed into civil war (Special Report to be published soon). These types of measures will accomplish only bloodshed. We must begin the process of restructuring the entire system. Blocking payments and new debt is inviting the confrontation. It is not a realistic solution.

It is now just a question of when with Big Bang set in motion, when will the whole Socialistic mess erupt and how will the markets respond? We will be looking at Big Bang and how to Trade a Vertical Market at the Hong Kong World Economic Conference in May

The Media Is Ignoring the 500-Pound Surveillance Elephant in the Room

Julian Assange told use from the begging that he got the information from leaks not the Russians; now who are you going to believe Obama that lied about just about everything he did i.e. ObamaCare or Assange who has never been caught in a lie.

tomfernandez28's Blog

By Colin Madine

The Mainstream media are watching their Russia election-meddling narrative teeter on the brink of collapse. They’re holding their collective breath hoping it doesn’t topple over, like the world’s highest stakes game of Jenga.

Every week the Russia story crumbles a bit more. Whether it is the loss of credibility of Crowdstrike’s hacking report, or the revelation by WikiLeaks that the CIA can make a cyber attack look like it came from wherever they want, the leftist media can’t catch a break. The FBI and NSA have both testified that there is no evidence that there was any hacking of actual voting, and the WikiLeaks allegations throw doubt on Russia’s involvement in hacking the DNC or Podesta emails. Even if they did, the media and the Democrats still have yet to convince anyone that the emails are the reason that voters chose Trump in Pennsylvania, Michigan…

View original post 888 more words

Donna Brazile Now Claims WikiLeaks’ DNC Emails “Bogus” After Admitting She Lied

How did all these incompetent people get into positions of power. Oh its politics and they are mostly attorneys, and its no secret what attorneys are.

tomfernandez28's Blog

Published on Apr 3, 2017

Former Interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile is continuing her media tour in an effort to repair her public image, and in the process, she is continuing to make a complete fool of herself. She once again contradicted herself by calling the authenticity of the WikiLeaks DNC emails into question, alleging they were “bogus.” This accusation comes just weeks after she admitted she will “forever regret” leaking a town hall question to Hillary Clinton, suggesting the contents of the emails were accurate. Donna can’t get her story straight.

rick lomar

In her mind, we’re either racist or sexist for criticizing her. So typical of neo-liberals like Donna to use identity politics as a force field. It’s a disservice to people who are truly victims of racism and sexism.
The Progressive Voice
Bullshit Donna, and you know it. You leaked…

View original post 232 more words


Well she is a Demorat so its not surprising

tomfernandez28's Blog

Screenshot 2017-04-03 17.45.14

Washington, D.C. In the midst of a national financial catastrophe, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) used her position as a senior member of Congress and member of the House Financial Services Committee to prevail upon Treasury officials to meet with OneUnited Bank.  She never disclosed that her husband held stock in the bank.  This outrageous conduct has led Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to include the congresswoman as one of the Most Corrupt Members of Congress.  Click here to read the full report on Rep. Waters.

“By contacting then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to request a meeting, allegedly for a group of minority-owned banks, but then arranging for only one bank – OneUnited, in which she had a financial interest – to attend, Rep. Waters violated House conflict of interest rules,” said CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan.

Around the same time Rep. Waters asked the…

View original post 237 more words

SUSAN RICE Helped Obama Illegally UNMASK Trump Transition Team[NEW DETAILS]!!!

It would be nice if some of the Obama team did time in federal prison but be know that like Hillary got away with what she did so will the rest of the Obama minions.

tomfernandez28's Blog

Published on Apr 3, 2017

Obama aide and Former NSA Adviser Susan Rice helped Obama illegally unmask Trump team. Fox News Correspondent Adam Housley, revealed on Friday that Intel Chair Devin Nunes knew who was responsible for unmasking the identities of the Trump team.

On Sunday, activist Mike Cernovich finally revealed that the identity of the unmasker was none other than Susan Rice. After carefully examining document log requests, the White House Counsel’s office idenfitied Rice as the person responsible for the leaks. The reports Rice asked to see are kept under extremely controlled conditions. After learning about Rice’s illegal actions, McMaster dispatched his aide Derek Harvey to brief Charman Nunes.

Unmasking is the process of identifying individuals, whose communications were caught in the dragnet of intelligence gathering. While conducting investigations into terrorism and other related crimes, intelligence analysts incidentally capture conversations about parties not subject to the search…

View original post 570 more words