The White House has announced that Barack Obama has donated the $1.4 million given to him for winning the Nobel Peace Prize to 10 charities.
For many, that may end all questions about the propriety, legality and tax consequences of Obama's acceptance of a $1.4 million gift from a foreign state.
But not for me.
I want you to walk through this mental exercise with me: Let's say a foreign government offered me $1.4 million because it liked my work here at WND. Now, for starters, as a private American citizen, there is no legal prohibition against my acceptance of that award. But there most definitely is one on the president of the United States accepting it. It's no minor technicality. It's called the emolument clause of the Constitution, and I have written about this before.
Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, known as the emolument clause, states: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State. …"
Most Americans may not realize, as I did not until very recently, that the Nobel commission is elected by the parliament of Norway. That means the peace prize is made by a commission representing the legislature of a foreign state. There's little question the award amounts to an emolument – at nearly $1.4 million and a priceless gold medal.
Back in 1902, the U.S. attorney general advised that even "a simple remembrance" qualified as an emolument – "any present of any kind whatever." In 1993, President Bill Clinton's legal counsel affirmed that finding and explained that the text of the clause does not limit "its application solely to foreign governments acting as sovereigns" – but even when foreign governments work through other devices and organizations.
There's little question that if I accepted money from a foreign state, I would face serious tax consequences – even though I hold no public office in the U.S.
So, I might choose to do what Barack Obama did. Instead of actually touching the money, I might instruct the foreign donor, in this case the Nobel commission, to dole out the money directly to my favorite charities.
Do you think that would end questions about my involvement with a foreign government by federal authorities?
I sure don't.
Nor should it.
This would likely be seen as a way for a foreign government to be empowering an American citizen to play Santa Claus.
I suspect I would be audited for directing the way foreign funds would be spent.
And that's why I am calling for Barack Obama to be audited this tax season.
Not only did he accept a $1.4 million award from a foreign state, but he clearly orchestrated a clever attempt to avoid paying any taxes on it. He didn't just tell the Nobel commission that he couldn't accept the money under the law of the land. He accepted it conditionally – that he be permitted to direct its use.
Â
This way Obama got to have his cake and eat it, too. His White House, the people's house, announced to the world that Obama had donated $1.4 million to 10 charities. But, in fact, he merely directed how that money would be spent.
If you or I did that, believe me, there would be multiple federal investigations of our actions – and rightfully so.
But Obama does this right out in the open and no one questions it. In fact, he gets accolades for being generous, as if he were giving away his own money.
Do you see my problem here?
But it gets worse.
What about the priceless gold medal?
Where is that?
Why haven't we seen any mention of it in the press? Where are the White House announcements of what happened to it? Where was that donated? Who is the recipient?
The president of the United States is the top executive of the law. He's supposed to be a good example to the rest of us mere peons – the people who employ him.
Where's the gold medal?
How does Obama get away with directing how foreign money is being spent and taking the credit for it?
The Obama administration will be directing tax audits this year for the first time. I have no doubts that it will follow the blatantly illegal pattern of the Bill Clinton administration and use tax audits against its political enemies.
If we are all equal under the eyes of the law, it would be Obama who got the first audit notice this year. He'd be asked to explain how and why he arranged personally to direct the spending of $1.4 million in foreign funds. He'd be asked to explain who got the priceless gold medal from the Nobel commission. He'd be asked to explain why he accepted a prestigious prize from a foreign government when the Constitution expressly forbids it.
But I won't hold my breath.
Because in Obama's USA we are hardly all equal under the eyes of the law.