SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall/Chuck Norris "IRS Gives Billions in Tax Refunds to Illegals"

(See related video here)

Chuck Norris:
"WTHR, the NBC affiliate in Indianapolis, recently reported about how millions of illegal aliens are getting billions of dollars in U.S. tax refunds without having paid a dime in income taxes. The story instantly went viral because it's true. You won't believe what illegals are getting away with, and our government is enabling them.

Here's how it works.

Illegal immigrants cannot qualify for legitimate Social Security numbers, which would entitle them to work legally in the U.S. and file income tax returns, but the Internal Revenue Service allows them to apply for nine-digit individual taxpayer identification numbers, or ITINs, which also are used to file federal income tax returns.

In addition, a provision in the tax code permits illegals to claim "additional child tax credits," which grant families $1,000 per "dependent" child. Roughly three-quarters of tax returns filed by illegals include these ACTCs. With the ITIN, illegals are able to get tax credits and refunds for nephews, nieces and other family members who never have touched U.S. soil.

For example, an illegal immigrant who makes $13,000 a year not only pays no taxes but also can receive a refund of $5,000 by simply filling in five ACTCs. One illegal used a fake address and said four illegal aliens lived there with 20 relatives as dependents, for a grand total tax refund of $29,000!

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, in the 2010 tax year alone, more than 3 million returns were filed with ITINs. About 2.3 million of them paid no federal income taxes and also collected a cumulative $4 billion from the Treasury in tax refunds for claiming ACTCs.

FactCheck.org confirmed: "The (Treasury Department's inspector general's) report stated that more than 2.3 million persons who did not have Social Security numbers valid for working in the U.S. got an average of roughly $1,800 each in 2010 in child tax credit refunds. That included 9,000 illegal immigrants who each got a total of $10,000 or more by retroactively claiming credits for tax years prior to 2010."

A tax consultant snitched to WTHR News: "We've seen 10 (or) 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax returns. The more you put on there the more you get back. ... Here's a return right here: 'We've got a $10,300 refund (for) nine nieces and nephews.'"

And if you think this is a relatively new IRS scam, consider the report for the Center for Immigration Studies prepared by Peter A. Schulkin, who holds a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and has taught at several universities. It was a follow-up to a November 2010 memorandum titled "Child Tax Credits for Illegal Immigrants."

In it, Schulkin "highlights new information contained in a report of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) dated July 7, 2011, (titled) 'Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.' The $4.2 billion is entirely the product of the Additional Child Tax Credit ... for the 2010 tax processing year."

Furthermore, Schulkin reported: "The July 7, 2011, TIGTA report echoes the message contained in the earlier March 31, 2009, TIGTA report in the statement: 'Although the law prohibits aliens residing without authorization in the United States from receiving most Federal public benefits, an increasing number of these individuals are filing tax returns claiming the Additional Child Tax Credit ... a refundable tax credit intended for working families. The payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and policy to remove such incentives.'"

In fact, Schulkin's memorandum reports a long history of IRS abuses of ACTCs by illegal immigrants -- at least seven years....." (Read more?  You should.  Click title)

"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."

SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall/Chuck Norris "The Feds' Intrusions Into American Farms and Families"

Rick Perry.  2016.

Chuck Norris:
"After a national decry by American farmers (and all of us who support them), the Obama administration has just shelved its plan to severely restrict kids younger than 16 from working on family farms. But mark my words. As the feds often do, they merely are regrouping to march again on those great American homesteads.

Part of the very words of the U.S. Department of Labor's "withdrawal" statement: "The Department of Labor is announcing today the withdrawal of the proposed rule dealing with children under the age of 16 who work in agricultural vocations. ... To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration."

"Will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration"?

So, until Jan. 20, 2013, right?

Kudos to the bipartisan group of 98 members of Congress who sent a letter to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis protesting this rule, which would have severely limited teenagers and younger children from learning the family trade, not to mention undermined the very business fabric of rural America. It might sound legislatively crazy if it weren't coming from one of the most overextended federal governments in the history of the U.S.

According to The Raleigh Telegram, "the rule would have prevented children younger than 16 from doing 'agricultural work with animals and in pesticide handling, timber operations, manure pits and storage bins' while also forbidding them from using 'power-driven equipment' and working in the 'cultivation, harvesting and curing of tobacco.'"

Can you imagine? What's next? The feds' crackdown making it illegal for kids to wash dishes, because a knife might cut them? No grinding up food, because the garbage disposer might malfunction and start suddenly while their hand is in it? No more cooking or ironing, because their hands might get burned? No more housecleaning, because the Environmental Protection Agency has designated the mixture of certain cleaning chemicals as hazardous to touch or breathe in?

Let's get real, folks! How far do the feds have to mingle in our manure before we say enough is enough? How far do we have to slide down the slippery slope of socialism before the descent becomes irreversible, before we say, "Welcome to Greece"?..."  (Read more?  Clickt title)

"Unapologetic pursuit and tracking of patterns within the news others make since 2010."

SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "How Romney and Our Republic Can Win (Part 2)"

(See related post here)

Chuck Norris:
"Last week, I showed how the Republican Party likely would lose the presidential election in November if it were to use conventional campaign tactics. However, I also explained an unconventional strategy that could usher in victory for the GOP and our republic -- a tactic used by President Abraham Lincoln.

This week, I want to elaborate more on Lincoln's concept of a team of rivals -- and who could be a part of it -- and also share with you the inspiring dream my wife, Gena, had that we both hope comes true.

For those who missed Part 1, a book that highlights Lincoln's brilliant action is titled "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," by Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and presidential historian. Lincoln's idea and action was simply this: Once elected, Lincoln brought together his former GOP competitors (each representing a political faction in the country) and created a united force that ultimately healed the divisions in the land and propelled America forward.

Why couldn't that happen again, especially in a country as divided as ours? And why couldn't the GOP nominee propose such a plan to boost his election probability?..." (Read more? Click title)

"Unapologetic pursuit and tracking of patterns within the news others make since 2010.

SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall/Chuck Norris "How Romney and Our Republic Can Win (Part 1)"

Chuck Norris:
"Enough talk. The idea is this, and it is not my idea but the action of President Abraham Lincoln.

A book that highlights Lincoln's brilliant action is titled "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," by Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and presidential historian. In addition to topping charts and receiving scholarly acclaim, the book itself is political genius and outlines the crucial strategy needed not only to rally the present GOP base but also to win the White House and save our republic. (I also wrote about this unifying strategy in a former column, "The 8th Miracle To Save America," which can be read at http://www.creators.com/opinion/chuck-norris/the-8th-miracle-to-save-america.html.)
Goodwin's prize-winning treatise details how Lincoln brought together his candidate rivals by appointing them to key positions in his administration when he became president.

Let me re-highlight a few critical points from Goodwin's book review in The New York Times:

"The party in the 1860's was a coalition of politicians who only a few years earlier had been Whigs (Lincoln, Seward, Bates), Democrats (Blair, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles and Vice President Hannibal Hamlin), Free Soilers (Chase), or had flirted with the short-lived anti-immigrant American Party, or Know Nothings (Cameron and Bates). In addition, several cabinet members personally disliked each other: Blair and Chase, Seward and Welles, Chase and Seward, Blair and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who replaced Cameron in January 1862. Lincoln's 'political genius' enabled him to herd these political cats and keep them driving toward ultimate victory.

"How did he do it? Goodwin deals with this question better than any other writer. Part of the answer lay in Lincoln's steadfastness of purpose, which inspired subordinates to overcome their petty rivalries. Part of it lay in his superb sense of timing and his sensitivity to the pulse of public opinion as he moved to bring along a divided people to the support of 'a new birth of freedom.' And part of it lay in Lincoln's ability to rise above personal slights, his talent for getting along with men of clashing ideologies and personalities who could not get along with each other."

Whether you agree with Lincoln or not, his team of rivals worked, propelled his leadership and ultimately unified the country.

Isn't our divided country again ripe for a new "team of rivals," made up of past presidential candidates and other vetted, qualified and esteemed national leaders, rather than merely a dynamic duo fighting the Obama campaign machine?

Lincoln recognized the wisdom of Jesus when it came to collective success: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

The question is this: Will Romney?

Next week, I will not only elaborate more on this concept of a team of rivals and the people I believe should be a part of it but also share the inspiring dream Gena had, which we both hope comes true."

"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."

SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall/Chuck Norris "Soros and Obama vs. Sheriff Joe Arpaio"

Chuck Norris:
"...Of course, if you mention the term sheriff at the moment, most thoughts go racing to Arizona and Maricopa County's 20-year sheriff, Joe Arpaio, and his plight with the feds and fight against illegal immigration.

Regardless of the fact that there are a plethora of amazing sheriffs across the country doing incredible work subduing lawbreakers and keeping their counties clean of mischief, the mainstream media, or MSM, are working double time with the federal government to make sure that when you think of sheriffs, the picture painted in your mind is one of runaway renegades -- badged outlaws on the loose.

Despite how you feel about Sheriff Joe's personal conduct, government suspicions or the severity of criminal discipline, there is no doubt that the feds' entanglements into his affairs are a massive overreach of local and state laws and jurisdictions. It is pathetic that President Barack Obama, as well as the entire left-wing progressive establishment, is in a multimillion-dollar smear campaign to discredit and take down Sheriff Joe, as the sheriff's own re-election website proclaims, because he has "led the fight in Arizona against illegal immigration."

Rush Limbaugh was right in recently calling out the MSM's bias against Sheriff Joe in that not a single left-wing news source has reported that the sheriff has received repeated online death threats by an avid Obama supporter. But a year ago, when then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot by a madman, the MSM were quick to incriminate any right-wing sources, including polemical innuendoes on former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's and Limbaugh's websites, for contributing to the killing spree on that dark, tragic Arizona day.

My question is this: If there isn't any credence to the left-wing's demonizing and entrapment of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, then why would billionaire progressive George Soros spend millions of dollars on anti-Arpaio campaigns and pledge millions more to defeat the toughest U.S. sheriff's re-election?..."
(Read more?  Click title)

"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."

SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "The Benign and Benevolant President Obama? "

Chuck Norris:
"In my column two weeks ago, "Not All Presidential Orders Are Created Equal," I discussed some specifics in President Barack Obama's March 16 executive order, "National Defense Resources Preparedness," and how it is a completely audacious overreach of presidential power, especially enacting peacetime martial law.

Here I will discuss why analysts are wrong for simply overlooking it as a benign order similar to other presidents' orders.

I finished two weeks ago by saying that whether in preparation for war (for example, with Iran) or any other national emergency, the federal government does not have the authority to take over our food and water supply, energy supplies (including oil and natural gas), technology, industry, manufacturing, transportation, health care facilities, etc.

And taking the additional preliminary steps for enacting martial law even during a time of peace is an unprecedented and reckless abuse of executive power. As Alex Jones' Prison Planet explained, "a key addition to the language made by Obama is that all these industries and means of production can be seized 'under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.'"

This presidential order is another sweeping power grab in a long and dangerous legacy of presidential overreaches. Our Founding Fathers never would have allowed it, and we shouldn't, either.

As James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," explained, "the operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."...."  (Read more?  Click title)

"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."

SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall/Chuck Norris "Not All Presidential Orders Are Created Equal (Part 1)"

Chuck Norris:
"In his typical duck-'n'-dodge fashion, President Barack Obama spewed his 115th executive order upon the American public on a late Friday afternoon, March 16. Cloaked in one of Obama's candy-coated, grandiloquent titles, the "National Defense Resources Preparedness" executive order set the blogosphere ablaze this past week.


Canada Free Press ran an article titled "Obama Executive Order: Peacetime Martial Law!" An Examiner.com article similarly declared that the order would "nationalize everything" and "allow for a civilian draft." And the Drudge Report ran a story headlined "Martial Law? Obama issues Executive Order: the National Defense Resources Preparedness."

On the other hand, mainstream media minions and others were quick to quell the hysteria as rumor. William A. Jacobson, associate clinical professor at Cornell Law School, warned: "If someone wants to make the argument that this is an expansion of presidential powers, then do so based on actual language. There is enough that Obama actually does wrong without creating claims which do not hold up to scrutiny." (Still, Jacobson offers this disclaimer: "I'm not ruling out the possibility that this is more than it seems, but unless and until someone does more than merely state that martial law is coming, I'll consider this to be routine.")..."  (Read more?  Click title)

"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."

SandBox Comments: Town Hall/Chuck Norris "My Endorsement for President"

Chuck Norris:

"Our republic as our Founding Fathers created it is under assault from extremists outside our country and anti-constitutionalists inside our country. Combine that with the flailing American economy and global markets and you see that Western civilization is on the brink, as experts and all the GOP presidential candidates agree.

President Barack Obama has tried and failed miserably to fix our economy, deepening us and our posterity into more than $6 trillion of additional national debt -- something he criticized former President George W. Bush for as "unpatriotic" and "irresponsible." Yet the unemployment rate remains at a higher level than it was when Obama was elected, and the dollar is as unstable as the Middle East.

Now is not the time to be mincing through minutiae and fighting with fellow party members. Rome is burning, and we need to appoint the best firefighters possible to rush in and put out the fire. What's critical at this point is to appoint a commander in chief who can clearly lead America to a more solvent and secure future.

No man or candidate is perfect. We all have skeletons in our closets. If buried bones become unforgivable bones of contention, the world will never know another Benjamin Franklin or King David. We must remember that we're electing a president, not a pastor or pope. The mainstream media and a billion-dollar campaign coffer are on the president's side, so we need a veteran of political war who already has fought Goliath, because he will be facing Goliath's bigger brother....."

(Read more?  Click title. Comment to discuss)