IRS Refunds Billions to Illegals

IG: IRS Made ‘Policy Decision’ to ‘Legalize Illegal Aliens;’ Ended Up Paying Illegals $4.2B in Refundable Credits in 1 Year, by Terence P. Jeffrey

By giving illegal aliens a tax identification number and allowing them to file tax returns as if they were citizens or legal immigrants, the IRS, according to the Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration, was opening the door for illegal aliens to receive tax benefits Congress had intended for U.S. citizens.

(CNSNews.com) - The question of whether to legalize illegal aliens and put them on a pathway to citizenship may be the most controversial legislative issue facing the U.S. Congress this year.

But, according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), seventeen years have already passed since the Internal Revenue Service made its own “policy decision” to “’legalize’ illegal aliens.”

That policy, made those many years ago, not only determined that the IRS would treat illegal aliens the same as legal immigrants and U.S. citizens, but also that the IRS would not hand over to federal immigration authorities information about employers who appeared to be hiring large numbers of illegal aliens and about illegal aliens who filed false documents with the IRS.

As a result of the IRS's policy, by 2010, according to TIGTA, the service was paying out $4.2 billion in refundable "Additional Child Tax Credits" to illegal aliens. In 2011, according to TIGTA, the IRS would pay more than $46 million in tax refunds to what theoretically were 23,994 illegal aliens who all used the same address in Atlanta.

The story starts in 1996, when Democrat Bill Clinton was president, and the Republicans controlled Congress.

On May 2, 1996, the Senate voted 97 to 3 to approve the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act. This vote inspired Sen. Ted Kennedy to go down to the Senate floor and proudly proclaim that the Senate had taken bipartisan action to stop illegal immigration and protect American workers.

“This legislation, I think,” said Kennedy, “will be extremely important and, I believe, effective in stemming the tide of illegals, not just because of the expansion of the border patrols, although that will have some effect, and not just because of the increased penalties in smuggling, as all that will have an effect; it will have an important impact in helping American workers get jobs and be able to hold them and have the enhanced opportunity for employment.”

Four months later, on Sept. 25, 1996, a House led by Speaker Newt Gingrich approved the bill 305 to 123. President Clinton signed it on Sept. 30, 1996.

Section 642 of this law said that no other law or official could bar any agency or official from providing information about illegal aliens to the Immigration and Naturalization Service--the agency then responsible for enforcing immigration law.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of federal, state, or local law, a federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual,” said the law.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of federal, state, or local law,” it said, “no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a federal, state, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other federal, state, or local government entity.”

On May 29, 1996—after this bill passed the Senate but before it passed the House—the IRS issued a regulation that contradicted it.

This regulation said the IRS would grant what it called Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) to aliens who did not qualify to work in the United States and did not qualify for Social Security Numbers. The IRS had three basic requirements for people receiving these numbers: 1) they had to be an alien, 2) they could not be qualified to work in the United States or have a Social Security Number, and 3) they owed taxes in the United States.

In issuing this regulation, the IRS said Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code would apply to the aliens it granted these ITINs. Section 6103 says the IRS must keep tax information confidential and, with a few exceptions, may not share that information with other government agencies.

In September 1999, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, which has oversight over the IRS, published an audit report on the ITIN regulation. It was titled, “The Internal Revenue Service’s Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program Was Not Implemented in Accordance with Internal Revenue Code Regulations.”

The IG pointed out that the IRS’s claim that it could issue ITINs to illegal aliens and then decline to provide information about those illegal aliens to the federal immigration enforcement agency—then called the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)--contradicted the terms of the 1996 immigration reform law.

“The IRS provides disclosure protection to illegal alien applicants,” said the IG. “The Congress has clearly stated how the federal government is to communicate between agencies concerning illegal aliens. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (the Illegal Immigration Reform Act) states that information concerning illegal alien status should be provided to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) notwithstanding any other law. [Bold in the original.]

“However, in the ITIN regulations issued on May 29, 1996, the IRS states, ‘Generally, tax return and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 USC 6103,’” said the IG. “Therefore, the IRS assurance of anonymity seems to be in conflict with a federal statute.”

The IG determined it was the IRS’s deliberate intention to withhold information about illegal aliens to the INS.

“IRS management and the Office of Disclosure Litigation indicated that the IRS intentionally will not provide information to the INS,” said the IG report. “The rationale for this policy is that the Illegal Immigrant Statute is a ‘general’ statute and does not change IRC Section 6103.”

By giving illegal aliens a tax identification number and allowing them to file tax returns as if they were citizens or legal immigrants, the IRS, according to the IG, was opening the door for illegal aliens to receive tax benefits Congress had intended for U.S. citizens.

“Some of the tax advantages that are being realized by illegal aliens treated as residents include receiving spousal exemptions, standard deductions, and even some erroneous earned income credits,” said the IG.

In sum, the IG concluded, despite the 1996 immigration reform law, the IRS had made its own policy decision to simply “legalize” illegal aliens.

“The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) made a policy decision to issue IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) to illegal aliens so tax filing obligations could be met,” said the IG. “This IRS policy, to ‘legalize’ illegal aliens, seems counter-productive to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) mission to identify illegal aliens and prevent unlawful alien entry.”

In a November 2002 followup report, the IG said the IRS’s policy of issuing ITINs could be helpful to terrorists.

“Based on national security risks, the ITIN process is an area of vulnerability and concern,” said the IG. “With an accepted form of government-issued identification like an ITIN, it is easier for terrorists and their sympathizers to operate in an open society while planning hostile actions.”

In January 2004, in response to concerns raised by then-Senate Finance Chairman Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa), TIGTA published another report about the problems caused by the IRS’s policy toward illegal aliens.

This report revealed that the number of tax returns filed by “unauthorized” aliens using ITINs was increasing, raising concerns about illegal aliens committing identity theft—by using stolen Social Security Numbers—and raking in refundable tax credits, such as the Additional Child Tax Credit.

On July 18, 2003, TIGTA’s Assistant Inspector General for Audit Gordon C. Milbourn sent a memorandum to then-IRS Commissioner Mark Everson citing TIGTA’s concerns.

“Specifically, unauthorized resident aliens filing U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns (Form 1040) identified with an ITIN would qualify for accelerated disbursements of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC),” Milbourn wrote.

He then restated TIGTA’s concern that issuing ITINs to illegal aliens conflicted with congressionally enacted immigration law—this time citing the 1986 amnesty law.

“The presence of the Form W-2 issued in the filer’s name indicates that employment was secured,” wrote Milbourn. “Therefore, these resident aliens were apparently employed without authorization. Consequently, we believe that the IRS is at risk of conflicting with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which was designed to prevent unauthorized resident aliens from working in the U.S.”

Then Milbourn noted that tax returns that had a Form 1040 using an ITIN given to an illegal alien but that reported income on a W-2 using a Social Security Number indicated that the alien in question was not only working illegally in the United States but may be committing identity theft.

“Some paper-filed returns appear to have been submitted to the IRS with inconsistent identification information, since the Form 1040 showed an ITIN and the filer’s Form W-2 showed and SSN,” wrote Milbourn. “This SSN often belonged to another person, indicating potential identity theft.”

In its January 2004 audit report TIGTA noted that it was a felony for someone to use someone else’s Social Security Number or a fake one. The report also noted that the apparent misuse of Social Security Numbers was not uncommon on tax returns filed by aliens using ITINs.

“The Social Security Act provides that whoever, with the intent to deceive, falsely represents a number to be his or her SSN when, in fact, that number was not assigned to that person, shall be guilty of a felony and subject to a fine,” said the report.

“Government agencies reported that hundreds of thousands of unauthorized resident aliens have used fraudulent documents, including Social Security cards to obtain employment,” said the report.

“Unauthorized residents submitted to the IRS an estimated 309,000 paper filed tax returns with an estimated 354,000 SSNs on Forms W-2,” said the report. “These Forms W-2 included 265,000 SSN that are assigned by the SSA to other individuals.”

The report also said they included 89,000 Social Security Numbers that the SSA had never assigned to anyone.

TIGTA noted that SSA Inspector General James G. Huse had testified in Congress that the misuse of Social Security Numbers had helped the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorists.

“The Inspector General stated that improperly obtained SSNs were a factor in the terrorists’ ability to assimilate themselves into American society while they planned their attacks,” said the report. “The events of Sept. 11, 2001 heightened the urgency of protecting the integrity of SSNs.”

This 2004 TIGTA report recommended that IRS work with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the SSA on seeking new legislation on sharing IRS information on illegal aliens.

The IRS reiterated its position that, as it stood, Section 6103 blocked it from sharing information about illegal aliens with immigration enforcement.

“BCIS and SSA are knowledgeable about the type of information collected by the IRS,” the service said in its response to the audit. “A legislative change to Section 6103 of the code is needed before IRS can share tax information with these agencies.”

Meanwhile, the inspector general of the Social Security Administration began focusing on a corollary problem: Some businesses were filing massive numbers of bad W-2 forms for their workers—on which the names and the Social Security Numbers did not match. Because it could not assign credit for the Social Security taxes paid on these W-2s to an identifiable taxpayer, the Social Security Administration credited the money to an accounting limbo called the “Earnings Suspense File” (ESF).

“According to SSA officials, illegal aliens may be major contributors to this problem,” said a Feb. 7, 2000 audit report from SSA’s IG. “SSA suspects that employers in certain high turnover industries (bars and restaurants, services, and agriculture) compound the problem because they may knowingly hire illegal aliens with fraudulent identification and are able to do so because there are no penalties imposed for their actions. Consequently, those employers who knowingly accept fraudulent documentation are free to conduct business as usual without regard to the disruption and harm caused to SSA's customers and to unknowing individuals whose identities are falsely used.”

The SSA said that it had wanted to provide information from this file to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to help the INS identify employers who were habitually hiring illegal aliens but discovered that “privacy and disclosure limitations” would block the SSA from sharing information with the INS.

“The INS has oversight responsibility for illegal aliens,” said the IG. “SSA has the capability to provide the INS with valuable leads to identify employers who continually hire illegal aliens.

“The Agency included a project to collaborate with the INS in its December 1997 version of the ESF Tactical Plan,” said the IG. “The initiative was to involve SSA working with the INS to formulate and conduct a limited review of employers who (1) employ large numbers of immigrants and (2) experience high name/SSN error rates on their AWRs. SSA planned to use the results of this effort to revise, if necessary, current SSA policies, procedures, and systems as well as IRS regulations relating to AWR requirements. Because of privacy and disclosure limitations, the Agency determined it could not share such information with the INS, according to SSA officials. SSA subsequently dropped the project from later versions of the ESF Tactical Plan.”

Four years later, in October 2004, the SSA IG published another audit report revealing that employers who habitually filed the largest number of no-match W-2s were concentrated in certain industries in certain states--and that some of these employers were filing many thousands of bad W-2s year after year.

One habitual no-match W-2 filer was a state government agency. The most egregious was an employer based in Illinois.

“Our analysis of the Top 100 employers by industry determined that the highest contributors of items to the ESF were concentrated in three industries: services, restaurants, and agriculture,” said the SSA IG. “We found that 95 of the Top 100 employers were in 1 of these 3 industries, representing 2.6 million wage items and over $9.1 billion in wages over the 5-year review period. Forty-three of the Top 100 employers were in the service industry, 32 were in the restaurant industry, and 20 employers were in the agriculture industry. Four of the remaining employers were in the hotel/retail industry, and one was a State agency.”

“We found that 54 of the 100 employers had registered addresses in three States – California, Texas, and Illinois – representing almost 1.5 million wage items and over $4.8 billion in wages during TYs 1997 to 2001,” said the IG.

The Illinois company that had the worst record had filed 131,191 no-match W-2s in tax years 1997 through 2001.

In the years since the IRS made its “policy decision” to “legalize illegal aliens,” the amount of money paid to illegal aliens through the refundable Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) has grown.

“In TY 2007,” said a March 2009 TIGTA audit report, “more than 1.2 million (66 percent) ITIN filers received ACTCs of almost $1.8 billion. The ACTC is a refundable credit available to individuals with no tax liability.”

At that time TIGTA recommended that Congress pass legislation to specifically bar the ACTC from going to tax filers who do not have Social Security Numbers—i.e. aliens.

“We believe legislation is needed to clarify whether or not refundable tax credits such as the ACTC may be paid to filers without an SSN,” said the 2009 audit report. “Such a legislative change could result in cost savings to the federal government of $1.8 billion annually ($8.9 billion over 5 years). As it now stands, the payment of federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the U.S. without authorization, which contradicts federal law and policy to remove such incentives.”

On July 7, 2011, TIGTA published yet another audit report revealing that President Obama’s economic stimulus law had made the ACTC more generous and that the IRS had paid out $4.2 billion to illegal aliens through this refundable credit in 2010. The title of this audit report: "Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits."

In July 2012, TIGTA published a report on an audit it had initiated because two IRS employees had alleged “that IRS management was requiring employees to assign Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN) even when the applications were fraudulent.”

In this report, TIGTA revealed that in 2011 the IRS had sent $46,378,040 in tax refunds to what theoretically were 23,994 unauthorized aliens using ITINs and all sharing a single Atlanta, Ga., mailing address. Similarly, the IRS sent $10,395,874 in refunds to what theoretically were 2,507 unauthorized aliens using ITINs and all sharing a single address in Oxnard, California.

The same IG report said the IRS also sent $7,319,518 in refunds to 2,706 theoretical unauthorized aliens who all shared the same bank account.

The IG found that the IRS sometimes granted massive numbers of ITINs to unauthorized aliens who all used the same address. For example, according the IG, the IRS assigned 15,795 ITINs to theoretical unauthorized aliens all using the same address in Phoenix. It also assigned 15,028 ITINs to theoretical unauthorized aliens all using the same address in Dallas.

It has now been seventeen years since the IRS decided it should start issuing ITINs to illegal aliens—or, as the IG put it, made a “policy decision” to “legalize illegal aliens.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Spokesman Brandon Montgomery told CNSNews.com that SSA and the IRS still do not provide ICE with information about no-match W-2s or ITIN tax filings.

Since June 24, CNSNews.com has made multiple inquiries to the IRS asking whether at any time since TIGTA issued its 1999 audit report on the service’s ITIN policy had the IRS begun giving federal immigration enforcement agencies information about known or suspected illegal aliens who had applied for ITINs, or filed tax returns using ITINs, or about employers who had filed hundreds of no-match W-2s in a single year. The IRS has not yet responded.

Source: CNS News, July 12, 2013 - 4:28 AM
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ig-irs-made-policy-decision-legalize-illegal-aliens-ended-paying-illegals-42b#sthash.TZkWEwO3.dpuf

New U.S. economy: Part-time and temp jobs

The new economic reality in the United States is this: The workforce has shifted from full-timers to part-timers.

On top of that, more Americans receive food stamps than work full time, Fox News reported.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that an estimated 28 million people in America now work at part-time jobs. And as the Washington Examiner noted, a record level of workers in the nation now hold temporary positions -- about 2.7 million -- that are obtained through a job placement service.

The American Staffing Association reported that in the first quarter of 2013 staffing agencies employed about 2 percent of non-farm workers in the nation. That's up by 2.9 percent from the similar quarter in 2012. And comparing June 2013 with June 2012, the number of Americans working at positions obtained through temp agencies jumped 6.7 percent.

"Nearly one-fifth of all jobs gained since the recession ended have been temporary," said Ashe Schow in the Examiner report.

At the same time, full-time jobs decreased by 240,000 positions.

"The recovery, or lack thereof, is being fueled by a shift from full-time to part-time work," Ms. Schow said in the Examiner.

And one more statistic related to the United States' new economy, as reported by Fox News on Tuesday: Nearly one in six Americans is on food stamps. That's more than are employed in full-time jobs, Fox News said.

Source: Washington Times (DC) July 11, 2013 6:55 am www.washingtontimes.com

Obama’s giveaway: 7 Alaska Islands to Russia

(Maggies Note Book) – National Geographic recently published an article titled Wrangel Island Russian Refuge. Wrangle lies in the Arctic Ocean, close to Alaska, but closer to Russia. As far as mankind knows, Americans were the first to set foot on the Island (sometimes spelled Wrangell, but let’s leave that conundrum for another time) – that happening in 1881 when a landing-party stepped-off the USRC Corwin (US Revenue Cutter) and planted the American flag on soil that is today, according to some registries, an International Biosphere Reserve…belonging to Russia. While Nat Geo acknowledges America’s part in the discovery of the island, they fail to reveal the full truth of it. With nothing before you but the Russian Refuge article, you would never guess a stealth maneuver has created a roiling controversy.

 “This was a sight not to be missed!! All the passengers had joined our Captain on the bridge as he called out directions to the helmsman to maneuver the ship through the ice which was no easy feat because we were surrounded by it.” ~ August 1996 – Run For Wrangel (click the pic for the story of a modern-day visit to Wrangel).

The Island is named for Russian explorer Baron Wrangel who had heard of the island but didn’t set eyes on it, let alone a foot. The U.S. had reason to believe we owned the island(s) and to back that up, there is a Treaty ceding land to the U.S. and the GiveAway “Agreement” ratified by the U.S. Congress but never signed by Russia. While the later document is an “Agreement” our State Department refers to it as a “Treaty.” Never mind the truth.

There is a concern about Alaskan fishing rights as well as thousands of miles of “rich sea beds” at stake. Today Alaska says their state was never consulted, and did not consent before the giveaway that Russia DID NOT accept. AND HERE’S THE KICKER, the original maps used to draw the boundary lines governing the Agreement are lost. Neither side can produce the maps, and as you can guess, both sides dispute what belongs to their side.

Wrangel Island is not a desirable place to live unless you are a polar bear or other Arctic animal or a scientist studying an ecosphere that has lain undisturbed, never completely encased in ice, and never completely under water – lying in the coldest part of our planet just 88 miles northeast of Siberia.

Since ships first set sail in the harsh and often frozen ocean of the Arctic, until 1881, no one was certain Wrangel was an Island. Some thought it a continent, some thought it a myth. It is was often, usually, enshrouded in fog with, if you were lucky, a mountain top the only land to sight, but Captain Calvin Hooper and his crew aboard the Corwin settled the question once and for all.

So explorers planted an American flag, named it the island of New Columbia with Scottish-American John Muir aboard to document the finding in a San Francisco newspaper.

Not until about 1913 did new visitors arrive – from Canada, Britain and eventually the Russians in 1921. A small group of Russians were taken to the island and left there – whether willingly or not, I haven’t discovered.

From that  time, it has been assumed that Wrangel Island was a part of the Soviet Union, yet there is that pesky 1867 Treaty and the 1990 Agreement. 

The Agreement exists, signed by a U.S. Secretary of State James Baker in 1990 and ratified by Congress in June 1990, and signed by President G. H. W. Bush. Russia has not signed on, originally declaring that they would receive too little from it.

Secondly, it is important to know that the Agreement was negotiated completely in secret as far as we know. It began with Henry Kissinger when he was Secretary of State under President Gerald Ford. Ford left office in 1977. The U.S. ratification didn’t happen until June 1, 1990 under President G. H. W. Bush. ‘Ratification’ does not mean that Congress created legislation. It means that an ‘agent’ presented the language and Congress ‘ratified’ (consented to) it. Source

The 1990 Agreement refers to an 1867 Treaty. First came the 1867 Treaty wherein the U.S. purchased what was then Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million, an area about twice the size of Texas. Article 1 in the 1990 Agreement refers to Article 1 of the 1867 Treaty/Convention:

From the 1990 Agreement:

Article 1
1. The Parties agree that the line described as the “western limit” in article 1 of the 1867 Convention, as defined in article 2 of this Agreement, is the maritime boundary between the United States and the Soviet Union.

2. Each Party shall respect the maritime boundary as limiting the extent of its coastal State jurisdiction otherwise permitted by international law for any purpose.

From the 1867 Treaty/Convention:

Article I
His Majesty the emperor of all the Russias agrees to cede to the United States, by this convention, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications thereof, all the territory and dominion now possessed by his said Majesty on the continent of America and in the adjacent islands, the same being contained within the geographical limits herein set forth, to wit:

The eastern limit is the line of demarcation between the Russian and the British possessions in North America, as established by the convention between Russia and Great Britain, of February 28-16, 1825, and described in Articles III and IV of said convention, in the following terms:…(beginning at the pertinent information for this article)

[ceded to the U.S.] …thence, from the intersection of that meridian, in a southwesterly direction, so as to pass midway between the island of Attou and Copper island of the Kormandorski cuplet or group in the North Pacific ocean, to the meridian of one hundred and ninety-three degrees west longitude, so as to include the territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian islands east of that meridian.

A year or so ago, Joe Miller, a candidate for the U.S. Senate from Alaska brought up the “Seven Island Giveaway,”  here as well. He believed the Obama administration is actively working to get Russia to sign-on – just one more Obama strategy to thwart energy in the U.S. I believe the intimation was that the Obama administration, and specifically the State Department under Hillary Clinton, was actively involved. Is the Kerry State Department involved now?  I don’t know.

I see nothing new that has happened since, other than the National Geographic article leaving a clear impression that Russia owns, at least, Wrangel Island an no one is questioning or searching for the truth.

Is Congress doing anything about an Agreement that wasn’t an Agreement as Russia agreed to nothing? Perhaps the Nat Geo article is just that, an article – an uninformed article, or an article of half-truths.

From my previous piece:

Russia has informed the U.S. that it “continues to perform” its rights without signing the Agreement, which the State Department says is a “treaty,” but not titled so and not ratified by Russia. 

Lest you think dredging this up is just some conservative type of American Imperialism (as does FactCheck.org), in 1987 the Chicago Tribune said the “Agreement” was the “most serious foreign policy blunder since the Panama Canal giveaway.” In September 2004, the BBC, freshly roused by a Sustainable Development Conference took the side of Russia. Wouldn’t you know. They saw the Agreement as giving the U.S. millions in fishing rights and a mineral-rich continental shelf. Russian publications said the U.S. violated the boundaries that official maps are not available for consult, courtesy of some very sloppy diplomatic record keeping on both sides – or perhaps purposeful record keeping. Apparently Russia felt they were getting the wrong end of the deal, so they didn’t sign. Are we quietly insisting that they do – it’s the dirty oil, you know. (Not that the U.S. insisting anything has weight today.)

Once again, my closing from my previous article:

What we learn from this story is that a Secretary of State can engineer giving away sovereign land with no input from the U.S. Congress or the state holding ownership. The other side is, if the co-ordinates of the 1867 Treaty referring to the “western” and “eastern” boundaries clearly put all of the disputed islands on the Russian side, that’s a problem for the U.S. But then…apparently the style of map used can make a difference and the maps are no where to be found, and the style of map is not named. AND there are the explorers who claimed these islands for the U.S. AND Russia has not ratified. AND how about the  unconfirmed ‘rumors’ that the Obama administration is working to get Russia’s signature on the 1990 Agreement? One last question: if the 1867 Treaty set out the boundaries, why did we need the 1990 Agreement?

Source: Tea Party .org http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2013/06/national-geographic-article-on-wrangel-island-a-part-of-obamas-plan-to-kill-american-energy/

How to Destroy America in 8 Easy steps

by Richard D Lamm

Wherever you stand on this issue, please take the time to read this; it should wake you from your careless slumber on this important truth.

We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America’s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,” explaining how immigration—both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America.

The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, “If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that “An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.”

“Here is how they do it,” Lamm said:

“First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bi-cultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset , put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.’ Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and Muslims.”

Lamm went on:

“Second, to destroy America, invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.”

“Third, we could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrcity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.’ Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”

“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”

“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority placation.”

“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other—that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precet. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. “E. Pluribus Unum”—From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will “Balkanize” America as surely as Kosovo.”

“Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century—that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-cultum, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed.

Finally he said, “Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book ‘Mexifornia.’ His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.”

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’ American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America.

Take note of California and other states. To date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building:

“War is peace,”  “Freedom is slavery,” and  “Ignorance is strength.”

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don’t get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

Source: Tom Taylor On-line, Tea Party Patriots, Posted on July 8, 2013  This report is from Don and Diana Reimer

 

"Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor"

It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind was from the Southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony, redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who was ill at home.

Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren't nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they would not be used today.

The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson records that "the horseflies were dexterous in finding necks, and the silk of stockings was nothing to them." All discussing was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks.

On the wall at the back, facing the president's desk, was a panoply -- consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they were taking it "in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!"

Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency measure about which there was discussion but no dissension. "Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops at New York."

Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. They cut the phrase "by a self-assumed power." "Climb" was replaced by "must read," then "must" was eliminated, then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called "their depredations." "Inherent and inalienable rights" came out "certain unalienable rights," and to this day no one knows who suggested the elegant change.

A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote.

Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: "I am no longer a Virginian, sir, but an American." But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted.

There were no trumpets blown. No one stood on his chair and cheered. The afternoon was waning and Congress had no thought of delaying the full calendar of routine business on its hands. For several hours they worked on many other problems before adjourning for the day.

Much To Lose

What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of you, the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock and Jefferson are almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them?

I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere.

Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half - 24 - were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians.

With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th Century.

Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He signed in enormous letters so that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward. Ben Franklin wryly noted: "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately."

Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone."

These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.

They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled.

It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be US Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers. (It was he, Francis Hopkinson not Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag.)

Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks: "Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law.

"The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever-increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repost.

"If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens."

Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration.

William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, "but in no face was he able to discern real fear." Stephan Hopkins, Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not."

"Most Glorious Service"

Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.

· Francis Lewis, New York delegate saw his home plundered -- and his estates in what is now Harlem -- completely destroyed by British Soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners through the efforts of Congress, she died from the effects of her abuse.

· William Floyd, another New York delegate, was able to escape with his wife and children across Long Island Sound to Connecticut, where they lived as refugees without income for seven years. When they came home they found a devastated ruin.

· Philips Livingstone had all his great holdings in New York confiscated and his family driven out of their home. Livingstone died in 1778 still working in Congress for the cause.

· Louis Morris, the fourth New York delegate, saw all his timber, crops, and livestock taken. For seven years he was barred from his home and family.

· John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever finding his family.

· Dr. John Witherspoon, signer, was president of the College of New Jersey, later called Princeton. The British occupied the town of Princeton, and billeted troops in the college. They trampled and burned the finest college library in the country.

· Judge Richard Stockton, another New Jersey delegate signer, had rushed back to his estate in an effort to evacuate his wife and children. The family found refuge with friends, but a Tory sympathizer betrayed them. Judge Stockton was pulled from bed in the night and brutally beaten by the arresting soldiers. Thrown into a common jail, he was deliberately starved. Congress finally arranged for Stockton's parole, but his health was ruined. The judge was released as an invalid, when he could no longer harm the British cause.

He returned home to find his estate looted and did not live to see the triumph of the Revolution. His family was forced to live off charity.

· Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate and signer, met Washington's appeals and pleas for money year after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton. In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own fortune and credit almost dry.

· George Clymer, Pennsylvania signer, escaped with his family from their home, but their property was completely destroyed by the British in the Germantown and Brandywine campaigns.

· Dr. Benjamin Rush, also from Pennsylvania, was forced to flee to Maryland. As a heroic surgeon with the army, Rush had several narrow escapes.

· John Martin, a Tory in his views previous to the debate, lived in a strongly loyalist area of Pennsylvania. When he came out for independence, most of his neighbors and even some of his relatives ostracized him. He was a sensitive and troubled man, and many believed this action killed him. When he died in 1777, his last words to his tormentors were: "Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it [the signing] to have been the most glorious service that I have ever rendered to my country."

· William Ellery, Rhode Island delegate, saw his property and home burned to the ground.

· Thomas Lynch, Jr., South Carolina delegate, had his health broken from privation and exposures while serving as a company commander in the military. His doctors ordered him to seek a cure in the West Indies and on the voyage, he and his young bride were drowned at sea.

· Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., the other three South Carolina signers, were taken by the British in the siege of Charleston. They were carried as prisoners of war to St. Augustine, Florida, where they were singled out for indignities. They were exchanged at the end of the war, the British in the meantime having completely devastated their large landholdings and estates.

· Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in command of the Virginia military forces. With British General Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, fire from 70 heavy American guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into Nelson's palatial home. While American cannonballs were making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson remained untouched. Nelson turned in rage to the American gunners and asked, "Why do you spare my home?"

They replied, "Sir, out of respect to you." Nelson cried, "Give me the cannon!" and fired on his magnificent home himself, smashing it to bits. But Nelson's sacrifice was not quite over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson's property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died, impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50.

Lives, Fortunes, Honor

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark.

He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship Jersey, where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with his answer: "No."

The 56 signers of the Declaration Of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Source: Herman Talmadge III posted in New Georgia Republican Leadership for Principles above Politicians Reply to this email to comment on this post.

http://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2Fnewgagopleaders%2Fpermalink%2F486975674718867%2F&aref=198296947&medium=email&mid=848c1d8G2238f8faGbd1c573G96&bcode=1.1373553834.AbmehMiuxiu7zOcN&n_m=ntl%40mindspring.com