Traitors - Do you recognize any of these names?

The Republican Senators listed on the left below  have reneged on their promises  to vote against amnesty.  Some if not all have been bought off by Senate majority leadership with provisions in the amnesty bill that provide extra funds to the states of those GOP senators who agree to vote for the amnesty bill, S.744.

The Democrat Senators who have done likewise even though they are from "Red" States.
If you recognize the names of any of your senators, please call them to voice your extreme displeasure with their votes.  Ask them to reconsider and honor their promises.

This is another of those thousand page bills that obscure a variety of provisions that serve special interests rather than the American people.  It was largely written by representatives of La Raza, unions and the chamber of commerce.  Ordinary Americans and those with opposing view were not allowed to participate.  And don't be fooled by Senators McCain, Rubio, Flake and Graham's participation on the Gang of Eight.  They were the senators who least represented  their party's position.  No  other choice could have been worse.

It's difficult to see how this process in any way resembles the democratic process we expect from our government. 

 

 

Rubio                    Stabenow

Corker                  McCaskill

Wicker                 Donelly

Ayotte                  Hagan

Flake                     Landrieou

Hatch                   Tester

Heller                   Pryorf

Alexander

Colllins

McCain

Graham

Kirk

Murkowski

Chisea

Here's $4.2 Billion to Apply to the National Debt

To make a long story short, the Internal Revenue Service is responsible for assigning Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs). ITINs are issued to those who are unauthorized to work in the U.S. However, a 2011 report from the Treasury Inspector General (TIG) showed that in 2010, $4.2 billion in tax credits nationwide were paid to those same people through the Child Tax Credit; those who eligible for this credit can receive up to $1,000 in tax credits per child. So, a person who is not authorized to work in the U.S. is nevertheless able to obtain a refund check from the American taxpayer, via the IRS.

Fast forward to 2013.

The TIG completed a report in 2012 that outlines problems with the IRS’s review of ITIN applications. Among the many problems, TIG found that IRS personnel are inadequately trained to identify false or questionable documentation and identify patterns involving fraudulent tax refund claims. Additionally, a Questionable Identification Detection Team formed that would have properly handled fraudulent tax returns has been disbanded. Since the elimination of the team, the IRS’s management does not use application information to identify potential fraudulent schemes.

The TIG audited the IRS’s data system to understand how to solve this problem. When the TIG analyzed the number of times the same mailing address was used on an ITIN application, it found that 154 mailing addresses were used 1,000 or more times on ITIN applications.

For example, 123456 Peachtree Street, Atlanta GA 30312 was listed as the contact address on 1,000 or more ITIN applications submitted to the IRS. Since we are using Atlanta as an example, from 2006-2011, 12,345 ITINs were granted to individuals using a single addresses. In 2011, at only four addresses in Atlanta, 41,272 tax refunds were issued that totaled over $54 million. Each refund averaged $1,308.

While over 20 million Americans and legal immigrants struggle with unemployment or underemployment, the IRS sends refund checks to those ineligible to work in the U.S.

Illegal Aliens Already Cost Us a Bundle

The economist Milton Friedman warned that America cannot have open borders and an extensive welfare state. He was right, and his reasoning extends to amnesty for the more than 11 million unlawful immigrants in this country.
In addition to being unfair to those who follow the law and encouraging more unlawful immigration, amnesty has a substantial price tag.
An exhaustive study by the Heritage Foundation has found that after amnesty, current unlawful immigrants would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and pay more than $3 trillion in taxes over their lifetimes.
That leaves a net fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) of $6.3 trillion. That deficit would have to be financed by increasing the government debt or raising taxes on U.S. citizens.
For centuries, immigration has been vital to our nation's health, and it will be essential to our future success. Yet immigrants should come to our nation lawfully and should not impose additional fiscal costs on our overburdened taxpayers. An efficient and merit-based system would help our economy and lessen the burden on taxpayers, strengthening our nation.
A properly structured lawful immigration system holds the potential to drive positive economic growth and job creation. But amnesty for those here unlawfully is not necessary to capture those benefits.
We estimate that when those who broke our laws to come here start having access to the same benefits as citizens do — as is called for by the Senate Gang of Eight immigration bill — the average unlawful immigrant household will receive nearly $3 in benefits for every dollar in taxes paid. The net annual cost is $28,000 per unlawful immigrant household.
Given the federal debt of $17 trillion, the fiscal effects detailed in our study should be at the forefront of legislators' minds as they consider immigration legislation.
Already, illegal immigrants impose costs on police, hospitals, schools and other services. Putting them on a path to citizenship means that within a few years, they will qualify for the full panoply of government programs: over 80 means-tested welfare programs, as well as Social Security, Medicare and ObamaCare.
The lifetime fiscal cost (benefits received minus taxes paid) for the average unlawful immigrant after amnesty would be around $590,000. Who is going to pay that tab?
Our government is now in the business of redistribution. As Nicholas Eberstadt, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, has pointed out, federal transfer payments, or taking from one American to give to another, grew from 3% of spending in 1935 to two-thirds of all spending in 2010. Adding millions of unlawful immigrants to U.S. programs will have a massive negative fiscal effect.
Our findings are based on empirical research and reflect common sense. Unlawful immigrants have relatively low earning potential because, on average, they have 10th-grade educations and low skills. Heads of households like that, whether from the Midwest or Central America, will receive, on average, four times as much in government services and benefits as they pay in taxes.
Adding millions more to bloated welfare and overburdened entitlement programs would deepen the fiscal hole our country is in.
In addition to costing taxpayers, amnesty is unfair to those who came to this country lawfully. More than 4 million people are waiting to come to America lawfully, but our dysfunctional bureaucracy makes it easier to break the law than to follow it.
Our cost estimates are in some ways conservative. The $6.3 trillion figure does not factor in the waves of unlawful immigrants who could pour into this country hoping for another future amnesty.
As scholars at the Heritage Foundation and elsewhere have explained, the immigration bill being considered in the Senate differs little from previous empty promises to secure our borders and enforce immigration laws on the books. When amnesty was granted under a similar plan in 1986, there were about 3 million unlawful immigrants; now we have more than 11 million.
Instead of forcing through a complicated, lengthy bill, Congress ought to advance piece-by-piece immigration solutions that enjoy broad support and build trust with the American people. We should move to streamline our legal immigration system, encourage patriotic assimilation to unite new immigrants with America's vibrant civil society, fulfill promises to secure our borders and strengthen workplace enforcement.
We are proudly a nation of immigrants. People the world over are attracted to America because we are a nation of laws.
Granting amnesty to those who broke the law and putting them on a path to citizenship would be unfair, would encourage more bad behavior and would impose significant costs on American families.  -- Robert Rector et al


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/050713-655128-america-cant-have-open-borders-and-welfare.htm#ixzz2X4jmF5Eh
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Let the Border Patrol Certify when the Borders are Srcure

By now it is clear that you can't trust those damn Democrats.  In 1986 they promised secure border in return for amnesty for more than a million illegal aliens.  Border security never hap pended. They lied.  Eleven million illegals later make that crystal clear.  And yet now the Democrats prompted by La Raza are back at the table again trying to sell us another bill of goods. 

 

It's hard to see why anyone doesn't realize by now that there is only one way to secure the borders  and that is to stop rewarding illegal aliens with the opportunity to stay and work while they ultimately force the Congress into yet another amnesty.  

 

Likewise there is only one way to ascertain whether the border is secure.  We must have a secret poll of all border patrol and related front line officials administered and reported by an outside agency such as one of the large accounting firm or as Charles Krauthammer suggests below when he  s".... some independent body certifies that the border is essentially closed."

 

Is a bipartisan immigration deal at hand? It’s close. Last week, the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce worked out a guest-worker compromise that allows in foreign workers on a sliding scale of 20,000 to 200,000, depending on the strength of the economy.
Nice deal. As are the other elements of the Senate’s bipartisan Gang of Eight plan — the expansion of H-1B visas for skilled immigrants, serious tracking of visa overstayers and, most important, a universal E-Verify system that would make it very risky for any employer to hire an illegal immigrant.
But there’s a rub. It’s the perennial rub. Are Democrats serious about border enforcement? It’s supposed to be the trigger that would allow illegal immigrants to start on the path to citizenship.

 

Why is a trigger necessary? To prevent a repeat of the 1986 fiasco where amnesty was granted and border enforcement never came — giving us today’s 11 million living in the shadows. Yet just a week ago Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, referring to border enforcement, averred that “relying on one thing as a so-called trigger is not the way to go.” Regarding legalization, “there needs to be certainty.” But not for border security?

And she’s the person in charge of securing that border. Now listen to President Obama: “Given the size of the border, it’s never going to be 110 percent perfect. What we can do is to continue to improve it.”

The usual Obama straw man. Who’s asking for 110 percent enforcement? And the need is for something a lot more than just improvement. The objective is to reduce a river to a trickle. It’s doable. The two border sections with triple fencing outside San Diego reduced infiltration by 92 percent. (If the president tells you that fences don’t work, ask him why he has one around the White House.)

To be sure, the Gang of Eight enforcement trigger is not ideal. The 11 million get near-instant legalization — on the day, perhaps six to nine months after the bill is signed, when Homeland Security submits a plan (with the required funding) to achieve within a decade 90 percent apprehension and 100 percent real-time surveillance.
This plan triggers “probationary” legalization, which in reality is permanent, because once the 11 million register, it is inconceivable their status would be revoked.
Let’s be clear. A mere DHS enforcement plan is a very weak trigger. I would prefer legalization to occur later, once the plan is actually carried out and some independent body certifies that the border is essentially closed.

 

But that simply will not happen. Democrats control the Senate and the White House, and they will only agree to a weaker trigger. Which is? Legalization first — i.e., living here openly without fear of deportation but nothing more until the border is controlled. Until then, no one even starts on the path to citizenship — no green card, no naturalization.

So why is Obama undermining even that compromise, asserting that “this earned pathway to citizenship” must not be “put off further and further,” that it must be “certain” — not contingent on verifiable benchmarks of border closure?

Are he and Napolitano signaling to their hard-core open-border constituency that they will try to sabotage passage of any law that has a serious enforcement trigger, or that they will try to sabotage enforcement if a strict law is nonetheless enacted?

Why? Isn’t border control an elementary principle of sovereignty? What country deliberately forfeits the right to decide who gets to join its communal life?

Remember: We’re not talking about the 11 million already here who will be legalized as a matter of both practicality and compassion. We’re talking about the next 11 million. Without border enforcement, they will be here. If you don’t build it — the fence, the visa-tracker, E-Verify — they will come.

Why deliberately create the next immigration crisis? Is it because you coldly calculate that this wave and the next are destined to be partisans of your political party? Talk about placing party over country.

Or perhaps Obama intends this to be a poison pill: (1) Demonstrate unmistakable bad faith on enforcement. (2) Undermine the Gang of Eight’s already weak border-control “trigger.” (3) And thus force Republicans to defeat this “immigration reform” — as newly defined and newly defanged of enforcement.

Obama seems to want an issue, not a solution — a potent political issue for Democrats to demagogue in 2014 and 2016 and forever. If so, given the Democrats’ incessant and lachrymose expressions of compassion for those living in the shadows, this would be the ultimate in cynicism. per Robert .Krauthammer

Vote Against Cloture on Amnesty Bill

Tell your Senators Deceptions Will Not Be Tolerated. Filibuster The Gang-Of-Eight Amnesty Bill!

 

In a matter of hours, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will bring the Gang-of-Eight Amnesty bill to the floor of the Senate. It will take only 41 votes to deny him cloture and kill this Amnesty bill. Tell your senators that the American people expect them to vote against cloture or any motion to proceed.  You must do this today to have any effect!  Phone, fax or email your senators now.

Here's what your senators need to hear:
"I am are going to be blunt. You may be thinking that you can vote in favor of  cloture and then vote against the legislation after it hits the floor.  The American people will not be fooled by this deception.  You need  to vote "no" on any motion to proceed.

If you vote "yes" on cloture, you won't get away with telling the American people that you opposed Amnesty.  Disabuse yourself of that ridiculous notion right now.

Put another way, a vote in opposition to filibustering the Gang-of-Eight amnesty bill will be viewed as a vote in favor of Amnesty... PERIOD!

This Gang-of-Eight Amnesty bill can't be fixed and it should not be debated. The sooner you kill this fraudulent immigration legislation, the sooner you can enact real immigration reform. Kill it now!  Vote "no" on cloture or any motion to proceed.

Dee Perez -Scott's Top Ten -- Only in Progressive America

Pretty sad, especially #1
 TOP-10 "Only In America" Observations:

10) Only in America…could 
politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a 
$35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising 
event.

9) Only in America…could 
people claim that the government still 
discriminates against black Americans when they 
have a black President, a black Attorney General, 
and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is 
black while only 12% of the population is 
black.

8) Only in America…could 
they have had the two people most responsible for 
our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the 
Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who 
once ran the Ways and Means Committee), 
BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in 
favor of higher taxes.

7) Only in America…can 
they have terrorists kill people in the name of 
Allah and have the media primarily react by 
fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the 
backlash.

6) Only in America…would 
they make people who want to legally become 
American citizens wait for years in their home 
countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for 
the privilege, while they discuss letting 
anyone who sneaks into the country 
illegally just 'magically' become 
American citizens.

5) Only in 
America…could the people who believe in 
balancing the budget and sticking by the 
country's Constitution be thought of as 
"extremists."

4) Only in America…could 
you need to present a driver's license to cash a 
check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

3) Only in 
America…could people demand the 
government investigate whether oil 
companies are gouging the public because the 
price of gas went up when the return on equity 
invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon 
Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis 
shoes (Nike).

2) Only in America…could 
the government collect more tax dollars from the 
people than any nation in recorded history, still 
spend a Trillion dollars more than it has 
per year - for total spending of 
$7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that 
it doesn't have nearly enough money.

1) Only in America…could 
the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes 
- be accused of not paying their "fair share" by 
people who don't pay any income taxes at 
all.

Dee Perez-Scott --Obama overlooks the most important gun issue

“The single most important factor that has caused the political left to demand an end to private firearms ownership is that the underclass has, over the last fifty years, expanded exponentially, bringing with it an exponential increase in crime.  Many of these criminals come from the single-parent families encouraged by the welfare system, a dysfunctional government give-away favored by the far left.  The absence of fathers has led large numbers of children to seek gangs as a substitute for parenting not available at home.  Not content with having created an entire class of welfare-bred criminals, the political left now seeks to protect this underclass by rendering ordinary citizens defenseless against crime perpetrated by these criminals.”

In sum, both blacks and whites are part of this criminal underclass, but, as Juan Williams points out, blacks, a 13% minority, are doing 54% of the killing and dying.  That needs to be said.

Why is this happening?  According to Juan Williams, the out of wedlock birth rate for blacks is now 72%.  This leads to more than 70% of black mothers being on welfare raising more than 70% of black children without fathers.

That’s part of the problem.  Another part, Williams says, is:

“a dysfunctional gangster-rap culture that glorifies promiscuity, drug dealers and the power of the gun.”

So now we have black culture of violence financed by the welfare system producing what are – by any measure – distorted values.  One might think this needs to be addressed.

Not so.  The President of the United States recently invited the gangster rapper Jay-Z to his inauguration.  Jay-Z is the black poster boy for the value system that Juan Williams says is destroying the black community.  Inviting him to the presidential inauguration is, by implication, an endorsement of the mindlessness characteristic of Jay-Z and his supporters.

But Obama is not a moralist.  He is a politician who panders himself to the black vote and avoids criticizing the criminal culture that has enslaved his people.  Obama made no move toward gun control until a white madman killed young children at Sandy Hook.  In Obama’s mind, that single act instantly transformed the “gun problem” into a white (not black) problem.  It is about white misconduct, not about blacks, black culture or black behavior.

Guess what. It’s still about blacks.  They are victims and killers in disproportionate numbers.  An occasional white maniac does not erase that.  People who want to reduce homicide by gun need to focus on curbing a black culture that has caused the problem in the first place.

Banning guns to cure black murderousness, crime and cultural deficiencies is like banning popsicles to deal with an outbreak of the Ebola virus.