So, let’s get to the nitty gritty on John Russell Houser and what we know so far. First and foremost, he was insane. His wife stated he had been institutionalized for his own safety. She also said she had removed all guns from his home. We know he had some domestic abuse arrests and an arson arrest. We also know he was turned down when he tried to get a concealed carry permit. We know he was diagnosed with a personality disorder as per his own words.

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Christina Botteri, one of the original organizers of the Tea Party rallies in 2009, co-founder of the National Tea Party Federation, and that group’s volunteer media contact, detailed how she once exchanged emails and spoke on the phone with John Russell “Rusty” Houser.

And according to Botteri he was anything but a Tea Party supporter.

From the article –

Botteri said, “Houser reached out to me in 2013 with the bizarre claim that he was the best arguer anywhere and had a winning media strategy to win all arguments. I realized very quickly that he wasn’t cogent. His emails seemed to come from a very disorganized thinker. He was obviously a troubled person.”

Houser intially contacted Botteri by phone and then sent her a bizarre email :

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Rusty Houser <*****@gmail.com> wrote:

I enjoyed our conversation. It is my desire to convey to you the unbridled power of being in the right. Should you master this, with your well rounded personality, you would be a female Ronald Reagan. Put another way, within yourself love and power could work together, with you failing only to take credit or recognize within yourself that your role was significant.

After a polite response from Botteri, Houser wrote back two days later in an email that began:

Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Rusty Houser <*****@gmail.com> wrote:

Christina

Let me apologize in advance for being a fool who assumes excessively everyday in every way.It is the hallmark of my bent personality, and it is a diagnosed personality disorder .At the same time you need to know that at times in my life there have been associations with people of greatness and that it has never in any way affected my ability to do anything fun.ie you are communicating with a weirdo you will completely understand.I have seen a psychiatrist for a total of less than 4 hours in my life, only because I could never see myself adopting normal behavior at the risk of giving up the panoramic view I am going to share with you.

Houser later wrote:

Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Rusty Houser <*****@gmail.com> wrote:

have not heard from you
if the first letter shook you just consider the second

Some parts of Houser’s correspondence with Botteri are barely coherent. On November 13th, Houser sent an email that read in part:

Why would it be good for JCP/KMART/SEARS/RSH retail to close and vacate the premises occupied aside from their ceasing to be viable?

The average person 95% of all must be hit over the head and have a simply worded placard thrust in their direct path before undertaking the slightest independent consideration.

The large caverns created in bobo’s modern day pyramid by such closings would generate base considerations in the minds of the masses:

Are rough times ahead?

Should I be cutting back on discretionary spending?……………..

…………………………………………….Is it possible that the US could be placed in an economic position necessitating it’s people pull together lockstep fashion merely for survival?…………………….Is the percentage of those who predictably will not contribute too high for hope of success ALL-TIME GIMMIE ?

Botteri says she knows of no real world Tea Party connection to Houser and said, “He never expressed any interest to me in being part of the Tea Party movement. If he ever attended any Tea Party event, I’m not aware of it. He never mentioned anything to me about going to meetings or being part of any group.”

Botteri stressed the principles of the Tea Party include an explicit rejection of violence, something she is concerned the mainstream media may ignore, telling Breitbart News: In all materials since the formation of the Tea Party Federation, we’ve always stressted that we are anti-violence and opposed to discriminaton. We’re very open about that. However I didn’t see any warning signs of violence from Houser. I remember thinking, “Good Lord, I hope he doesn’t call me again” and I hope he gets some help.

Botteri had no contact with Houser after 2013.

Photo by spratmackrel

Texas Senator and Republican Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz accused his own Senate majority leader of being a liar from the Senate floor Friday, and said Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress has not changed things “one iota” because both parties serve the “Washington cartel.”

Cruz began his passionate and highly charged speech after McConnell added the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank to the highway-funding bill and prevented senators from adding more amendments. Cruz said that his vote for trade promotion authority, also known as fast track, was cast on the basis that McConnell assured him there was not a deal made with the Democrats to support the controversial Export-Import bank. Cruz said he asked McConnell the question during a private Senate Republican lunch.

“I sat in my office, I told my staff, the majority leader looked me in the eye and looked 54 Republicans in the eye,” Cruz said. “I cannot believe he would tell a flat-out lie, and I voted on those assurances that he made to each and every one of us. What we just saw today was an absolute demonstration that not only what he told every Republican senator, but what he told the press over and over and over again, was a simple lie.”

The Presidential hopeful called out Mitch McConnell for being corrupt and for being a liar. You don’t hear many politicians speaking out like that against people in their own party because they just want to keep the peace. Cruz is on fire and rightfully so. He was lied to and the lie influenced his vote.

Most of us agree that free trade is good for America and when we open up foreign markets, it helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers. But TPA in this Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington backroom deal-making, and there are serious concerns that it would open up the potential for sweeping changes in our laws that trade agreements typically do not include.

Since the Senate first voted on TPA, there have been two material changes. First, WikiLeaks subsequently revealed new troubling information regarding the Trade in Services Agreement, or TiSA, one of the trade deals being negotiated by Obama. Despite the administration’s public assurances that it was not negotiating on immigration, several chapters of the TiSA draft posted online explicitly contained potential changes in federal immigration law. TPA would cover TiSA, and therefore these changes would presumably be subject to fast-track. Let’s just say, thank you WikiLeaks for bringing that to our attention!

Second, TPA’s progress through the House and Senate appears to have been made possible by secret deals between Republican Leadership and the Democrats. When TPA first came up for a vote in the Senate, it was blocked by a group of senators, led by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both of whom were conditioning their support on the unrelated objective of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.

“The Ex-Im Bank is a classic example of corporate welfare. It is cronyism at its worst, with U.S. taxpayers guaranteeing billions of dollars in loans for sketchy buyers in foreign nations. Ex-Im is scheduled to wind down on June 30. But powerful lobbyists in Washington want to keep the money flowing,” said Cruz.

Cruz said, “After witnessing several senators huddle on the floor the day of the TPA vote, I suspected that to get their votes on TPA, Republican Leadership had promised supporters of Ex-Im a vote to reauthorize the bank before it winds down.”

On that same day, Cruz directly asked Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) what precise deal had been cut to pass TPA. Visibly irritated, McConnell told Cruz and all the Republican colleagues that there was no deal whatsoever; rather, he simply told them they could use the ordinary rules to offer whatever amendments they wanted on future legislation.

Taking McConnell at his word that there was no deal on Ex-Im, Cruz voted yes on TPA because he believed the U.S. generally benefits from free trade, and without TPA historically there have been no free-trade agreements.

Cruz was surprised when the the vote went to the House and Nancy Pelosi led House Democrats to oppose TPA en masse. (Technically, they voted against TAA, which was wrapped into the deal on TPA.) House conservatives went to Speaker Boehner and said they could support TPA if Boehner agreed not to cut a deal with Democrats on Ex-Im, and just let the bank expire. Boehner declined this offer and it appears he made the deal with Democrats – presumably tossing in the Ex-Im Bank and also increasing tax penalties on businesses.

Moreover, it is known that the Speaker punished conservatives – wrongly stripping Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) of his subcommittee chairmanship, and reportedly threatening to strip other conservatives of their chairmanships.

“There’s too much corporate welfare, too much cronyism and corrupt dealmaking, by the Washington cartel. For too long, career politicians in both parties have supported government of the lobbyist, by the lobbyist, and for the lobbyist – at the expense of the taxpayers. It’s a time for truth. And a time to honor our commitments to the voters,” said Cruz.

“My staff told me, ‘He’s lying to you, we’ve been around here for a long time. He’s not telling you the truth,’” Cruz said. “I said, ‘I don’t see how I can’t take him at his word.’”

Cruz even compared McConnell to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who frequently blocked debate.

“Now the Republican leader is behaving like the senior senator from Nevada,” Cruz said.

Cruz added that since Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress, they have passed the Obama-supported “cromnibus” bill, funded Obamacare, funded his executive immigration actions and approved Loretta Lynch as attorney general.

“Which one of these decisions would be one iota different if Harry Reid was still the leader?” Cruz said.

 

Photo by DonkeyHotey

THE STRONG ONES:

Ted Cruz

• In 2014, Ted Cruz sponsored S.2666 – the Protect Children and Families Through the Rule of Law Act, which was “A bill to prohibit future consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals or work authorization for aliens who are not in lawful status, to facilitate the expedited processing of minors entering the United States across the southern border, and to require the Secretary of Defense to reimburse States for National Guard deployments in response to large-scale border crossings of unaccompanied alien children from noncontiguous countries.”
• Cruz voted against comprehensive immigration reform in 2013. S.744 – the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act passed the Senate on June 27, 2013.

Ben Carson

• In response to the July 2, 2015, shooting death of a woman in San Francisco, California, by a Mexican citizen who had been deported five times, Ben Carson advocated for the end of sanctuary cities where local law enforcement does not enforce federal immigration law.
• On June 17, 2014, Carson proposed the following solutions to the immigration system: Creating a national guest-worker program similar to Canada’s. He wrote, “Noncitizens would have to apply for a guest-worker permit and have a guaranteed job awaiting them. Taxes would be paid at a rate commensurate with other U.S. workers and special visas would allow for easy entry and egress across borders. Guest-worker status would be granted to individuals and not to groups. People already here illegally could apply for guest-worker status from outside of the country. This means they would have to leave first. They should in no way be rewarded for having broken our laws, but if they are wise, they will arrange with their employer before they leave to immediately offer them a legal job as soon as their application is received. When they return, they still would not be U.S. citizens, but they would be legal, and they would be paying taxes. Only jobs that are vacant as a result of a lack of interest by American citizens should be eligible for the guest-worker program.”
• Severe punishment for companies who hire “illegal immigrants.”
• Securing America’s borders.
• Carson also argued that “We must create a system that disincentivizes illegal immigration and upholds the rule of law while providing us with a steady stream of immigrants from other nations who will strengthen our society.”

John Kasich

• John Kasich said that he supported imposing limits on the number of people allowed to immigrate into the United States. He also encouraged naming English as the official national language and opposed automatically giving U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born in the United States.
• The governor voted in support of eliminating benefits under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for illegal immigrants, providing more temporary visas for skilled immigrant workers and hiring more border patrol officers.

Carly Fiorina

• According to her 2010 Senate campaign website, Carly Fiorina supported securing the border and “developing an effective visa program and temporary worker program to support legal immigrants who fulfill important roles in our nation’s economy.”
• During an April 2010 interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Fiorina commented on Arizona’s immigration law. She said, “The people of Arizona did what they felt they had to do. I support their need to protect their citizens. But what we ought to be talking about is the federal government needs to secure the border.”
• During the interview she also said, “I do not support amnesty.”

Rick Santorum

• In November 2014, after President Barack Obama announced that millions of undocumented immigrants would not be not deported, Santorum said, “He’s doing this as a slap in the face of every working American, and that is what we should be talking about… You know, who gets hurt most by what the president just did? Hispanics in America. You’re adding 5 million mostly unskilled workers into a labor pool right now, where wages are declining and income in America is declining.”
• In June 2013, Santorum criticized Marco Rubio, the Gang of Eight and their immigration reform bill. He said, “Look, I think that the issue of immigration and respecting the rule of law in this country is a very, very important thing for Republican voters across the country and the idea that there are Republicans in Washington, D.C., who are going to say ‘well, the rule of law isn’t that important. The idea that people coming into this country illegally and we’re basically going to put them and treat them the same as people who are going to come here legally,’ it’s just not going to go over well on the Republican primary. I certainly respect senators from states with different opinions on that but I think there’s going to certainly be consequences for folks who don’t understand the importance of or have respect for the rule of law that Republicans have.”
• Santorum voted against S.2611 – the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.
• Santorum voted for H.R.6061 – the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which directed “the Secretary of Homeland Security, within 18 months of enactment of this Act, to take appropriate actions to achieve operational control over U.S. international land and maritime borders.” It became law on October 26, 2006.

Donald Trump

• During his presidential bid announcement speech on June 16, 2015, Donald Trump stated immigrants from Mexico are “people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” Trump added, “I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively, I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.”
• Trump said providing a path to citizenship would be politically disadvantageous for Republicans at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference. He explained, “You can be out front, you can be the spearhead, you can do whatever you want to do, but every one of those 11 million people will be voting Democratic. It’s just the way it works and you have to be very, very careful because you could say that to a certain extent, the odds aren’t looking so great right now for Republicans, that you’re on a suicide mission. You’re just not going to get those votes.”
• In 2011, Trump rejected the idea that children born in the United States to a mother residing there without legal permission should gain American citizenship under the Constitution. Trump said, “The clear purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, three years after the end of the Civil War, was to guarantee full citizenship rights to now emancipated former slaves. It was not intended to guarantee untrammeled immigration to the United States.”
• In 2000, Trump noted in his book, The America We Deserve, that legal immigration should be made more challenging. Trump wrote, “The majority of legal immigrants can often make significant contributions to our society because they have special skills and because they add to our nation’s cultural diversity. They come with the best of intentions. But legal immigrants do not and should not enter easily. It’s a long, costly, draining, and often frustrating experience-by design. I say to legal immigrants: Welcome and good luck.”

THE SOFTIES:

Jeb Bush

• During an interview in April 2014, Jeb Bush commented on immigrants who entered the United States illegally. He said, “Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love, it’s an act of commitment to your family.”
• In March 2013, Bush said, “There has to be some difference between people who come here legally and illegally. It’s just a matter of common sense and a matter of the rule of law. If we’re not going to apply the law fairly and consistently, then we’re going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming into the country.”

Chris Christie

• In July 2015, Chris Christie said in an interview on CNN’s “New Day,” “There should be no special way for anybody to be able to get citizenship any different than any other foreigners.” He added a critique of his 2016 presidential rival Hillary Clinton, saying, “I think, you know, Secretary Clinton talks about path to citizenship for people who are here illegally – she’s just pandering.”
• Christie had previously supported a pathway to citizenship in 2010, but explained he now believed people do not come to the United States to vote, they come to work. “And quite frankly, a lot of those folks are been exploited by these employers who are paying them significantly lower wages in order to make a greater profit. Those people need to be penalized for that, and that will be the way to stop the flow from wherever they’re coming from, south of the border or elsewhere, into this country illegally,” Christie said.
• In 2014, Christie used his line item veto authority to reject tuition aid grants for undocumented immigrant students who attended state colleges and universities.
• In 2013, Christie signed legislation that allowed undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition at state colleges, universities and community colleges. Eligible candidates must have attended a New Jersey high school for at least three years and graduated from that high school. Christie conditionally vetoed a version of the bill that also would have granted in-state financial aid to undocumented immigrant students.
• In 2010, Christie expressed support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. He stated, “The president and the Congress have to step up to the plate, they have to secure our borders and they have to put forward a commonsense path to citizenship for people.”

Lindsey Graham

• Lindsey Graham, who is a member of the bipartisan Gang of Eight, co-sponsored the comprehensive immigration reform bill, S.744 – the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, which passed the Senate on June 27, 2013.
• “Senator Graham’s Speech on Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill,” June 27, 2013.
• Graham voted against S.Amdt.1197 to S.744, which would have required the completion of 350 miles of fence described in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 “before registered provisional immigrant status” could be granted. It also required that 700 miles of fence be completed before the status of registered provisional immigrants could be changed to permanent resident status. It was rejected on June 17, 2013.
• Graham and the Gang of Eight support a path to citizenship. According to the Washington Post, “The senators envision a temporary legal status and then the opportunity to obtain a green card, upon payment of back taxes, learn English, and a background check ‘among other requirements.'”
• During a 2013 interview with Meet the Press, Graham said, “We’re in a demographic death spiral as a party and the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community, in my view, is to pass comprehensive immigration reform. If you don’t do that, it really doesn’t matter who we run, (in 2016) in my view.”

Mike Huckabee

• In July 2015, Mike Huckabee released a statement saying he would use “all powers of the presidency to deny federal funding to sanctuary cities.” Huckabee described sanctuary cities as symptomatic “of President Obama’s broader policy decision to ignore existing laws and issue radical unconstitutional executive orders that provide amnesty to the most dangerous illegal aliens.”
• In a 2013 interview, Huckabee suggested he would support Senators Bob Corker (R) and John Hoeven’s border security plan to spend $30 billion to build a 700-mile fence and double the number of federal border agents.
• In his 2007 book, From Hope to Higher Ground, Mike Huckabee wrote, “It would be sheer folly to attempt to suddenly impose strict enforcement of existing laws, round up 12 million people, march them across the border, and expect them to stay. What does make sense is a revision of our laws, one giving those here illegally a process through which they pay a reasonable fine in admission of their guilt for the past infraction of violating our border laws and agree to adhere to a pathway toward legal status and citizenship. In exchange, our government gains the capacity to know who is here, why they are here, where they are, and whether they carry a communicable disease. But much of the debate has become mired more in definitions than in a real solution.”
• In December 2007, during an interview on FOX News Sunday, Huckabee was questioned about why he changed his views on allowing a pathway to citizenship. Huckabee responded, “I don’t think there’s an inconsistency. When I said a pathway, I didn’t say what the pathway was. I now believe that the only thing the American people are going to accept–and, frankly, the only thing that really makes sense–is a pathway that sends people back to the starting point. But this idea of the waiting years — no, I don’t agree with that. In fact, look, if we can get a credit card application done within hours, if we can get passports done within days, if we can transact business over the Internet any place in the world within seconds, do a background check instantaneously — it’s our government that has failed and is dysfunctional. It shouldn’t take years to get a work permit to come here and pick lettuce. So part of the plan that I have is that we seal the borders. You don’t have amnesty and sanctuary cities. You do have a pathway that gets you back home. But that pathway to get back here legally doesn’t take years.”
• In 2007, Huckabee released a comprehensive nine-point immigration enforcement and border security plan that included building a fence, increasing border security, preventing amnesty, enforcing the law on employers, establishing an economic border, empowering local authorities, ensuring document security, discouraging dual citizenship and modernizing the process of legal immigration.
• According to a 2008 profile of Huckabee by the Council on Foreign Relations, he “has advocated prenatal care for pregnant immigrants and has proposed a scholarship program for illegal immigrants who graduate from Arkansas high schools. He also criticized a 2005 federal immigration raid in Arkansas. Huckabee has expressed support for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants under some conditions.”

Bobby Jindal

• In response to comments from fellow Republican candidate Donald Trump on immigration, including referring to some Mexican immigrants as “rapists,” Bobby Jindal addressed the issue of immigration. “I see people as individuals, not members of ethnic or economic groups. But what I believe is that we do need to secure the border and not as part of a comprehensive bill, but we need to secure the border,” Jindal told reporters.
• In 2013, Jindal opposed the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration bill, S.744 – the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.
• On July 9, 2013, Jindal presented his immigration reform plan in an op-ed in the National Review. He proposed securing the border, giving those living in the U.S. illegally an opportunity to gain legal status, deporting those engaged in criminal activity and increasing legal immigration. He also added, “As for a pathway to citizenship: For folks who came here illegally but are willing to gain proficiency in English, pay a fine, and demonstrate a willingness to assimilate, we should require them to work here and pay taxes for a substantial period of time after obtaining legal status before they have the opportunity to begin the process of applying for U.S. citizenship.”

George Pataki

• In May 2015, George Pataki said he supported a “pathway to citizenship at the back of the line” excepting members of the military. Pataki expressed skepticism of candidates who suggest mass deportations as an immigration solution.
• Pataki supported legislation in 2002 to allow immigrants living in the United States without legal permission and enrolled in the New York public university system to pay in-state tuition.

Rand Paul

• Following the Chattanooga shooting at two Marine recruitment centers in July 2015, Rand Paul stated there should be heightened security for immigrants coming from “countries that have hotbeds of jihadism and hotbeds of this Islamism.”
• On his presidential campaign website, Paul described his immigration platform. Paul wrote, “I do not support amnesty, but rather I support a legal immigration process. I recognize that our country has been enriched by those who seek the American Dream and have a desire for a better life. However, millions of illegal immigrants are crossing our border without our knowledge, and this threatens our national security. As President, I would secure our border immediately. Before issuing any visas or starting the legal immigration process, we must first ensure that our border is secure.
• When asked in January 2015 if he would nullify President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration. Paul responded, “The 11 million, I think, are never going home, don’t need to be sent home, and I would incorporate them into our society by giving them work visas and making them taxpayers.”
• Paul speaks at U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on immigration in March 2013. Paul introduced S 3015 – Preventing Executive Overreach on Immigration Act of 2014 in response to President Obama’s executive order to delay deportation proceedings for certain immigrants residing in America without legal permission.
• In June 2013, Paul said, “he would support a comprehensive immigration bill if senators accept his amendment to increase Congressional oversight over border security,” according to the Washington Post.
• As a member of the 112th Congress, Paul cosponsored S J Res 2 in January 2011 to amend constitutional requirements for citizenship. Paul also cosponsored S 723 – Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, which would have required citizenship by birth be granted only to those with at lesast one parent who is American, a lawful permanent resident, or an active service member.
• Paul wrote a column for The Washington Times in February 2013 discussing his stance on immigration. Paul wrote, “The gang of eight wants back taxes and fines. Most of these undocumented immigrants are poor and may not be able to ever pay ten years of back payroll taxes. I would be willing to forego the fines and back taxes in exchange for a longer and significant time period before these folks are eligible to enter into the green card line.”
• In June 2010, Paul suggested he did not support citizenship by birth if the child’s parents were here without legal permission. According to The Hill, Paul said “he would support amending the Constitution to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States.” Paul explained that “the 14th amendment actually says that you will be a citizen as long as you are under the jurisdiction of the United States. Many argue that these children that are born to illegal aliens are really still under the jurisdiction of the Mexican government. I think we need to fight that out in the courts. If we lose, then I think we should amend the Constitution because I don’t think the 14th amendment was meant to apply to illegal aliens. It was meant to apply to the children of slaves.”

Rick Perry

• In December 2014, Rick Perry issued an executive order requiring state agencies and companies that contract with them to use a federal electronic employee verification system, E-Verify, to avoid hiring someone living or working in this country without legal permission. Previously, Perry had downplayed the usefulness of E-Verify, saying it wouldn’t “make a hill’s beans of difference” during a gubernatorial debate in 2010. In 2014, Perry explained, “The E-Verify system has been improved, it’s been streamlined and it currently is the most accurate and efficient way to check a person’s legal work in the United States.”
• In 2014, Perry supported “legislation that would prohibit municipalities and other local governments from adopting policies that forbid local peace officers from enforcing federal immigration laws. That includes asking the immigration status of someone detained or arrested by a police officer. The legislation would cut off state funding for governments adopting such policies.”
• Speaking before the Texas Border Coalition in 2006, Perry stated he preferred targeted border solutions to a massive physical wall along the border. According to Perry, “Strategic fencing in certain urban areas to direct the flow of traffic does make sense, but building a wall on the entire border is a preposterous idea. The only thing a wall would possibly accomplish is to help the ladder business.”
• In a December 2006 op-ed, Perry proposed allowing immigrants without legal permission to live in the United States to instead stay in the country under a “guest worker” program. Perry explained, “I would rather know who is crossing our border legally to work instead of not knowing who is crossing our border illegally to work. A guest worker program that provides foreign workers with an ID removes the incentive for millions of people to illegally enter our country. It also adds those workers to our tax base, generates revenue for needed social services and it can be done without providing citizenship. Along with millions of Americans, I think it is wrong to reward those who broke our laws with citizenship ahead of those who have followed the law and are waiting to enter this country legally. And like millions of Americans I do not support amnesty. With a more secure border and a reasonable guest worker program we can allow guest workers to help build our economy without offering citizenship. Many don’t even want to become citizens – they just want to provide for their families back home.”
• In 2001, Perry signed a law that offered in-state college tuition to immigrants living in Texas without legal permission who attended Texas public schools. Ten years later, Perry defended his support of the law at a debate in Florida, saying, “In 2001, members of the legislature, they debated it, they talked about it…and the option they chose was in the best economic interest of the state of Texas, in that young people who are here, by no fault of their own…to give these young people the opportunity to be givers rather than takers, to be a constructive part of this society, and that’s what did.”

Marco Rubio

• Marco Rubio, who is a member of the bipartisan Gang of Eight, co-sponsored the comprehensive immigration reform bill, S.744 – the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, which passed the Senate on June 27, 2013.
• In November 2011, Rubio and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) proposed the AGREE Act, which, among other things, proposed removing “per-country limits on employment-based visas in an attempt to allow the brightest foreign students to remain in the country,” according to the Palm Beach Post.
• During the 2010 campaign, Rubio strongly supported securing the borders and opposed any form of amnesty. He said illegal immigrants would need to be deported and that any path to citizenship was “code for amnesty.”

Scott Walker

• In a May 2015 interview with Breitbart, Scott Walker said border security was “a matter of national security.” Walker criticized the lax response to border crossings, saying, “This is truly a matter national sovereignty, in that if we were having people penetrate our water-based ports throughout the Gulf of Mexico or either coast, we’d be taking swift action initially with the Coast Guard and eventually probably with the Navy. Yet, we have international criminal organizations seeking to penetrate our land-based borders to the south—the push for drugs, for firearms and increasingly for people from a trafficking standpoint—it’s just horrific we’re not taking more action to truly secure that border.”
• In July 2013, Walker said, “If people want to come here and work hard and benefit, I don’t care whether they come from Mexico or Ireland or Germany or Canada or South Africa or anywhere else. I want them here.” After expressing support for a pathway to citizenship, Walker commented on Congress’ role in immigration reform, saying, “Not only do they need to fix things for people already here, or find some way to do it, there’s got to be a larger way to fix the system in the first place. Because if it wasn’t so cumbersome, if there wasn’t such a long wait, if it wasn’t so difficult to get in, we wouldn’t have the other problems that we have.”
• During his 2010 campaign, Walker said, “As governor, I will sign similar legislation to the Arizona law on immigration to ensure the taxpayers of Wisconsin are not paying for benefits like BadgerCare and in-state college tuition for people who are here illegally.”

Photo by Lars Plougmann

The Apache Holy Land has had special protections, since 1955, when then President Dwight D. Eisenhower decreed it closed to mining because of its cultural value. In 1971, President Richard M. Nixon renewed this ban. However, in December 2014, the United States Congress promised to hand the title of Oak Flat over to a private Australian-British mining company. This happened because a fine-print rider was added to the “must-pass” military spending bill – the National Defense Authorization Act – ultimately trading away the Indian Holy Land. In other words, for what may be the first time in history, Congress handed over a sacred Native American site to a foreign-owned company.

Ultimately, we can all assume that this sacred Holy Land will be destroyed as the firm, Resolution Copper Mining, will hollow out a chamber that, when it caves in, will leave a two-mile-wide, 1,000-foot-deep pit. Even by congressional standards, this deplorable and greedy land grab was completely anti-democratic. For more than a decade, the parcel that contains Oak Flat had been coveted by Resolution’s parent company, Rio Tinto, which was already mining an area surrounding the Holy Land for the high-value ores beneath it.

For at least 10 years, this deal has been in the works through campaign contributions and paid lobbyists working behind the scenes to bribe congressional leaders. And, as always, Congress caved for the payout. Basically, Resolution will trade 5,300 acres of private parcels owned by the company to the Forest Service in exchange for the 2,400 acres that include Oak Flat. And, the land can be mined without oversight. This swap has been attempted multiple times by Arizona members of Congress on behalf of the company and by sneaking it into the last minute National Defense Authorization Act, they were able to accomplish it – at the expense of the Apaches.

The list of contributors who pushed this deal through are:

• Rick Renzi – a former Republican representative who was sent to federal prison in February for three years for corruption related to earlier versions of the land-transfer deal.
• Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona – the two who slipped in the giveaway language at the last minute in the National Defense Authorization Act at the 11th hour, utilizing a tactic that bypassed public scrutiny. Please note that since 2002, Flake has taken a total of $384,704 from the mining industry with a notable large sum of $170,602 in 2012 and $183,602 in 2014. And, McCain has taken a total of $268,700 since 2002.

It is important to know that Rio Tinto affiliates have been long term McCain campaign contributors and Flake was a paid lobbyist for Rio Tinto Rossing Uranium before being elected to Congress. Of course, McCain and others assert that the mining project will be a boost to the local economy in the area, however haven’t given any indication how many of the 1,400 “promised” jobs will actually be local citizens. And, incidentally, Rio Tinto has a history of “environmental devastation” with past endeavors. Certainly this is of no concern to McCain and Flake.

This back door deal by McCain and Flake clearly show they have no respect for the Native American culture or Apache religion in Arizona. The fact that they were motivated by money given to them from the mining company to allow precious public land to be destroyed and the Apache Indians to be brushed aside is deplorable. It is also very telling of their character. This is a new low in congressional corruption. And it is important to also point out that the way McCain and Flake worded the bill’s language is that simply, 60 days after the federal “environmental impact statement” is complete, the land will belong to Resolution. There is nothing in the bill to stop the swap no matter what the environmental study says.

Photo by armigeress

What’s the best way to demonstrate your concerns that a black 18-year-old was shot by a white cop before a formal investigation has been finalized? Well… duh… you become violent, threaten white people, loot and steal, burn down stores, and run in the streets acting like a rabid animal. Because that will eliminate crime and whatnot.

Just like in the Rodney King days of 1992, I will never understand the mentality of people who seize an opportunity to get free stuff by robbing stores and businesses that had nothing to do with the tragedy they are supposedly protesting. I remember watching the videos during the LA Riots of criminals (I can’t think of any other word for them) pulling innocent people from their cars and beating them with intent to seriously harm and even kill them. Why? They were upset about a man being beaten by the police. Because… that makes sense.

Most civilized human beings who are upset about an injustice will petition for justice, will bring attention to the tragedy to educate others to what has happened, and will hold peaceful demonstrations to get the cause into the public eye. Uncivilized people will inflict pain and suffering on anyone who crosses their path. They will take the tragedy to a new level by figuring out ways to get free stuff by stealing and robbing others. They will beat people who had nothing to do with the tragedy. And, most importantly, they will have an entire country judge them as feral, ultimately changing the focus of finding justice for the ONE person who was harmed.

Check out these “tweets” filling the news feeds this morning:

• “Smh they tearing up their own neighborhood instead of terrorizing the white neighborhoods..loot, burned down and rob them, not your own,” said Madam Nori.
• “N—– in St. Louis need to go to the white people’s area and start looting,” wrote “Groovy.”
• Another anonymous contributor wrote, “I simply wish black folk would riot white neighborhoods.”
• EastSide said, “You tearing down yo own community like what ? At least go mess up the white neighborhoods stuff !!!!!!”

As we know, an 18-year-old black boy was shot and killed by an unnamed white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. The incident is under investigation so the details on what happened are divided. Some witnesses say the boy was gunned down without provoking violence. Other witnesses say the boy provoked violence towards the officer. Once an investigation is complete, we will have a clear understanding and can make a judgement from there. As of today, we don’t know the answers.

Here’s the deal… if you want society to respect you, no matter who you are or what color your skin happens to be, you remain civilized. You fight for justice the legal way. You gain public attention to your cause. When you exploit a tragedy by hurting innocent people, you are no better than the one who caused the injustice to begin with. Actually, you are worse.

Photo by auntjojo

This morning I was listening to the radio and learned something that I found very disturbing in this day and age of identity theft. Did you know that every Medicare card is printed with the social security numbers of the card holder and on the back of the card it instructs seniors to carry their card with them at all times? Medicare’s identification number is called the Health Insurance Claim Number, and the HICN is the Social Security number. And this number is printed on every card.

Needless to say, if a card falls into the wrong hands, this could certainly result in identity theft, as well as fraudulent benefit claims submitted to the Medicare system on the legitimate card holder’s behalf.

Not only is there a risk of someone stealing a senior’s card and using their social security numbers, there is also a risk in the Medicare Summary Notice mailed to beneficiaries quarterly as it also displays the full HICN. According to the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services, in 2010 and in 2011, more than 13,000 Medicare Summary Notices were mailed to the wrong addresses due to a “printing error” by a government contractor. Surprised? Me, either.

Earlier this year, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it recovered a RECORD-HIGH $4.3 BILLION in fiscal 2013 from attempted fraud schemes that were directed at Medicare and other federal health insurance programs. It is widely acknowledge in the government that identity theft and fraud are a big issue with the social security numbers being printed on the Medicare ID cards, but it will be costly to fix the problem. So don’t fix it, right?

Ironically enough… well not really as we’d expect this with big government… the federal government has recognized this probable risk for years and several bills have been introduced in Congress to remove the numbers from the cards, yet nothing much has happened.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is the agency that administers Medicare. They have publicly acknowledged that having the Social Security numbers on the ID cards and the Quarterly Reports is a problem and should be removed. But they also say it is an expensive endeavor and that they have to coordinate and cooperate with the Social Security Administration, as well as other agencies involved. CMS estimates it would cost between $217 million to $317 million to actually correct this problem. Big government at it’s finest.

Because this has been an issue for a while, and as more identity theft crimes are on the rise, the George W. Bush administration ordered ALL federal agencies to eliminate any unnecessary use of Social Security numbers in 2007. To date, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense have indeed removed the numbers from ID cards that they issue. And, other federal employees’ health ID cards have had the social security numbers removed. So, it isn’t impossible. Other agencies have taken the necessary precautions to protect their card holders. Since George W. Bush’s order to remove the social security numbers from cards issued by federal agencies, (mind you it’s been seven years), CMS has identified two very obvious ways to fix the problem: 1) replacing the HICN with a new number, or 2) masking out the first five digits of the SSN number. Well… duh. These would work, obviously. However, to date there has been no action taken.

“As early as December 2004, IRTPA legislation prohibited states from displaying the SSN on driver’s licenses or motor vehicle registrations. In 2007, the President’s Identity Theft Task Force (2007, 3) included among its SSN recommendations that “federal agencies should reduce the unnecessary use of SSNs, the most valuable commodity for an identity thief.”
*Source: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n2/v69n2p55.html

“On November 18, 2008, President George W. Bush issued EO 13478 rescinding the 1943 EO requiring all federal agencies to use the SSN as an identifier. Then in December, the FTC (2008) issued a plea to companies, schools, and other private entities to find better ways to authenticate identities than using the SSN. State and local entities have begun to delete SSNs on electronic versions of public records. Congress has also considered legislation that would require the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to use an alternative to the SSN as the Medicare claim number. Even SSA, which created the SSN for its program use, has ceased to print the full SSN on some of its correspondence with beneficiaries (Lockhart 2002). The agency now advises individuals to keep their Social Security card in a safe place and not to carry it with them (SSA 2007a).”
*Source: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n2/v69n2p55.html

As you can see, other agencies have stepped forward and have spent the necessary money and man-hours to correct the problem, yet the CMS has done nothing to date. There is a petition online that is being promoted and supported by Clark Howard of the Clark Howard Show to end the use of social security numbers on Medicare cards. Please take a moment to review and sign the petition so that this can be stopped. And also, please forward this article to any seniors you know and remind them to leave their cards at home. If the wrong person steals their wallet or purse, they could easily become victims of identity theft.

PETITION LINK: Stop Using Social Security Numbers As Medicare ID Numbers

Seventy-two percent of U.S. Muslims approve of the job President Barack Obama has done as president during the first six months of 2014. (Official White House Photo)

You guessed it! According to today’s released Gallup Poll, U.S. Muslims are the most approving of Obama and his policies while the Mormons are the least approving.

Shocked, right? Wait? What? You aren’t shocked? Well minions, it’s a fact that a whopping seventy-two percent of U.S. Muslims approve of the stellar job their president did during the first six months of 2014. From our perspective, it seems the Mormons have it right with their 18% approval rating.

More than 88,000 Gallup Daily tracking interviews were conducted in the first six months of the this year — and during the same time the President’s overall approval ratings have tanked. But even with tanked approval ratings, his core Muslim supporters are as happy as peas in a pod with his “presidentin’ skills.”

One thing that is interesting from this Gallup Poll is that overall, during the full 2009-2014 ratings, he is collectively down five to 7 points in every religious group approval category. So… his approval is still going down… but the Muslims love him bunches and bunches. You don’t say?