FAIRY FOR CHILDREN

- Hallo friend FAIRY FOR CHILDREN, In the article you read this time with the title , we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article adventure, Article animation, Article fantasy, Article The latest, Article wit, we write can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title :
link :

http://ift.tt/2t3211e
.BLOGSPOT. COM.
For Mon., Nov. 6, 2017
~All Gave Some~Some Gave
All~God Bless America

Kevin Brady: Trump Wants Health Reform Linked to Tax Package

(Jabin Botsford/Getty Images)  By Todd Beamon  

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady said Friday that President Donald Trump "feels very strongly" about including legislation to repeal the Obamacare individual mandate in the Republican tax-reform package.

"The president feels very strongly about including this at some step before the final process," the Texas congressman told Politico's "Playbook Power Briefing" in Washington. "He's told me that twice by phone and once in person … and members have as well.

"There are pros and cons to this, importing healthcare into a tax-reform debate, has consequences.

"No decisions have been made," Brady cautioned. "We're listening to the members and certainly the president as well."

House Republicans released their tax plan on Thursday, but it did not include a repeal of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate.

Trump called for the repeal Wednesday, though he praised the tax proposal after the rollout as being "all about jobs."

Brady, 62, who was first elected to Congress in 1996, had told reporters earlier this week that he did not want the mandate repeal included because it might jeopardize the tax legislation, since the Senate has been unable to deliver on healthcare reform.

Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton has been pushing the idea and discussed it with Trump this past weekend, The Hill reports.

Repealing the Obamacare mandate would save around $400 billion, according to the report, and those funds could be used to pay for tax cuts.

However, the Congressional Budget Office has said that the repeal would leave 15 million more Americans without insurance and premiums would increase by 20 percent.

The conservative House Freedom Caucus also backs including the repeal, Chairman Rep. Mark Meadows, the North Carolina Republican, told the Hill.

In other comments from the Politico session, Brady said that Trump "calls regularly, more often now, just weighing in on these decisions" regarding the tax plan — and he will play a big way in promoting it to taxpayers.

"He's using Twitter to make the case as well," the chairman said. "He's been all in on the rollout.

"He's going to stay engaged, his Cabinet is staying engaged while he's traveling."

Brady added that the tax plan will not be amended on the House floor.

"The work will be done in the committee and before we take it to the Rules Committee and later in conference."

He said that passing the tax package was critical to Republicans heading into next year's congressional elections.

"We've not delivered on our promise on health care repeal," Brady told the gathering. "It's critical to deliver on tax reform.

"This is the challenge of the lifetime.

"At the end of the day, we achieve this," he added, "we've delivered on our promise."

ALERT: Sick Mueller Secret Uncovered, People Need To Know

Luis Miguel

CLICK TO JOIN

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who has been charged with investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 election, is now being scrutinized for controversial actions taken during his tenure as FBI Director.

According to Judicial Watch, under Mueller, the FBI purged itself of anti-terrorism material deemed “offensive” to Muslims. The changes occurred after Mueller secretly met with Islamic organizations, including unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing case.

Judicial Watch obtained the information after suing to force the release of FBI documents dating back to 2013 and 2015. The released material suggests Mueller went out of his way to appease Muslim groups by cutting valuable anti-terrorism material from the Bureau’s curriculum.

Mueller’s FBI said the “offensive” training documents were removed because an article in question was “highly inflammatory and inaccurately argues the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization.”

Interestingly, Mueller himself previously said the Muslim Brotherhood was a terrorist organization that supports attacks in the US and overseas. Other items of “offensive” statements from the training material raise further questions of curriculum choice.

For instance, an article claiming al Qaeda is “clearly linked” to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was removed. Conflating “Islamic Militancy” with terrorism was also seen as problematic, prompting the elimination of that material.

One statement considered offensive to Muslims was the statement, “Those who fit the terrorist profile best (for the present at least) are young male immigrants of Middle Eastern appearance.”

These changes in FBI counter-terrorism training occurred after Mueller met with representatives from a number of Muslim groups, including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Both ISNA and CAIR were named by the US government as co-conspirators in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing case, in which the Holy Land Foundation, then the largest Islamic charity in the US, was found to have distributed money to HAMAS-linked Palestinians who committed acts of terror against Israelis.

In fact, CAIR–which has been alleged to have ties to foreign and domestic Islamic extremist groups–was founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists who ran Hamas’ American propaganda wing, then known as the Islamic Association for Palestine. This information raises questions about whether Mueller–who spent 12 years as FBI chief–can objectively investigate the Trump administration.

The changes undertaken by Mueller’s FBI had significant ramifications for the anti-terror initiatives of local law enforcement agencies. Local police followed the FBI’s example in letting organizations like CAIR dictate what type of training materials were deemed “appropriate.”

In Illinois, the Lombard Police Department said the instructor of a training course titled “Islamic Awareness as a Counter-Terrorist Strategy” was “anti-Muslim.” Although no substantial evidence was brought against him, the course was ultimately scrapped.

In another case, the New York Police Department eliminated a highly-praised course with a proven track record of success after two mosques, an Islamic non-profit, and three New York Muslims filed a lawsuit.

Robert Mueller’s objectivity has been called into question before. As Christian News Alerts noted, Mueller and former FBI Director James Comey are friends, leading to the belief that Mueller aims to discredit President Trump for having fired Comey.

Christian News Alerts also reported that leading lawmakers like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) see the Mueller probe as a “distraction” that is no longer limiting itself to the express purpose for which it was commissioned in the first place–essentially wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money for a witch hunt.

Clinton Defends Trump?
Hillary Clinton defends funding anti-Trump dossier in late-night interview

Hillary Clinton appeared on The Daily Show Wednesday night to talk about her book, What Happened, but ended up defending her campaign’s decision to commission a dossier on then-Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump.

Clinton attempted to characterize the dossier, obtained from Russian officials, as the product of normal opposition research — the kind that campaigns do regularly. Seizing on the fact that Fusion GPS, the firm that ultimately paid for the dossier, was hired, initially, by Republicans, and had worked for both parties in the past, Clinton claimed that outrage over the dossier was based on the public’s misunderstanding of how campaigns actually work.

“It’s part of what happens in a campaign where you get information that may or may not be useful and you try to make sure that anything you put in the public arena is accurate,” she told host Trevor Noah.

She went on to claim that the dossier was “still being evaluated,” despite allegations that the dossier is entirely uncorroborated by evidence.

In the interview, Clinton tries to meld Fusion GPS and the Russian dossier together, as though the Washington Free Beacon bought and paid for the dossier, and the Clinton campaign just happened to bear the fruit of their investment.

“This was research started by a Republican donor during the Republican primary, and then when Trump got the nomination for the Republican Party, the people doing it came to my campaign lawyer and said, ‘Would you like us to continue it?’” Clinton said.

That’s not true. Fusion GPS serves both parties, but only the Democrats paid the $168,000 to a former British spy that resulted in a dossier claiming Donald Trump had questionable financial ties to Russia and questionable bedroom practices with Russian hookers.

Clinton also claims that the dossier remained within her campaign and that Democrats never made an attempt to publicize the findings. But according to the The Daily Caller, Fusion GPS approached at least ten media outlets with the dossier, and succeeded in getting some of the dossier’s less salacious — though no less untrue — allegations printed.

The interview may be most important because Clinton seems willing to admit to some basic knowledge of the system, and her own campaign’s opposition research operation. That’s something a candidate would likely understand, but Clinton told media last week that she was entirely unaware of what certain aspects of her campaign were doing, and found out about the opposition research project with Fusion GPS only after she’d lost.

Source: http://ift.tt/1GiNWgb

‘HOPELESSLY COMPROMISED’: CONGRESSMAN CALLS FOR MUELLER’S RESIGNATION OVER URANIUM ONE SCANDAL
FBI had tried to silence confidential informant from revealing extent of Clinton Foundation and Uranium One

Earlier this morning House Judiciary Committee representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) submitted a resolution calling for Robert Mueller to resign as special counsel overseeing the FBI investigation of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government saying, among other things, that the former FBI director is “hopelessly compromised” as a result of his failed oversight of the controversial Uranium One transaction.

Here is an excerpt from a press release posted to Goetz's website recently:

“Evidence has emerged that the FBI withheld information from Congress and from the American people about Russian corruption of American uranium companies. A confidential U.S. witness, working in the Russian nuclear industry, revealed that Russia had deeply compromised an American uranium trucking firm through bribery and financial kickbacks.

Although federal agents possessed this information in 2010, the Department of Justice continued investigating this “matter” for over four years. The FBI, led at the time by Robert Mueller, required the confidential witness to sign a non-disclosure agreement. When the witness attempted to contact Congress and federal courts about the bribery and corruption he saw, he was threatened with legal action. By silencing him, Obama’s Justice Department and Mueller’s FBI knowingly kept Congress in the dark about Russia’s significant and illegal involvement with American uranium companies.

These deeply troubling events took place when Mr. Mueller was the Director of the FBI. As such, his impartiality is hopelessly compromised. He must step down immediately,” Rep. Gaetz said in a statement.

Gaetz’s resolution currently has two cosponsors, both of whom are members of the House Freedom Caucus: Representatives Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Louie Gohmert (R-TX).

Of course, pressure has been growing on Mueller for the past couple of weeks and reached a fevered pitch when the The Hill recently reported the sordid tale of “Confidential Source 1,” a man that the FBI used as an informant back in 2009 and who says he was silenced by the FBI and Obama administration when he attempted to come forward with information that linked the Clinton Foundation directly to the Uranium One scandal.

Toensing added her client has had contact from multiple congressional committees seeking information about what he witnessed inside the Russian nuclear industry and has been unable to provide that information because of the NDA.

“He can’t disclose anything that he came upon in the course of his work,” she said.

The information the client possesses includes specific allegations that Russian executives made to him about how they facilitated the Obama administration’s 2010 approval of the Uranium One deal and sent millions of dollars in Russian nuclear funds to the U.S. to an entity assisting Bill Clinton’s foundation. At the time, Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of State on the government panel that approved the deal, the lawyer said.

It has been previously reported that Bill Clinton accepted $500,000 in Russian speaking fees in 2010 and collected millions more in donations for his foundation from parties with a stake in the Uranium One deal, transactions that both the Clintons and the Obama administration denied had any influence on the approval.

“All of the information about this corruption has not come out,” she said in an interview Tuesday. “And so my client, the same part of my client that made him go into the FBI in the first place, says, ‘This is wrong. What should I do about it?’”

When he tried to bring some of the allegations to light in the lawsuit last year, “the Obama Justice Department threatened him with loss of freedom. They said they would bring a criminal case against him for violating an NDA,” she added.

“The government was taking a very harsh position that threatened both your reputation and liberty,” the civil lawyer wrote in one email. In another, she added, “As you will recall the gov’t made serious threats sufficient to cause you to withdraw your civil complaint.”

As we pointed out last week, “Confidential Source 1” has since been cleared by the DOJ to meet with Congress to tell his tale.

Meanwhile, the scandal took another turn for the worse earlier this week when, despite numerous assurances to the contrary from the Obama administration, new memos obtained by The Hill confirmed that, in fact, Uranium One yellowcake was exported from U.S. shores repeatedly between 2012 – 2014.

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill shows that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

NRC officials said they could not disclose the total amount of uranium that Uranium One exported because the information is proprietary. They did, however, say that the shipments only lasted from 2012 to 2014 and that they are unaware of any exports since then.

NRC officials told The Hill that Uranium One exports flowed from Wyoming to Canada and on to Europe between 2012 through 2014, and the approval involved a process with multiple agencies.

Of course, we’re certain that Mueller will promptly admit his conflicts and do the right thing…right?

* * *

Below is the full text of the Gaetz’ resolution:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Robert Mueller should resign from his special counsel position.

Whereas from 2001–2013, Robert Mueller served as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

Whereas as early as 2009, the FBI discovered that Russian officials were engaging in bribery and extortion, tainting the American uranium industry in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to strengthen their own nuclear program;

Whereas investigations into Russia’s corruption of American uranium-related businesses were supervised by then-United States Attorney Rod Rosenstein, currently serving as Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, currently serving as Deputy Director of the FBI;

Whereas despite knowledge of this corruption, backed by documents and an eyewitness account, neither the Department of Justice nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the leadership of Mr. Mueller brought charges;

Whereas the Department of Justice actively threatened the liberty of a confidential informant embedded within Russia’s nuclear program who wished to inform Congress about Russian corruption of American uranium-related companies, and the FBI required this informant to sign a non-disclosure agreement, intentionally depriving Congress of information vital to national security and Congressional oversight authority;

Whereas Members of Congress have raised objections to, and concerns with, the sale of American uranium assets to Russian companies, and raised these concerns in official correspondence to then-President Obama as early as 2010;

Whereas in 2010, when the Russian Federation needed American approval of uranium sales, former President William Jefferson Clinton received hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from Kremlin-linked institutions, and requested approval from the State Department to meet with central figures in Russia’s nuclear industry, and eventually met with Russian leader Vladimir V. Putin at Mr. Putin’s private residence;

Whereas the Clinton Foundation has either directly or indirectly received undisclosed donations totaling millions of dollars from Russian-linked sources, including from officials in Russia’s nuclear program;

Whereas in 2010, Hillary Clinton, founder of the Clinton Foundation, wife of former President Clinton, and then Secretary of State, approved the sale of Uranium One to a Russian state-owned nuclear technology corporation;

Whereas any thorough and honest investigation into the corruption of American-uranium related business must include investigating the willful blindness of the FBI and its leaders;

Whereas under 28 CFR 45.2, no individual can participate in a criminal investigation if he has a personal or political relationship with any organization substantially involved in the conduct that is subject of the investigation;

Whereas under 28 CFR 45.2, no individual may participate in a criminal investigation if the individual’s participation would create an appearance of conflict of interest likely to affect public perception of the integrity of the investigation;

Whereas the Code of Federal Regulations, applied to Mr. Mueller, demonstrates that he cannot be allowed to investigate his former colleagues, supervisors, and subordinates;

And

Whereas these obvious conflicts of interest are unacceptable to the United States justice system and the American people:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved,

That House of Representatives expresses its sense that Robert Mueller is compromised and should resign from his special counsel position immediately.

NUMBER OF MUSLIM REFUGEES STILL DECREASINGWith the United States letting in less than half the refugees than were allowed in the final full year of the Obama administration, the Trump White House has also raised the percentage of Christian refugees to Muslim refugees since President Donald Trump took office.

Compared to the torrent of refugees resettled monthly during Barack Obama’s presidency, only 910 refugees were resettled within the United States in the month of August, which represents the lowest monthly total number since the early days of the Bush administration, Breitbart reported.

The numbers come from the State Department’s website, which shows that 217 out of 910 — just 24 percent of the refugees admitted in August — were Muslim.

That’s down significantly from the 46 percent Muslim refugee rate we saw during the Obama administration years. In the last full year of the George W. Bush administration, only 23 percent of refugees were Muslim.

According to Breitbart, the 910 refugees overall would be the lowest number since October of 2002, during the first years of the Bush administration. That means it’s also the lowest number since President Donald Trump took office.

The State Department’s database was unavailable on Thursday morning, but the final number for the fiscal year 2017, which ended Oct. 1, was 53,716, according to CNS News.

While the refugee ceiling for the year was 110,000 individuals, that was set during the Obama administration. Since then, Trump’s controversial travel bans have restricted refugee resettlement and travel from countries where the State Department has identified terrorism issues existing.

However, the cap for the 2018 fiscal year, according to The New York Times, will be set at 45,000 — the lowest since 1980.

Cost and safety have been two of the major concerns when it comes to refugee resettlement in the Trump administration, with some officials arguing for numbers as low as 15,000.

Liberals, of course, have used this as a rallying point to claim that Trump and his administration are heartless racists and “ethnonationalists” (using the current en vogue term to smear anyone to the right of Angela Merkel on the refugee issue.)

This is a comprehensive bunch of baloney. The fact is that we’re dealing with a dire terrorist threat in the very region (or two regions, should you include the ever-unstable Libya) where a significant portion of the world’s refugees originate.

While the military defeat of the Islamic State group certainly makes the residents of Iraq and Syria safer, it could compound the problem by seeing former militants, still holding the same poisonous views — working their way into the migrant and/or refugee population.

Yes, we understand that there is a long vetting process for refugees. However, caution — particularly in the face of the Islamic State group — is a virtue.

As long as refugees (and not just economic migrants) can be safely brought to the United States without undue burden on the American taxpayer, they should be. That’s what the administration is doing.

Liberal hysteria over this simply ignores the fact that we face a security crisis. (An excellent example of the breathless hyperbole is from Linda Hartke, the president of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, who told The New York Times in September that the 45,000 limit was as if “a dark shadow has passed across the great American legacy and promise of protecting refugees.” Maybe Ms. Hartke caught the news from New York City this week.)

If the numbers are any evidence, it’s being dealt with. We would love to see these numbers go up, if just because it would mean there was no crisis to worry about.

Alas, as so many on the left are willing to ignore, that’s not the case.

BREAKING: Congress Makes Major N. Korea Move, They Deserve It

Frank Spear

North Korea has not been shy about threatening the United States. Tensions began to flare around the beginning of summer when the rogue nation started to test launch ballistic missiles while threatening anyone who stood in their way.

The US Congress now has an answer for North Korea after all of the threats and missile launches. According to Reuters, both Democrat and Republican Senators have agreed to impose a new set of sanctions on the dictator-run North Korea. The Senate Banking Committee agreed to the terms and said that they will follow through on legislation next week. At the same time, President Trump is making a trip to Asia, his first since becoming President.

There were multiple measures passed and sent to the President. One of the most important ones is called the “Otto Warmbier Banking Restrictions Involving North Korea Act of 2017.”

The act is named after Otto Warmbier, a US student who died in North Korea following imprisonment. The death was regarded as an unforgivable act by North Korea.

This new act helps expand and increase the power of existing sanctions put in place by Congress. It also helps boost oversight by Congress to make sure that the sanctions are being properly enforced.

Furthermore, it also places sanctions on foreign financial institutions, like the Chinese banks that are providing banking services to North Korea. It also has a binding effect on President Trump and future US presidents.

The bill makes it so that President Trump needs to inform congressional committees if there is any intent to suspend or otherwise affect a non-enforcement of the sanctions. This allows Congress to act accordingly in response to the President.

It also requires the President to submit reports on the system for licensing transactions as well as regular briefings for Congress. The goal is to ensure that North Korea isn’t able to cut an outside deal–say with a progressive administration like former-President Barack Obama’s–to lift the sanctions.

North Korea has executed its sixth nuclear detonation, which is cause for concern for leaders in the US as well as those close to North Korea. Japan and South Korea have explicitly expressed concern over the hostile actions of their neighbor.

Their missile launches have also increased in intensity and power. On numerous occasions, Kim Jong-un has threatened to attack the US mainland as well as the US territory of Guam.

Congress and President Trump have both called on China to do their part, requesting that they cut off financial and business dealing with North Korea. China is North Korea’s biggest trading partner, both import and export. If they were cut off from China, they would be rendered virtually helpless.

The new sanctions bill was agreed upon by multiple people including Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), who is the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), a ranking member also confirmed that the sanctions are necessary. Other panel members have also confirmed that these sanctions are crucial to keeping the United States safe, including Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).

Sen. Crapo released a statement expressing how he feels regarding the new sanctions. He stated: “The time has come for the US to take the lead to ensure that all nations work together to isolate the Kim regime until it has no choice but to change its dangerous, belligerent behavior.”

Conservatives plot how much to push Obamacare mandate repeal in tax billby Robert KingSome lawmakers are shying away from saying that inclusion is critical to their support. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

House conservatives want the repeal of Obamacare’s individual mandate included in tax legislation, but some are shying away from saying that inclusion is critical to their support.

The comments come as the House’s chief tax writer Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, said Friday that he is considering including repeal in the bill, which currently doesn’t contain it.

“That’s icing on the cake,” said Rep. David Brat, R-Va. “I would push everything that is pro-growth,” he added. Repealing the individual mandate, which requires everybody to have insurance or pay a penalty, would give the government more than $400 billion in new revenue to work with.

But Brat, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, said it wouldn’t be a deal-breaker if the final bill doesn’t include the repeal.

Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., also supports adding the repeal to tax reform.

“I’m gonna push any time I can to get rid of the individual and employer mandates,” he said.

While Yoho said he wants repeal included, it's not a dealbreaker for him if it's not in the final bill.

“More than likely no, but I would have to see the language before I would answer that,” he said.

The House Freedom Caucus, a group of two dozen conservative Republicans, hasn’t taken an official position on the issue.

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told reporters Friday that he is pushing for inclusion, but “I don’t know if the Freedom Caucus is pushing it. We have not had a discussion as a caucus and we won’t until Monday night when we get back.”

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a co-chairman of the Freedom Caucus, said including repeal was a “good idea.”

The House's Republican leaders may not have an appetite to add the repeal to the tax bill, even though it would give Republicans extra money to work with to help pay down tax cuts.

Repealing the individual mandate would reduce the deficit by $460 billion over a decade but 15 million fewer people would get insurance, according to a December estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Brady said this week he didn’t want healthcare to be a distraction in passing the overhaul of the tax code.

But that interview occurred before President Trump tweeted Wednesday that the bill should include repeal of the “very unfair and unpopular individual mandate.”

On Friday, Brady said he is considering the idea and added that Trump has personally lobbied for the inclusion. But Brady shared his doubts about adding the repeal to tax reform, a major priority for a party still seeking a signature legislative achievement this year.

“There are pros and cons to this, importing healthcare into a tax reform debate has consequences,” he said. “Especially when the Senate has failed to do anything on healthcare.”

That was a reference to the Senate’s failure to pass Obamacare repeal this summer, a sore spot among House Republicans who passed their own repeal bill in May.

Congress is using reconciliation, the procedural tool it used for healthcare legislation, to try to push through the tax bill. Reconciliation allows a bill to be approved in the Senate with only 51 votes instead of 60 needed to stop a filibuster.

A reconciliation bill must meet several rules, including reducing the deficit and other instructions.

A reconciliation bill must originate in the House, which is why the House took the lead on Obamacare repeal and is doing so again on tax reform.

The House Ways and Means Committee, which Brady heads, will hold a markup of the tax bill Monday.

Even if the House does not include repealing the individual mandate in its legislation, it still could wind up in the final package.

The Senate is drafting its own tax reform package in the Senate Finance Committee. Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, recently told reporters that the repeal is one of the policies the committee is considering. Members such as Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., have been openly pushing the idea.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., a member of Senate GOP leadership who sits on the Finance committee, said he doubted that the bill would include repeal. However, he didn’t rule it out as some members have been asking for it.

$23 Billion in Credits Claimed by Illegal Immigrants Would be Canceled Under GOP Tax Bill

By Jack Davis

Illegal immigrants will no longer be able to claim billions of dollars in tax credits under the Republicans’ tax overhaul plan.

Currently, an estimated $23.1 billion a year flows to the families of illegal immigrants through the child tax credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, according to The Washington Times.

Illegal immigrants are able to claim the credits because the Internal Revenue Service allows them to use IRS-issued Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers. The IRS issues those numbers on the grounds that it wants illegal immigrants to pay their taxes.

That claim has been attacked by some.

“It’s just a farce to say it was created to collect taxes,” Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News. “It’s nothing but a welfare program designed for illegal immigrants. ITINS are for tourists or illegals. No ITIN filer is eligible to work in the United States.”

The new bill would eliminate the use of these numbers, and require anyone who claims a tax credit to have a valid Social Security number.

Rep. Luke Messer said that it is high time for a change.

“The cost of this broken policy has fallen squarely on the shoulders of the people it’s designed to help – hardworking American families. And the numbers are astounding,” the Indiana Republican wrote in an op-ed for The Herald Tribune.

“A U.S. Treasury inspector general report estimated that up to $7.1 billion is paid out each year to illegal immigrants and individuals illegally claiming children through the Child Tax Credit. For context, that’s equivalent to Indiana’s entire annual budget for K-12 education,” he said.

White House Budget director Mick Mulvaney said the issue is one of fairness to American citizens.

“How do I go to somebody who pays their taxes, and say, ‘Look, I want you to give this earned income tax credit to somebody who’s working here illegally’? That’s not defensible,” Mulvaney said earlier this year, as reported by the Washington Examiner. “And it’s a reasonable accommodation to simply ask them for Social Security numbers.”

Others agree.

“If you don’t have a Social Security number, you shouldn’t be getting a tax payment,” said David North of the Center for Immigration Studies. “It keeps happening and nobody pays attention.”

As a candidate, President Donald trump criticized the tax credits flowing to illegal immigrants and vowed to stop the practice.

Legislation accomplish what is now part of the tax overhaul plan was proposed earlier this year by Rep. Patrick McHenry, who called his bill the “No Free Rides Act.”

“This is simply unacceptable. By introducing the No Free Rides Act we ensure these illegal immigrants will not receive any more benefits intended to help American families,” the North Carolina Republican said in a statement, according to The Hill.

Steve Bannon on Illegal Immigration at Remembrance Project: ‘Globalist Corporations Want Cheap Labor, Left Wants Cheap Votes’

by JOHN BINDER

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Breitbart News Executive Chairman and former White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon told the American families of illegal alien crime victims during a speech that illegal immigration to the United States comes down to two benefits for the political and economic elite: cheap labor and cheap votes.

During a speech at a conference by the Remembrance Project, an organization made up of the American families who have lost loved ones at the hands of illegal alien criminals, Bannon noted how the country’s elites actually profit from a constant flow of illegal aliens.

“We could stay up here all weekend and do this,” Bannon said after reading off a list of Americans who have been murdered by illegal aliens. “And each of [the victims’ stories] is heart-rendering. But what gets me is what about [the American victims’] dreams? Why are illegal aliens called DREAMers and not [the victims]?”

“And by the way, this just doesn’t happen,” Bannon said of illegal immigration. “This is not some random law of the universe… this is not physics, okay. This is an act of commission. The elites in this country, the economic, political, and the media elites allow this to happen because they want it to happen.”

“The multinational, globalist corporations want cheap labor, and the progressive Left wants cheap votes,” Bannon said. “This is not a conspiracy. And you are not wing-nuts. This is in broad daylight. And if sites like Breitbart and someone like Donald J. Trump had not given you a voice, it’d be totally hidden.”

Despite the benefits of mass illegal and legal immigration for multinational corporations and Democratic politicians — as immigrants are far more likely to vote for Democrats — the impact on Americans has been detrimental.

As Harvard University economist George Borjas has noted, “illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.”

Every year, at least 1.5 million illegal and legal immigrants enter the U.S. every year, driving down the wages of American workers and costing American taxpayers at least $116 billion every year, as Breitbart News reported.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

Mueller Linked To Nasty Scandal, This Is Disgusting

Luis Miguel

Robert Mueller, the former FBI Director who now serves as Special Counsel in the investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 election, is known for playing hardball to get the information he wants.

The Special Counsel’s tactics are now facing scrutiny over his treatment of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his wife in a no-knock raid at their home in July. According to The Washington Times, the FBI agents manhandled Manafort and his wife, frisking Mrs. Manafort as she lay in bed to see if she had firearms on her person.

A source close to the case said FBI agents did not give Kathleen Manafort–who works as an attorney on her husband’s multi-million dollar real estate acquisitions–the opportunity to get out of bed before they patted her down.

According to the source, the aggressive raid–entailing 12 agents entering the Alexandria, Virginia, home with guns-drawn and no prior notice–fits the style of Mueller’s top prosecutor, Andrew Weissman, a former New York mob prosecutor known for putting pressure on spouses.

“Weissmann will want to maximize the trauma to his family,” said Sidney Powell, a Dallas appeals attorney who takes issue with the tactics. Paul Manafort has been indicted on charges of money laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent in his lobbying work for Ukrainian clients.

“Manafort used his hidden overseas wealth to enjoy a lavish lifestyle in the United States, without paying taxes on that income,” the indictment document reads. Nevertheless, the indictment does not mention tax evasion.

Manafort briefly served as the head of the Trump campaign in the 2016 election, before he was fired, in part, because of allegedly illicit payments from a Ukrainian political party that supports close ties to Russia.

But the indictment against Manafort and his business partner, Richard Gates, is unrelated to his work for President Trump. That fact has led to substantial criticism from prominent public figures in Washington.

As Christian News Alerts noted, one of those critics is Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who says the Mueller probe has strayed away from its intended purpose in going after Manafort for issues unrelated to the 2016 election. “I think what you’re seeing is exactly why special prosecutor is a bad idea,” Sen. Paul told Fox News. “You know, they’re not doing anything with Russia. They’re trying to look at people’s taxes from a long time ago that have nothing to do with President Trump.”

Mueller himself has come under scrutiny, with observers questioning his objectivity. In addition to his close relationship with former FBI Director James Comey–whose firing by President Trump began the events that led to the commission of the Special Counsel–Mueller, while FBI Director, oversaw the bureau’s purging of anti-terrorist materials deemed “offensive” by Muslim advocacy groups, as reported by Christian News Alerts.

The FBI inappropriately handled Manafort’s arrest. Should Mueller apologize?

Conservative lawmakers say they would like Mueller to place greater focus on the Clinton-Uranium One scandal, in which the Clinton State Department authorized a 2013 deal that sold 20 percent of America’s uranium supply to a Kremlin-backed company.

According to Breitbart, The Clinton Foundation received tens of millions of dollars in donations from people involved in the deal, including from Russian nuclear officials. Meanwhile, the FBI at the time knew that a subsidiary of the Russian firm Rosatom, which purchased Uranium One, was involved in extortion and bribery.

There appear to be far more serious crimes to look into among Democrats. Hopefully, investigators will dedicate their time to those crimes and treat the accused with more decency than they showed to Mrs. Manafort.

U.S. Immigrant Population Hits Record High!
By Onan Coca

In July 2016 the immigrant population (foreign born immigrants both legal and illegal) hit a record high of 43.7 million, by September of 2017 that number had climbed to a likely 45.6 million and there is no end in sight to the rising number.

This is not to say that the problem with the latest figures or some of the other facts borne out in this study are an “immigration” problem. The United States has always been a land of immigration, and we welcome the opportunity to integrate people from all over the world into our culture. No, the problem has more to do with who is migrating and how they are integrating into the population. In the past migrants from the world over have flocked to America as a land of opportunity and a place where they could establish a new home for future generations. As such, the best and the brightest from all over the world came here and worked hard to integrate into American society. Today, this no longer seems to be the case.

The most recent findings show that the number of immigrants (legal and illegal) from the Middle East, Latin American countries other than Mexico, Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa are on the rise, but the number from places, such as Mexico, Europe, and Canada, are stagnant or have even declined. Such a disparity should send warning signals throughout the nation.

The cultures now sending migrants to our borders are not looking to integrate, they are simply looking to shift their culture from one end of the world to the other…

Just a few of the findings in the new data (you can see the source material for this data here):

• The nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) hit a record 43.7 million in July 2016, an increase of half a million since 2015, 3.8 million since 2010, and 12.6 million since 2000.
• As a share of the U.S. population, immigrants (legal and illegal) comprised 13.5 percent, or one out of eight U.S. residents in 2016, the highest percentage in 106 years. As recently as 1980, just one out of 16 residents was foreign-born.
• Between 2010 and 2016, 8.1 million new immigrants settled in the United States. New arrivals are offset by the roughly 300,000 immigrants who return home each year and annual natural mortality of about 300,000 among the existing foreign-born population.2 As a result, growth in the immigrant population was 3.8 million 2010 to 2016.3
• In addition to immigrants, there were slightly more than 16.6 million U.S.-born minor children with an immigrant parent in 2016, for a total of 60.4 million immigrants and their children in the country. Immigrants and their minor children now account for nearly one in five U.S. residents.
• Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) were by far the largest foreign-born population in the country in 2016. Mexico is the top sending country, with 1.1 million new immigrants arriving from Mexico between 2010 and 2016, or one out of eight new arrivals. However, because of return migration and natural mortality among the existing population, the overall Mexican-born population has not grown in the last six years.5
• The sending regions with the largest numerical increases in the number of immigrants living in the United States 2015 to 2016 were the Caribbean (up 120,522), the Middle East (up 109,113), Central America (up 70,664), Sub-Saharan Africa (up 67,198), South Asia (up 64,902), and South America (up 61,462).6
• Longer term, the regions with the largest numerical increases 2010 to 2016 were East Asia (up 892,209), South Asia (up 889,878), the Caribbean (up 554,903), the Middle East (up 471,029), Sub-Saharan Africa (up 456,989), Central America (up 402,784), and South America (up 249,660).
• The sending countries with the largest numerical increases since 2010 were India (up 654,202), China (up 550,022), the Dominican Republic (up 206,134), El Salvador (up 172,973), Cuba (up 166,939), the Philippines (up 164,077), Honduras (up 128,478), Vietnam (up 112,218), Venezuela (up 106,185), Guatemala (up 104,883), Nigeria (up 87,565), Pakistan (up 83,271), Haiti (up 81,074), Bangladesh (up 80,949), Jamaica (up 76,532), Ethiopia (up 71,332), Brazil (up 69,982), Colombia (up 68,032), Iraq (up 61,787), Burma (also known as Myanmar, up 60,294), Nepal (up 59,992), and Saudi Arabia (up 54,833).
• The sending countries with the largest percentage increases in the number of immigrants living in the United States since 2010 were Saudi Arabia (up 122 percent), Nepal (86 percent), Afghanistan (up 74 percent), Burma (up 73 percent), Syria (up 62 percent), Venezuela (up 58 percent), Bangladesh (up 53 percent), Kenya (up 46 percent), Ethiopia (up 41 percent), Nigeria (up 40 percent), Iraq (up 39 percent), Ghana (up 37 percent), India (up 37 percent), Egypt (up 32 percent), Pakistan (up 28 percent), and China (up 25 percent).
• The states with the largest numerical increases in the number of immigrants from 2010 to 2016 were Texas (up 587,889), Florida (up 578,468), California (up 527,234), New York (up 238,503), New Jersey (up 171,504), Massachusetts (up 140,318), Washington (up 134,132), Pennsylvania (up 131,845), Virginia (up 120,050), Maryland (up 118,175), Georgia (up 95,353), Nevada (up 78,341), Arizona (up 78,220), Michigan (up 74,532), Minnesota (up 73,953), and North Carolina (up 70,501).
• The states with the largest percentage increases in the number of immigrants 2010 to 2016 were North Dakota (up 48 percent), West Virginia (up 41 percent), South Dakota (up 39 percent), Delaware (up 24 percent), Nebraska (up 20 percent), Minnesota (up 20 percent), Wyoming (up 19 percent), Pennsylvania (up 18 percent), Alaska (up 16 percent), Indiana (up 16 percent), Florida (up 16 percent), Nevada (up 15 percent), Washington (up 15 percent), Iowa (up 15 percent), Maryland (up 15 percent), Massachusetts (up 14 percent), Texas (up 14 percent), Utah (up 13 percent), Wisconsin (up 13 percent), and Virginia (up 13 percent).

G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier

Thus articles

that is all articles This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.

You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2017/11/httpift_5.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: