10:1 odds say that Romney took the 2009 IRS Amnesty

Received this fowarded email today that the sender has received from a friend, a tax attorney, who posted his original comment on The Daily Oklahoman to include:

"10:1 odds say that Romney took the 2009 IRS Amnesty. Which means he admitted defrauding the US Government and illegally evading taxes for years."

Some people on the right especially the Romney supporters seem to have a reading comprehension problem as witnessed by his preface comments.  When someone says 10:1 odds that means he is pretty sure that is what happened but since  Romney refuses to release his 2009 returns, he doesn't know for sure.  This would also explain why the McCain's people didn't see much wrong -- they didn't have 2007, 2008 and especially 2009 to make a decision.  This opinion of a tax attorney makes complete sense as to why Romney will release no tax returns before 2010.  Even then the release for 2010 was incomplete.  This analysis, if true, would disqualify Romney in the minds of the vast majority of the American people.  Who would trust Republicans again for nominating such a flawed candidate?

If this is true, Romney needs to pull out now and let us nominate someone like a John McCain -- third time is a charm.  He works across the aisle and stands up for what is right like he did this week against Michael Bachmann and one of the House Members, Trey Franks, from AZ.  Then we could get real reform and transparency in donations to political campaigns.

This would be devastating to Romney.  Is this what the Democrats know and why the drip, drip, drip?

[Preface, this is a copy and paste from a comment i left on a newsok post. My original post was this: "10:1 odds say that Romney took the 2009 IRS Amnesty. Which means he admitted defrauding the US Government and illegally evading taxes for years." 

That was responded to with this comment: "And your proof behind that statement is ....what?"
To be clear, I was never making a factual statement. I thought that the phrase, "10:1 odds say" clearly illustrated that I was making an assumption and guess, but apparently some missed that. I just don't want to type it again and change pronouns and a few specific comments aimed at the original antagonist, so that's why I included that intro. Took me about 40 minutes to compile the information and write the original post, just wanted to present it with context. 

No proof. Conjecture. If there was proof then there wouldn't be odds. 

My conjecture is based on the following: 

1) I'm experienced with federal tax law because part of my law practice focuses on tax. 

2) Romney was seeking the GOP Nomination for President in 2007 and 2008. I would assume that during that time, his taxes were squeaky clean, since Presidents routinely release tax returns, you would think that you would want the one released your first year in office to not have glaring problems. 

3) Based on that assumption, you would think that as he prepared to run again in 2011 and 2012, he would continue to have clean tax returns. 

4) It would be a reasonable assumption that whatever is in the tax returns for the years prior to 2010 must be damaging enough to outweigh the heat he is taking for not releasing them. 

5) What would be a bad enough secret that someone actively running for President over the past 6 years would want to keep hidden in a tax report? The reason must also be plausible. 

6) We already know he's extremely rich and pays a low amount in taxes, so what good does it do to take this heat if that is your only real reason. 

7) We already know that Romney keeps money in legal tax havens in the Caribbean. 

8) In August of 2009, UBS paid $780 million dollars in fines to the IRS for helping American tax payers commit illegal tax evasion. UBS released the names of nearly 4,500 Americans that it helped. 

9) The IRS offered an Amnesty for 2009 taxes. If a tax payer took it, they were admitting that they had committed tax evasion. They paid a fine as part of their taxes and the IRS agreed to never prosecute them for that specific instance. 

10) 14,000 American taxpayers were concerned enough by the threat of criminal prosecution for tax evasion (not knowing if they were on the list provided by UBS), that they accepted the Amnesty, essentially admitting that they had defrauded the government and the IRS. 

Conclusion:Admitting to the American People that you defrauded the government is a serious enough problem that it would actually make sense to take all of this flak over not releasing your returns, because the truth is probably worse. Romney is extremely wealthy and we know he keeps his money in legal foreign bank accounts. So it's plausible that this is the reason why. 

Yes we don't know for sure. If he did take the Amnesty it will be on his 2009 tax return, so that will answer the question 100%. 

So I have no "proof" behind the statement that I give it good odds that this is why he's hiding that return. And those are the reasons I think it is a 10:1 favorite to be the truth.

Noticed the author of this had the same problem on The Oklahoman that we see on the websites including liberal ones where the Romney people attack anyone who dares to post against Romney with some of the most outlandish defense of Romney I have seen.  The over the top rhetoric of the right to include the conservative pundits like Rush, Fox News who edits speeches to take President Obama's words out of context and cheerleads for Romney, Sununu's racist remarks against Obama even if he apologized he said it, and now Romney keeping up the Rush attacks that Obama is foreign has a lot of Republicans up in arms who believe in integrity and honesty which is lost on a lot of people who are turning into pretzels.  What are they going to say if this is true?  Their hero to beat Obama will be no more.  He may have amnesty but in the eyes of the American voter he would still be a tax evader.

NY Times Editorial: Bring Back the Real Maverick

UPDATE:  Thanks to the reader who sent me this link with the letter to the editor at The Oklahoman after reading this article.  Here in Oklahoma the League of Women Voters seems to be pretty unbiased or at least they have at forum's I have attended here.  Found this letter expresses what is bothering many of us -- no transparency for donors giving huge sums of money:

Secret campaign money undermines role of voter
| Published: May 21, 2012  

The League of Women Voters supports U.S. Senate Bill 2219, which would restore transparency to U.S. elections by requiring complete disclosure by those funding election advertising at the $10,000 level or higher. Voters need to know who's spending big money on advertising in candidate elections in order to make informed decisions. Secret campaign money undermines the role of the voter and corrupts the election process. It should have no place in our democracy. 

We're seeing huge sums of money from secret sources going into election advertising. Much of it is the negative advertising that poisons the airways. Special interests are spending millions of dollars in this election, threatening to drown out the voices of individual voters. Because of changes in the law, there are now no disclosure requirements. We don't know which big corporations and rich lobbyists are paying for these ads. 

The League of Women Voters calls on Congress to pass this bill and we call on all candidates to disavow secret advertising. 

Mary Jo Neal, TulsaKaren Melcher, StillwaterNeal and Melcher are co-presidents of League of Women Voters of Oklahoma. 

Read more: http://newsok.com/secret-campaign-money-undermines-role-of-voter/article/3676636#ixzz1wb3xghYX

******

Bring back Senator McCain is correct!  When Campaign Finance Reform was passed, I thought it was a mistake but after what we have been witnessing with Romney buying the primary with the big donors from Wall and K Streets, I no longer feel that way.  Why are the wealthy allowed to donate millions and the rest of us $2500 for the primary and another $2500 for the general?  Super PACs have made the Republican Primary a nightmare and given us a candidate that before the others dropped out couldn't even get 40% of the vote.

This editorial is as timely today as when I first read it but because of other stories, it was shoved aside.  This editorial is correct that voters have a right to know who is giving the big bucks to run these ads.  The fact that an organization like Crossroads run by Karl Rove is sitting on $100M for ads for Romney yet we have no idea who donated is just wrong.  Money has corrupted this election.  I said it with Soros in 2008 but it is worse this time with Republicans.  We knew Soros was giving but now people hide behind phony names and addresses provided for $500 by the Romney Super PAC.  Now we learn that Republicans want no part of supporting McCain in the Senate on Campaign Finance to shine the light of day on donors.  Why?  How corrupt is this campaign for Romney?  Is it because they know he needs the big money to buy false advertising to win?  That's my guess.  No one on the GOP will be willing to cross Romney which begs another WHY?

Wall and K Streets are out to buy this election along with the elite for Romney but they forget there are a lot of voters like me who are fed up with big money trying to buy this election, the elites telling us we will support Romney or we are called names, and Obama is the most evil person ever according to some of the emails from Republican/conservative groups for starters.  Would have to throw the RNC attacks right in there.  The powers at be in the GOP don't seem to care about the truth but their narrative.  To use an old word many of their comments about Obama are balderdash.  The attacks have gotten very personal not just about issues from some of the conservative sites.

As we saw yesterday with President Bush, he gets along fine with President Obama and so do the two wives.  Why all the hatred from the GOP, the lies, mistruths, innuendoes all to make Obama look like this horrible person?  I have heard more than one Republican say if they had to choose between Romney and Obama to have a beer, they would choose Obama.  You don't have to agree with a candidate but to the personal attacks are so unbelievable that it makes me wonder just what makes these people ticks.  Is buying an election the American way -- not in my book.

Romney bought the primary with the help of his Super PAC, Rove, Bush 41, Roger Ailes, the RNC and countless others and now that same group wants to buy the Presidency.  Why do they risk splitting the Republican Party to put Romney in office who is beholden to Wall/K Streets?  Makes no sense this long-time Republican who never registered independent but I can understand today why so many people have had it with the Republican Party today who no longer seems to believe in small government.

Bring Back the Real MaverickPublished: May 19, 2012 

Senator John McCain has retreated from the campaign finance fight, once his signature issue. He may finally be ready to get back in. He told the newspaper The Hill that he had been talking with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, the sponsor of a much-needed bill requiring timely public disclosure of donors writing checks of $10,000 and more for election ads, plus “stand-by-your-ad” identifications from the five biggest donors. 

Mr. McCain said he was seeking firm guarantees that the measure would treat the labor movement’s campaign spenders the same as corporate donors. That seems reasonable. The public has a clear and urgent need to know who are the hidden donors bankrolling the salvos of attack ads. But the Senate measure is reported stalled, with no Republican willing to join as a co-sponsor. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, and Senator Charles Schumer, a principal force behind the bill, must push to have it brought to a vote. 

Mr. McCain could help drive the issue by defying his party’s monolithic dedication to unlimited and undisclosed political donations. He castigated the Supreme Court for arrogance and naïveté in throwing open the corporate money gates in its Citizens United decision, predicting “huge scandals because there’s too much money washing around.” Now he needs to put his reputation and his vote behind that warning. 

Full disclosure of donors was the one positive option the Supreme Court endorsed in its misguided decision. Last week, the legality of donor transparency was stressed in a preliminary decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It cited Citizens United in upholding Representative Chris Van Hollen’s challenge to the Federal Election Commission for arbitrarily weakening disclosure requirements. 

Mr. Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, is also the chief sponsor of a matching sunlight measure in the House. Win or lose, Americans need to know who is for disclosure and who wants to hide the truth about big donors and misleading ads.   

New York Times Editorial

       

Natural Born Citizen versus Native Born Citizen

It is not about the birther movement but that every American citizen has a right to know if ANY candidate for President meets the eligibility requirements to run as a 'natural' born citizen which means having two American citizens as parents. If one parent is not an American citizen, then the person is ineligible to run for President. How hard is that to understand?

Most of us learned in civics that to be 'natural' born, you had to be born to two American parents on American soil or your parents had to be in the military or Government employees. In doing the research it looks like that has evolved to two American citizens would be able to convey natural born citizenship to their baby even if the child was born overseas. In the case of Obama that part doesn't matter as his Dad was a British subject at the time of his birth.

We find the fact that Donald Trump is not afraid to ask the tough questions and is shining the light on this issue of 'natural' born refreshing. Trump is getting crucified in the media and by some Republican/conservative pundits/candidates for daring to question Obama. Why? What is being hidden? Sarah Palin immediately backed Trump in his quest to find the truth, but where are the other candidates and some Governor's? Cowering in a corner somewhere or coming out saying Obama was born in Hawaii? They miss the boat as where he was born is irrelevant if one parent is not an American citizen. His mother was only 17 and not old enough at that time to convey citizenship, but putting that aside, Barack Obama was a British subject at the time of Obama's birth which makes Obama ineligible to ever run for President or Vice President.

Today we see once again that CNN is carrying the water for Obama saying he was born in Hawaii. Hate to break the news to CNN but if Barrack Obama was Obama's father then he is does NOT meet the eligibility requirements to run for President or Vice President.

This is not only about Obama but any potential candidate where his parents came to this Country and were not Naturalized American citizens when the baby was born. Very simple to understand but it is going over the heads of so many people that we decided to dedicate a blog post to Natural Born versus Native Born.

There are only two positions, President and Vice President, in the United States Constitution where natural born is required which rules out dual citizenship at anytime in the life of the candidate. That would affect any candidate born in this Country whose parents were not naturalized or native born citizens at the time of the candidate's birth.

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Decided to look further into what is a natural born citizen and found a website dealing with the subject of a natural born citizen:

Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black

According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. Obama does not fit that description since, at the time of his birth, his father was a British subject.

Obama’s own web site, throughout the entire 2008 Presidential campaign, stated that his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH BLACK

According to a July 18, 1859 official proclamation by former Attorney General Black (as reported in the New York Times on July 20, 1859), only those who never owed fealty to another nation may be President:

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. “

Here again we see a person in high office stating that to be President one must never have owed fealty to another nation. We see the true legal requirement that the President never owed allegiance to any foreign sovereign. This clean natural citizenship is one which can only be present at birth. Since the naturalized citizen can’t be President because he once owed allegiance to a foreign nation, the same goes for any other citizen who owed allegiance to a foreign nation.

Obama admits to having owed fealty, aka allegiance, to the United Kingdom at the time of his birth. Therefore, upon the authority of Representative Bingham, Justice Black and Attorney General Black, Obama is not eligible to the office of President.

If "Dreams from my Father" is correct and the birth certificate says that Barrack Obama is the father then as stated before Obama regardless of place of birth was not eligible to run for President as his father was a British subject. If the parents were naturalized citizens and gave birth, the baby would be a natural born citizen as his parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth.

Too many people mix up American citizen with what the requirements are to run for President. If a child is born to Mexican citizens in the United States that child is an American citizen but cannot run for President as both parents were not American at the time of the birth. If the Mexican parents become naturalized citizens before the birth of their child, then the child is a natural born citizen.

More from the American Thinkeron the subject:

Native born” means someone born on U.S soil. “Natural born” means born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. If the Founding Fathers had meant “native born” they would have written “native born” in the U.S. Constitution, but they didn't. They wrote: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." They specifically stated “natural born Citizen,” a term which all educated persons at the time knew meant, per the nomenclature of the time, born on U.S. soil to citizen parents.

The United States Constitution was written in clear and concise terms by extremely intelligent and articulate men. To claim or act as if natural born means nothing more than born on U.S. soil assaults both the U.S. Constitution and the great intelligence of the Founding Fathers. That most Americans are poorly educated these days is no justification whatsoever for violating, or advocating violating, the United States Constitution. As for Hussein Obama, if somebody gets away with murder that does not mean that all murders should henceforth get a pass. Again, why is American Thinker posting articles that advocate making war on the United States Constitution?

The American Thinker is about as clear and concise as you can get and leaves us with the question of "Why are the pundits and some Republican candidates who want to 'move on to other subjects' ignoring that part of the equation?" The words racist, birther, etc. has been used to describe anyone who dares to question Obama on his qualifications to be President. Why? If his Dad was Barrack Obama as alleged in the book, then he had no right to run for President no matter where he was born. If his Dad was not Barrack Obama, then we have a right to know who was the father and was he an American citizen.  If that is the case then we know Obama perpetrated a fraud on the citizens of the United States pretending to be a son of Kenya.

There has also been discussion about being born on foreign soil to two United States citizens if the child would be considered a natural born citizen. We know for a fact that children of military or US Government employees stationed overseas would give their child natural born status. But what about others?

The various sites have a lot of discussion that has been in the courts including the Supreme Court about what it takes to give a citizenship status versus a natural born citizen.

The 14th Amendment requires “exclusive allegiance” to the United States either at birth or at the time of naturalization.

This rules out dual citizenship which a child is given if one parent is from another Country and requires that child to renounce one of the citizenship's at 18 during the time period we are discussing with Obama. Know for a fact that is the case as I have two cousins born to an English Mom and American Dad who at 18 had to decide with Country to declare their allegiance.

It also would seem to state that if two American citizens have a child overseas, they can convey 'natural' born status to their child. That part may be up for debate but the part that both parents have to be American citizens is not.

Why was John McCain required to provide proof he was eligible to run when his parents were in the military and he was born out of the Country while his Dad was on deployment to the Canal Zone? Best guess we have is that they wanted to make sure that both parents were American citizens and that would give John McCain natural born status. Why didn't the same Senate require Obama to provide the same detailed information?

Will someone explain why it is so wrong for American citizens to want to know the background of a Presidential candidate including birth certificate, school, passport, and health records, where a candidate has spent their life and who were his friend and mentors? Seems pretty clear cut if you are going to run for President, that you are going to be an open book, but guess we were wrong. According to some pundits, we have no right to know anything about Obama except what he tells us in his books especially "Dreams from my Father" which is now widely considered to be written by Bill Ayers with some of the material about Ayers not Obama. Why do we not have a right to know about the man who was elected President with almost 'zero' background available and what was available is up for debate?

We hope this has cleared up the distinction between native born and natural born because there is a definite difference.