Lois Lerner Wants Depositions Sealed – Fears Deadly Violence By Retaliating Americans

Lois Lerner is already reviled by the American people and we only suspect the extent of her abuse of power against us. She claims if we really knew, violence would…

By Rick Wells

Lois Lerner is the personification of elitism, corruption and arrogance. Naturally she’s a Democrat and it’s equally natural that she abused her position of trust with the IRS in the pursuit of political objectives, one being the election of Democrats, including Hussein Obama.

She arrogantly refused to testify before Congress and destroyed evidence, in addition to her crimes committed in the misconduct of her position, and has yet to be held accountable for anything. The US taxpayers picked up the tab for lawsuits brought because of her malfeasance.

She’s just collecting her retirement and living large and she and her partner in crime, Holly Paz, want to keep it that way. Lerner told a federal court last week that members of her family, including “young children,” were having death threats made against them and they risked physical harm if her statements about her crimes against innocent Americans became public knowledge.

That’s probably something she should have considered before she harassed them and abused the power she was granted. Officer Darren Wilson and his family were put in greater peril for an instance of him innocently defending himself but that didn’t slow down the beneficiary of Lerner’s actions, Hussein Obama and his attack poodle Eric Holder one bit.

Lerner and Paz, who was her deputy at the IRS, filed court documents Thursday seeking to have the tapes and transcripts of their court depositions, confessing the extent of much of their criminal offenses, sealed permanently, stating a fear of retaliation as their basis for the request.

Their attorneys argued, “Whenever Mss. Lerner and Paz have been in the media spotlight, they have faced death threats and harassment.” The depositions were taken in a class-action lawsuit by tea party groups who had been targeted by the corrupt duo.

Their crimes have already cost the American taxpayers $3.5 million in one of two settlements to injured TEA Party groups in civil cases settled last month in which Lerner and Paz admitted to their illegal acts.

Contradicting her claims and those of the Obama regime during the period of the stymied Congressional hearings, the government admitted that she not only didn’t stop the targeting as she claimed, but that Lerner made a conscious effort to conceal it as it continued.

The judge has been largely on the side of keeping the evidence of the actual wrongdoing out of the public recordto his point in the trials. The defense attorneys jumped on the use of the term “criminal thugs” in arguing for protecting the criminal elites from the consequences of their actions, saying that the use of the term by one of the TEA Party officials, Mark Meckler, somehow endangered them.

As cover for seeking any excuse to prevent the American people from learning this aspect of the Obama legacy, the lawyers argued, “These words matter. They have created a fertile environment where threats and harassment against Mss. Lerner and Paz have flourished.” Imagine people taking exception to government thugs abusing their power, the two could never have anticipated that reaction.

Meckler mocked the thugs argument, saying, “Four years of harassing innocent American citizens for their political beliefs, and she’s scared of a guy in a cowboy hat talking to a bunch of little old ladies at a TEA party event?”

Meckler noted that if there’s no criminal actions revealed in the depositions they welcome their release. He said, “The reality is because she knows she is guilty as the day is long and she doesn’t want people to know what she actually did.” He added, “It’s hard to have any sympathy for the women. And frankly, I don’t believe she’s genuinely scared.”

Unlike situations in which the government wrongdoing takes place in the Justice Department, FBI or State Department, the Trump administration supports making the documents public, which probably guarantees the judge will side with the defendants and complete the cover up by sealing them.

Why would we expect anything different? The taxpayers, not Lerner or Paz, paid the settlement for their criminal wrongdoing. The Justice Department refused to prosecute and now they want the public forbidden from knowing the truth, basically completing the cover up in every phase and guaranteeing no accountability.

The same double standard continues for the criminal elite.


Soros says he wants to pay more taxes, but prefers Ireland where he paid less than $1,000

George Soros has joined a petition to scrap tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. But the billionaire prefers Ireland, where his hedge fund paid just $962 in taxes in 2013, according to Bloomberg.

Four hundred wealthy Americans have appealed to the US Congress urging Republican lawmakers not to cut their taxes. They say the GOP shouldn’t cut taxes for the wealthiest when the US debt is at all-time high and inequality is rising.

The letter, signed, among others, by George Soros and Steven Rockefeller, says the proposal “would lead to deep cuts in critical services such as education, Medicare, and Medicaid, and would hamper our nation’s ability to restore investments in our people and communities.”

The signatories are among the highest earning five percent of Americans, who have $1.5 million in assets or who are making $250,000 or more a year.

The proposed cuts are part of President Donald Trump’s program aimed to spur growth and jobs in the country. They would add at least $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to the current national debt. This deficit “would leave us unable to meet our country’s current needs and restrict us in advancing any future investments,” the letter said.

One of the rich who signed the document is George Soros, who has always said wealthy people should pay more taxes. However, he prefers not to pay taxes in the United States, but in countries with more favorable tax laws.

In 2015 Bloomberg reported that Soros’ hedge fund paid $962 in tax in Ireland on $3,851 net income through 2013, while the remaining $7.2 billion operating income was allocated to investors.

A year later, Soros shut down the Irish company and set up another in the tax-friendly Caymans.

By the time the new company in the Caymans was created, Soros had reportedly funneled $13.3 billion in fees, which means he had dodged almost $7 billion in taxes if his business had been entirely located in the United States.

MESS: McConnell ‘Can’t Guarantee No One Sees Tax Increase’…


By Ben Casselman and Jim Tankersley

Middle-class Americans would fare better under the Senate tax bill than its House counterpart, according to a preliminary New York Times analysis. But both bills would disproportionately benefit high earners and corporations and raise taxes on millions of middle-class families.

The Senate Finance Committee bill unveiled on Thursday would, on average, cut taxes for people at every income level. But its benefits would vary widely within income brackets, depending on the specific circumstances of individuals and households, and many would pay more than under existing rules.

Republican lawmakers have been in a dash to devise — and pass — a tax overhaul that would mark their most significant achievement since taking control of Congress. President Trump and Republican leaders have outlined two main objectives for the rewrite: cutting taxes for American businesses and for the middle class. The legislation reduces tax rates on individuals and businesses, while eliminating some tax breaks to make up for lost revenues. It is meant to accelerate economic growth and increase wages for workers.

Both the House and Senate bills would cut the corporate tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent and provide business tax benefits, such as the ability to immediately expense purchases of equipment.

But as written, the Senate bill would break a vow that the majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, made on MSNBC last week when he declared that “nobody in the middle class is going to get a tax increase.” It would also break President Trump’s promise that rich people, such as him, would not benefit from a Republican tax plan.

On Friday, Mr. McConnell said he had misspoken in his MSNBC appearance. He said that every income group would see a tax cut on average, not that every individual would do so.

“You can’t guarantee that absolutely no one sees a tax increase,” Mr. McConnell said.

The Times analysis, using the open-source software TaxBrain, found that roughly one-quarter of families in the middle class would see their taxes increase in 2018, by about $1,000 on average. By 2026, the share seeing an increase would rise slightly, to about one-third, and the average increase would rise to about $1,600. For the majority of middle-class families that receive a tax cut, the average savings would be about $1,300 in 2018 and $1,700 in 2026.

Screen Shot 2017-10-25 at 1.26.16 PM

The Times analysis defines the middle class broadly as those earning between two-thirds and twice the median household income, or about $50,000 to $160,000 per year for a family of three. To focus on families, the analysis excluded individual filers and households headed by people 65 or older and is adjusted for the size of each household.

Under the House bill, The Times has found, about half of middle-class families would pay more in taxes in 2026.

The analysis did not seek to calculate how workers might benefit from a steep cut in the corporate tax rate, which both the Senate and House bills would reduce to 20 percent from a top rate of 35 percent today, or project how the bills might increase economic growth and, with it, Americans’ wages.

For taxpayers earning more than $1 million a year, the Senate bill offers a more limited upside and downside than the House bill.

The Senate bill is less likely than the House bill to yield tax increases for high-income Americans, in part because it cuts the top marginal personal tax rate, while the House bill creates a so-called “bubble rate” that would actually raise taxes on many high-salaried workers.

The Senate measure would also produce a smaller average tax windfall for high earners than the House version, in part by offering less generous benefits for owners of businesses known as pass-throughs, which are not organized as corporations.

Under the Senate plan, “Americans are especially likely to face a tax increase if they have a smaller family, have mostly wage income instead of investment income, or claim some of the many deductions that the bill repeals, like those for state and local taxes and unreimbursed employee business expenses,” said Lily Batchelder, a professor and tax specialist at New York University Law School, who worked on economic policy in the Obama administration. “They are increasing taxes on many in the middle class, while concentrating their tax cuts on the wealthy.”

The Senate bill appears much better for the very wealthy than it is for the somewhat wealthy. About half of families earning between two and three times the median income — or about $160,000 to $240,000 for a family of three — would pay more in 2018 than under existing law. But among the richest families, those earning more than about $500,000 for a family of three, nearly 90 percent would get a tax cut.

The findings come with an important caveat: The Senate bill, as written, appears unable to muster the 60 votes needed to avoid a Democratic filibuster, meaning Republicans will need to amend it to comply with the budget reconciliation rules and allow permit passage by a simple majority. Those changes could likely include putting expiration dates on some of the bill’s major provisions, which could make the final version of the bill look less favorable to the middle class, particularly in later years.

The Times’s figures are based on an analysis of Census Bureau data using a tax model from the Open Source Policy Center, a Washington research organization affiliated with the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. Because the analysis is based on publicly available data, not actual tax records, it may not capture all the intricacies of Americans’ household finances.

The Senate bill differs sharply from the House version in its approach to cutting taxes on businesses. But when it comes to taxes on individuals and families, the bills are more similar than different. Both would double the standard deduction while eliminating a raft of deductions and credits. Both would make the child tax credit more generous. Both would restructure federal income tax brackets to impose lower marginal tax rates at most income levels, although the Senate approach, unlike the House version, doesn’t eliminate two brackets entirely.

The Senate bill includes features that would make its plan more favorable to the middle class. It preserves some popular tax deductions and credits that the House bill initially would have eliminated, and it makes the child tax credit somewhat more generous and widely available. On the other hand, the Senate bill, unlike the House version, would eliminate the deduction for property taxes, which could lead to higher federal taxes for homeowners in areas with high property tax rates or expensive housing markets.

Aparna Mathur, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, said senators could improve the bill with further changes, such as expanding the earned-income tax credit and extending the benefits of the child tax credit to more low-income taxpayers. “We clearly need to do more to help the lowest-income families,” she said. “At the same time, we can engage in more base broadening for the highest-income households, perhaps by eliminating and not just capping the mortgage-interest deduction.”

The Times analysis found that roughly one-fifth of the Senate bill’s cuts in 2018 would go to families and individuals earning $1 million or more, and close to half would go to people earning at least $200,000. Between 10 million and 15 million taxpayers earning less than $100,000 a year would pay more than under existing law.

Families earning more than $1 million a year would see their after-tax income rise by about 1.7 percent in 2018 compared with what they would make under current law, nearly triple the gains enjoyed by those earning less than $200,000.

Over all, the Senate bill would cut individual income taxes by about $30 billion in 2018, and by $900 billion over the next decade, according to Congress’s nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. And most people in all income groups would see a tax cut, although the cuts would be modest for most lower earners.

Millions of Leaked Files Shine Light on Where Elite Hide Money…

By Michael Forsythe

It’s called the Paradise Papers: the latest in a series of leaks made public by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists shedding light on the trillions of dollars that move through offshore tax havens.

The core of the leak, totaling more than 13.4 million documents, focuses on the Bermudan law firm Appleby, a 119-year old company that caters to blue chip corporations and very wealthy people. Appleby helps clients reduce their tax burden; obscure their ownership of assets like companies, private aircraft, real estate and yachts; and set up huge offshore trusts that in some cases hold billions of dollars.

The Paradise Papers

A series of stories that reveal the offshore financial dealings of some of the world’s biggest corporations and wealthiest people. Nearly 100 news organizations in an international collaboration examined more than 13 million leaked documents from a law firm, an offshore services company and corporate registries from tax havens.

  • Paradise Papers Shine Light on Where the Elite Hide Their MoneyNov. 5, 2017

  • Kremlin Cash Behind Billionaire’s Twitter and Facebook InvestmentsNov. 5, 2017

  • Commerce Secretary’s Offshore Ties to Putin ‘Cronies’Nov. 5, 2017

  • After a Tax Crackdown, Apple Found a New Shelter for Its ProfitsNov. 6, 2017

  • From Utah, Secretive Help for a Russian Oligarch and His JetNov. 6, 2017

The New York Times is part of the group of more than 380 journalists from over 90 media organizations in 67 countries that have spent months examining the latest set of documents.

As with the Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers leak came through a duo of reporters at the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and was then shared with I.C.I.J., a Washington-based group that won the Pulitzer Prize for reporting on the millions of records of a Panamanian law firm. The release of that trove of documents led to the resignation of one prime minister last year and to the unmasking of the wealth of people close to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

This week, The New York Times is publishing stories from the Paradise Papers that were reported in cooperation with our I.C.I.J. partners. Here is a roundup of the four stories that have already been made public.

Continue reading the main story

Yuri Milner, a Russian billionaire whose holdings have included major stakes in Facebook and Twitter. Credit Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg, via Getty Images

Behind one of Silicon Valley’s most prominent investors, Yuri Milner, was hundreds of millions of dollars in Kremlin funding. The documents show that Mr. Milner’s investment in Twitter relied on money from VTB, bank controlled by the Russian state. One of his most significant investors in Facebook relied on funding from Gazprom Investholding, another government-controlled institution. Mr. Milner is also an investor in Cadre, a New York-based real estate technology company founded by Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and White House adviser.


Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, at a Senate hearing in May 2013 on the company’s tax strategies. Credit Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg, via Getty Images

Apple has come under scrutiny by Congress for shifting much of its earnings to Irish subsidiaries, avoiding income taxes. Documents from the leak show that after its chief executive, Tim Cook, said that the company didn’t just “stash money on a Caribbean island,” it found a new tax haven — an island in the English Channel. The use of complex offshore structures have helped keep much of Apple’s more than $128 billion in profit abroad free from taxation. The technique isn’t unique to Apple. “U.S. multinational firms are the global grandmasters of tax avoidance schemes,” said Edward Kleinbard, a former corporate tax adviser to such companies.


Wilbur Ross during his confirmation hearing for the position of commerce secretary in January. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times

Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, invested in a shipping company whose top clients include a Russian firm controlled by an oligarch facing sanctions and President Vladimir V. Putin’s son-in-law. The ethics agreement Mr. Ross filed when taking office said he intended to retain several investment partnerships, but did not specify that they were used to hold his stake in the shipper, Navigator Holdings. The revelations of Mr. Ross’s continued investment led Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, to call for an investigation. Mr. Ross said he had done nothing wrong, but would “probably” sell his Navigator shares.


Leonid Mikhelson, Russia’s richest oligarch, used Bank of Utah as a stand-in so he could register his Gulfstream jet in the United States, which requires citizenship or residency. Credit Sergey Chervotkin

A bank in Utah is in the business of helping wealthy foreigners register private planes in the United States, which requires American citizenship or residency. The offshore files shed light on how a small financial institution, the Bank of Utah, served as a stand-in for citizenship purposes to allow Russia’s richest man, Leonid Mikhelson, whose energy company is subject to sanctions, register a $65 million Gulfstream jet.

Who Are Appleby’s Clients?

The predominantly elite clients of Appleby contrast with those of Mossack Fonseca — the company whose leaked records became the Panama Papers — which appeared to be less discriminating in the business it took on. The records date back to 1950 and up to 2016.

Appleby has offices in tax havens around the world. In addition to its Bermudan headquarters, it works out of places like the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean; the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey off Britain; Mauritius and the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean; and Hong Kong and Shanghai.

Americans — companies and people — dominate the list of clients. Past disclosures, such as the 2013 “Offshore Leaks” from two offshore incorporators in Singapore and the British Virgin Islands, the 2015 “Swiss Leaks” from a private Swiss bank owned by the British bank HSBC and another leak in 2016 from the Bahamas were dominated by clients not from the United States.

The documents come not only from Appleby, but also from the Singaporean company Asiaciti Trust and official business registries in places such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Lebanon and Malta.

Setting up companies offshore is generally legal, and corporations routinely do so to facilitate cross-border transactions such as mergers and acquisitions. Appleby, in a public statement on Oct. 24, after inquiries from I.C.I.J., said that it was “subject to frequent regulatory checks” in “highly regulated jurisdictions.”

“Appleby has thoroughly and vigorously investigated the allegations and we are satisfied that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, either on the part of ourselves or our clients,” the company said.


FBI had been investigating Uranium One since 2015

Zero Hedge – NOVEMBER 5, 2017

An internet researcher has uncovered what appears to be proof that the FBI was investigating the Uranium One deal back in 2015 – months after the Peter Schweizer book Clinton Cash exposed the scheme, along with an article in the New York Times which laid out allegations of criminal malfeasance by the Clintons, their charitable foundation, and several associates.

Twitter user Katica (@GOPPollAnalyst) – who notably discovered Hillary Clinton’s IT guy ‘Stonetear’ asking Reddit users how to strip Clinton’s name from archived emails – discovered several Preservation and Records requests sent by an FBI special agent to various agencies involved in the approval of the Uranium One deal on August 28th, 2015, as first published by The Conservative Treehouse. Katica found the requests buried in an FBI file released via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Revealing Timeline

While the Clinton email investigation was launched in March of 2015 after it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal server and non-approved email accounts to conduct government business, reports from August, 2015 revealed that the FBI investigation was actually a criminal probe – though most assumed it was simply covering Clinton’s mishandling of classified information and not the content of her emails.

What Katica discovered is that weeks after the criminal probe began, the FBI sent notices to every agency involved in the Uranium One approval process to preserve records.

Screen Shot 2017-11-05 at 12.41.30 PM

This is huge…

The agencies which received the request included the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Dept. of Treasury, the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI James Clapper), The National Counter Terrorism Center, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

Five days after the initial request, the same FBI agent sent another round of notifications to the same agencies, adding the National Security Agency (NSA) and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS).

The next day, September 3rd, 2015, three more agencies were added to the preservation request: The CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Department of Defense (DOD)

At this point, every single member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) which signed off on the Uranium One deal was served with a notice to preserve records.

As The Conservative Treehouse notes:

It would be intellectually dishonest not to see the very likely attachment of the special agent’s action. That is to say an FBI probe originating as an outcome of information retrieved in parallel to the timing of the “criminal probe” of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email use.

The sequence of events highlights a criminal probe starting [early August 2015], followed by notifications to the “Uranium One” CFIUS participants [late August 2015].

If you consider the larger Clinton timeline; along with the FBI special agent requests from identified participants; and overlay the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the leading entity surrounding the probe elements; and the fact that the CFIUS participants were the recipients of the retention requests; well, it’s just too coincidental to think this is unrelated to the Uranium One deal and the more alarming implications.

FBI Mole

Let’s not forget a bombshell report from The Hill two weeks ago which revealed that as early as 2009, the FBI – led by Robert Mueller at the time, had a mole in the Russian uranium industry, and that the agency had evidence that “Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow” – a deal which would grant the Kremlin control over 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.

The mole was forced to sign an iron-clad non-disclosure agreement (NDA) which threatened criminal penalties for revealing information, even to Congress. After a request was made by Reps Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) calling for the Justice department to invalidate the NDA, the gag order was lifted, and the FBI informant was authorized to speak with congress.

Screen Shot 2017-11-05 at 12.46.41 PM

Tony Podesta and Uranium One

While one-time Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort turned himself in to the FBI a week ago on charges of money laundering, let’s not forget what a former Podesta Group executive interviewed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller told Tucker Carlson Tonight: the FBI probe is now focusing on people in Washington who have worked as de-facto operatives on behalf of Russian government and business. To that end, he had quite a bit to say about his former boss Tony and his relationship to the Uranium One deal.

In late 2013 or early 2014, Tony Podesta and a representative for the Clinton Foundation met to discuss how to help Uranium One – the Russian owned company that controls 20 percent of American Uranium Production – and whose board members gave over $100 million to the Clinton Foundation.
In 2013, John Podesta recommended that Tony hire David Adams, Hillary Clinton’s chief adviser at the State Department, giving them a “direct liaison” between the group’s Russian clients and Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
“Tony Podesta was basically part of the Clinton Foundation.”
As far as the current state of the FBI investigation, “They are more focused on facilitators of Russian influence in this country than they are on election collusion,” Carlson’s source told Fox.

Tying it together – previous reports of Federal investigations into the Clinton Foundation:

Katica’s FOIA discovery corroborates a New York Times report from November 1, 2016, which asserts that an FBI investigation was kicked off based on revelations of pay-for-play in the book “Clinton Cash” written by Peter Schweizer:

The investigation, based in New York, had not developed much evidence and was based mostly on information that had surfaced in news stories and the book “Clinton Cash,” according to several law enforcement officials briefed on the case.

The book asserted that foreign entities gave money to former President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, and in return received favors from the State Department when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state. Mrs. Clinton has adamantly denied those claims. -NYT
The Wall St. Journal also reported last October that five FBI field offices were investigating the Clinton Foundation; New York, Los Angeles, Washington, Little Rock and Miami, and “were collecting information about the Clinton Foundation to see if there was evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling, according to people familiar with the matter.”

The FBI field office in New York had done the most work on the Clinton Foundation case and received help from the FBI field office in Little Rock, the people familiar with the matter said. –WSJ
And in November, as tweeted by Wikileaks and reported on by the Dallas Observer, the Clinton Foundation has been under investigation by the IRS since July of 2016, after 64 GOP members of Congress received letters urging them to push for an investigation. The investigation has been notably held at the Dallas IRS office – far away from Washington.

The Earle Cabell Federal Building in downtown Dallas is an all purpose office complex, a bastion of federal bureaucracy located at 1100 Commerce St. Most people come for a passport or to get business done in front of a federal judge. But inside, a quiet review is underway that has direct ties to the raging presidential election: The local branch of the IRS’ Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division is reviewing the tax status of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
So – while the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton was sold as a simple matter of mishandling of classified material, we now have proof that the FBI set their sights on the Uranium One scandal weeks after they began looking into Hillary Clinton’s emails. We also know that five FBI field offices and the IRS have been investigating the Clinton Foundation on accusations of pay-to-play and other criminal acts.

Bets on who’s indicted next?

Flashback to October 27, 2016:

GOP Tax Plan Ends $23 Billion In Lucrative Tax Credits Given To Illegal Aliens

By Rick Wells

The Republican tax plan puts an end to three of the most lucrative tax credits presently awarded to illegal aliens, people who shouldn’t be working in the United States…

The new Republican tax scheme has a provision that globalists, Democrats and those here illegally are going to have a real problem with. It stops treating illegals as if they were citizens in the matter of three important credits.

Those changes are expected to save the government $23.1 billion over the next ten years. The IRS presently allows illegal aliens, who should neither be in or be working in the United States, to collect the child tax credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The House has been successful in their efforts to end the practice but their efforts have always died in the Senate. The new bill would require taxpayers to submit work-eligible social security numbers in order to claim the credits.

Organizations identifying themselves by the oxymoron of “Immigrant-rights” advocates have complained about those attempts in the past. They’ll surely be opposing this legislation. They argue that, in the case of  the child tax credit, the anchor babies are legal although their parents, the ones receiving the payment, are not.

That’s irrelevant. When they start working, they’ll have a return of their own to receive credits on. Those returns in question are for their parents, who are violating the law, not those of the anchor babies. Those parents, who pay their taxes through the use of an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and not a social security number, will now be unable to claim the credits.

TINs are issued to illegals to provide a means for them to pay their income tax as illegal workers. Billions of dollars in tax credits are paid out every year to illegals filing on an ITN. The IRS pays out billions of dollars a year in tax credits to people filing using ITINs each year, according to the agency’s inspector general.

The Inspector General has repeatedly recommended that the IRS discontinue the practice of making those payments but the leftists in control of the agency refuse. Their argument is that the tax credits apply to taxpayers, with no distinction made as to whether they are violating the law in the process of achieving that status.