All errors should be reported to

Sunday, October 02, 2016

NYT gets tax welfare

The Obama administration illegally gave the New York Times IRS information on Donald John Trump, which the New York Times illegally published, and which it extrapolated as meaning Trump paid no federal income taxes for several years -- or maybe he paid a billion dollars a year in taxes.

What we do know as a fact is the New York Times not only paid no taxes in 2014 but received tax welfare of $3.5 million from the IRS.

We know whatever Trump did with his taxes is legal because for five years (at least) President Obama has targeted Trump as an enemy of Obama's corrupt regime. They would have prosecuted by now. Near as I can tell, he took a huge loss one year and can carry that over loss for several years. I know someone (not me or my wife) who did that and her income is laughably low -- less than $10,000 a year.

But Obama's is a rogue regime that violates the law routinely. Federal law prohibits officials from divulging tax information on a private individual. Likewise, federal law prohibits its publication by anyone.

However, because it is a publicly held corporation, the New York Times tax information is a matter of public record. In fact, the New York Times must publish its tax information in its annual report.

From Forbes magazine on January 31:
The New York Times just ran an op-ed by their editorial board decrying corporate inversions on the grounds that taking advantage of the tax code is somehow unpatriotic. The particular case that got the ire of The New York Times was Johnson Controls, the Milwaukee-based auto parts maker, selling itself to Ireland-domiciled Tyco International which will save it at least $150 million annually in U.S. taxes. The Times should be the last organization to criticize others for benefiting from the tax code.
Corporate inversions classically involve a larger, American company “selling” itself to a smaller, foreign-headquartered company in order to save on taxes. The motivation is the U.S. tax code, which claims the right to tax worldwide earnings rather than just the share of corporate earnings generated in the U.S. Foreign-headquartered companies need only pay taxes on their U.S. earnings and since U.S. corporate taxes are among the highest in the world (the exact ranking depends on whether you go by the stated or effective rate).
Apparently, The New York Times believes companies should take no actions in order to lower their tax rates. In fact, the editorial makes clear that the Times is particularly incensed at Johnson Control’s maneuver because the auto bailout used taxpayer money to keep Chrysler and GM in business, indirectly benefiting Johnson Controls who sold them auto parts. At this point, I would normally launch into an explanation about how corporations have no obligation to pay taxes and that it is government’s fault if it offers companies tax breaks or leaves loopholes in the tax code.
As a law-abiding citizen, I refuse to be an accessory after the fact to the crimes of the Obama administration and the New York Times by discussing the details of this illegal report.

Trump should sue.


My new book, "Trump the Press," is a fun read that details how the experts missed the rise of Trump. Read the reviews in the right column.

Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book also available in Kindle and as a paperback on Amazon.

Autographed copies area available. Email me for details. Also email me if you have suggestions for a sequel.


  1. I agree.

    Too bad he can't sue the Os and the Ozarks personally.

    Or can he?

  2. As Trump has repeatedly said, his latest individual federal return is being audited. If the IRS had found something obviously illegal, even with appeals by Trump within the system, the hammer would have dropped by now. I'm sure Trump's returns are far more complicated than mine, but they can't be SO complicated they are beyond the understanding of the auditors at the IRS. It just looks like out-and-out harassment to me. As for where Trump's tax information came from, that is a good question. It had to be stolen and since the NY Slime has accepted knowingly stolen information and commented extensively on it, someone at the paper should be going to jail. And even if DJT is a public figure, I would think he has grounds for a yuuuge privacy lawsuit against the paper, say $5 billion give or take a few billion.

  3. Maybe under a Trump Administration, that Leftoid fishwrap welfare will stop. And the joint will be a better place for it, cos sometimes subtraction is addition in disguise.

  4. We're well into 1984 territory at this point, folks. I'm taking a look at products from Henry Repeating Arms. They look pretty solid....

  5. --The FBI’s Defense of How the Clinton Interview Was Conducted Is Full of Holes

    The Bureau was clearly hamstrung by the Obama administration’s goal of avoiding prosecution. In a nutshell, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department permitted Hillary Clinton’s aide Cheryl Mills — the subject of a criminal investigation, who had been given immunity from prosecution despite strong evidence that she had lied to investigators — to participate as a lawyer for Clinton, the principal subject of the same criminal investigation. This unheard-of accommodation was made in violation not only of rudimentary investigative protocols and attorney-ethics rules, but also of the federal criminal law.

    Yet, the FBI and the Justice Department, the nation’s chief enforcers of the federal criminal law, tell us they were powerless to object.


    Read more at: