Walker Stands Strong: Backs Up American Workers Against Open Borders Yet Again

by Matthew Boyle
24 Apr 2015
Washington, DC
517 comments

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker isn’t backing down about protecting American workers from the effects of out of control illegal and legal immigration, even as seemingly everyone from the Institutional Left to the mainstream media to the GOP Washington establishment has come after him.

In an interview with the Quad City Times in Iowa, Walker tripled down on the sentiment that American workers must come first when it comes to immigration levels—after doing so earlier this week in interviews with both Glenn Beck and Megyn Kelly.

“A couple years ago, when the unemployment rate was at incredibly high levels and labor participation was low, why would we want to flood the market with more workers? So that would be a time when you would have arguably less. As the unemployment rate goes down and labor participation rates go up, the two have to go hand in hand. Then it could be conceivably more than we have today. So it’s not a set number,” Walker said.

Walker, the paper wrote, added that his focus is on making sure people understand that immigration numbers are a “factor” in wages and employment levels.

“My focus on that isn’t an indictment on whether it is or isn’t [immigration pushing unemployment up or wages down],” Walker said. “It’s saying I think that should be a factor.”

In the interview with Beck, Walker noted how he’s spoken with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) on the matter—something he confirmed again to the Quad City Times, noting too that he’s spoken with many lawmakers and leaders about the issue.

“This is not me embracing any one particular lawmaker,” Walker said, with the paper writing that he “had visited border states and with employers in Wisconsin and across the country, as well as lawmakers,” and Walker saying that “Sen. Sessions being one of many” people he’s learned from on this issue.

Sessions has praised Walker’s stance, as has Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA), an economist who won his election against then House Majority Leader Eric Cantor by focusing almost exclusively on this issue.

“Even our side– the Republican side–we’re scared of our shadow, we’re especially scared of the 2016 presidential election,” Brat said when asked by Howie Carr, a Boston radio host who’s massively influential in New Hampshire, about Walker’s strong stance for American workers—and the attacks he was getting from the media.

The buzz is that we have this demographic issue with African American, Hispanic voters and instead of saying, ‘hey these are our brothers and sisters in the Judeo-Christian tradition…’ we back track on our first principles and pay attention to what some of the crony capitalists want and they want cheap labor. It’s just a bad brew… And the workers know it, but it all comes down to… the big money.

“Scott Walker seems to be true-blue from the midwest and… has fought hard for his state,” Brat added later in that Carr interview. “It seems like he’s a fighter and that’s what people sent me here for, I think that’s what they sent a lot of Congress here for– to fight against a lot of the destructive policies coming out of the Obama Administration. And we’re not doing it.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ers-yet-again/

Quote:

---

“My focus on that isn’t an indictment on whether it is or isn’t [immigration pushing unemployment up or wages down],” Walker said. “It’s saying I think that should be a factor.”

---

It is one of the 3 Factors, the other 2 are free trade treason and the income tax that ship out capital investment, technology, and the good jobs that pay high wages and offer good benefits.

Keep up the good work with the good message, Scott. Our country needs to hear this, and it needs to hear it in no uncertain terms, so be specific and unwavering.

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/wa...-burned-blames

Quote:

---

Walker Goes To Minnesota, Gets Burned, Blames Democrats

By capper
4/24/15 5:00am

http://crooksandliars.com/files/imag..._wisconsin.jpg


http://crooksandliars.com/files/imag...r_wait_wut.jpg

On Thursday, Scott Walker went for another one of his taxpayer-funded non-campaign campaign jaunts. This time he went to Minnesota.

Now, keep in mind that for the past 4+ years - with the exception of professional and college football - Minnesota has been kicking Wisconsin's butt on just about every economic measure. The reasons are myriad, but the biggest four reasons are health care, minimum wage, unions and pay equality.

As one might expect, Walker was welcomed with a fair amount of taunting. However, it was R.T. Rybak, former mayor of Minneapolis, who gave Walker third-degree political burns:

In 2010, both Wisconsin and Minnesota faced similar budget woes and a worrisome economic future amid a national recession. Both are also Midwest states, deeply invested in manufacturing and agricultural economic drivers. The only difference was that Minnesotans elected DFL Gov. Mark Dayton to turn Minnesota around, while Wisconsinites chose Scott Walker to lead their state’s recovery.

Only one governor was successful.

In Minnesota, Dayton turned a $5 billion budget deficit into a more than $1 billion budget surplus in just one term. By raising taxes on the wealthiest earners, Minnesota is now in a position to invest more resources into the state’s schools and infrastructure.

In Wisconsin, Walker was unable to take his state out of the red and is still facing a $2 billion budget deficit. Walker made the decision to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires, while slashing programs and refusing investments at the expense of middle-class families and Wisconsin’s financial well-being.

In Minnesota, Dayton has moved forward Democratic policies like increasing the minimum wage, expanding Medicaid and investing in the middle class, and now we are seeing one of the most business-friendly states in the country. Just this year, Forbes ranked Minnesota as the ninth best state for business, seventh in economic climate and second in quality of life.

In Wisconsin, Walker opposed a minimum-wage increase and equal-pay legislation, rejected federal funds to expand Medicaid, and attacked Wisconsin workers with right-to-work and anti-collective-​bargaining policies. As a result, the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher than the national average, and median household income is thousands less than in Minnesota.

The facts are clear: Walker and the Republican trickle-down economic policies have made it practically impossible for Wisconsin to recover from the recession, and the state consistently sits at the bottom of the region in private-sector job growth.

Walker, true to his nature, wouldn't admit that he is a failure or take any responsibility for the consequences of his policies and budgets:

"You've had the advantage of other than a two-year period of having Republicans in charge of at least one part of government for some time. Before we came into office, for many years there was a Democrat governor, a Democrat assembly and a Democrat Senate," Walker said, noting the state's peak 9.2% unemployment rate prior to his election in 2010 and its 4.6% standing now.

"You look at where we were at, where we started and where we're at today, there has been a dramatic change," he told reporters following his meeting with GOP lawmakers.

Minnesota's jobless rate has consistently been lower than Wisconsin's but also it never climbed as high during the Great Recession. Minnesota's unemployment rate has also tumbled from above 7% at Gov. Mark Dayton's first election to 3.7% now.

The thing is that Walker has had a Republican-controlled Assembly, a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled Supreme Court. Walker has been able to do whatever he wanted without restraint.

Furthermore, the job numbers show that the rate of job numbers dropped drastically when Walker was elected and able to get his first budget and his first policies in place.

It's time and beyond that Walker's handlers inform him that the people want a grown up for their president, not a little boy living in an imaginary place.

---

This is what Walker needs to be prepared to argue against. Facts" that aren't facts, but delusions.

Here's the fact in Minnesota about their unemployment rate:

Quote:

---

Minn. Unemployment Rate Drops Despite Job Losses

January 22, 2015 11:25 AM

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Minnesota’s unemployment ratehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png has fallen to its lowest level in more than 13 years even though more than 5,000 jobs were lost in December.

The state economichttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png development agency says employers cut 5,200 jobs in December. The department also revised November’s job gains down by 4,000.

But unemployment in the state dropped to 3.6 percent last month. It’s the lowest rate since April 2001. It’s also lower than the national average of 5.6 percent.

Government, education and health services and manufacturing saw the most job losses. Tradehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png, transportation and utilities added the most jobs last month.

(© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

---

This is the national "unemployment" anomaly. Unemployment rates drop as states and the country still have job losses. How is that possible one asks? Simple. There are so few jobs and so much immigration competition for so long that unemployed Americans are no longer counted in the unemployment statistics or they're underemployed working at jobs that don't sustain them.

Quote:

---

More Minnesota kids live in poverty

• Article by: SAMANTHA SCHMIDT , Star Tribune
• Updated: July 22, 2014 - 7:51 PM

Doubling since 2000 is mark against state in new report.

Minnesota continues to rank among the nation’s top states for child well-being, but a new report shows rising rates of child poverty are creating racial disparities among the worst in the nation.

The annual Kids Count report, produced by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and Children’s Defense Fund, ranked Minnesota No. 5 in the nation for child well-being, behind Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire. It has placed in the top five for more than 10 years.

But the number of children living in high-poverty neighborhoods has doubled, from 3 percent in 2000 to 6 percent in 2012. Despite the economic recovery of the past six years, 15 percent of Minnesotan children lived in poverty in 2012, up three percentage points from 2005.

While that rate compared well to other states, poverty rates among Minnesota’s minority children are some of the worst in the nation. Almost half of African-American children lived in poverty in 2012, along with 38 percent of American Indian children, 30 percent of Hispanic or Latino children, and 20 percent of Asian children.

All the minority poverty rates exceed the national average, possibly because of Minnesota’s large immigrant and refugee communities, according to Stephanie Hogenson, Research and Policy Director at the Children’s Defense Fund-Minnesota.

“But I think it is much more than that in our state,” Hogenson said. “I think we’ve ignored this problem of disparity for far too long.”

Minnesota has improved on most measures of child health, with the percentage of children lacking insurance down to 5 percent from 6 percent in 2008. Other states, however, are doing much better.

The state’s overall health ranking for children slid to 17th nationally, down from 15th in 2013 and seventh the previous year. As one of the healthiest states overall in the country, and with globally renowned health care, Minnesota should not be in the middle of the pack for child health, Hogenson said.

“We’re no longer seen as a leader in child health as we once were,” she said.

Minnesota’s growing minority population could place additional demands on early education programs and the state’s child-care subsidy system, which has a backlog of about 8,000 families, Hogenson said. More than half of 3- and 4-year-olds are not attending preschool, and numbers are even higher for children of color, according to the report.

However, Minnesota mirrored the nation with a rising percentage of children overall attending preschool and a decline in the number of schoolchildren who are not proficient in reading and math. Teen birthrates are at a historic low, and the number of teens who abuse drugs and alcohol also improved.

---

http://www.startribune.com/local/268178192.html

It's very important that Scott Walker and any other candidate who wants to run on a platform that supports American Workers to have the facts that refute the opposition's lies about the impact of immigration on our workers and society. He needs to hire an expert economic researcher who knows the US Economy 101, to address the anomalies of our economic statistics that totally distort the reality of the impact of immigration on employment, underemployment, poverty, incomes and the saddest of all which is the drop out of Americans from the work force due to the lack of jobs available to them. They also need to ramp up their database of facts about the impact of immigration on minority citizens in the US, including blacks, hispanics and asians. They need to know the truth about what is happening to them and why.

And for all those who still support the income tax, please see the "trick" of the tax credit welfare program and it's way of distorting actual poverty levels:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wiscons...258325971.html

Quote:

---

Poverty drops, but not to pre-recession levels, study finds

By Bill Glauber of the Journal Sentinel
May 7, 2014

[IMG]http://media.jrn.com/images/185*344/POVERTY08G.jpg[/IMG]

The poverty level continued to drop in Wisconsin in 2012, thanks to increases in jobs and earnings, according to a new study released by University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers.

The study found, however, that jobs have still not returned to pre-recession levels, and that a safety net of work support and family assistance programs was still very much needed. Further, the poverty rate varied widely; in the central city of Milwaukee, more than two out of five people were in poverty.

"The social safety net provided a buffer against poverty during the Great Recession and still makes a very big difference in poverty, though it is now shrinking because of the recovery and some cutbacks in recession-related spending on refundable tax credits," the report says.

The research is contained in the Wisconsin Poverty Report produced by UW's Institute for Research on Poverty.

While the official poverty rate for Wisconsin was 12.8%, researchers used a different measurement that placed it at 10.2%. The alternative measurement accounts for such benefits as food assistance and refundable tax credits.

For children, the official poverty rate was 17.9% but dropped to 11% with the alternate measure. For the elderly, the alternate measure of 7.4% was actually higher than the official rate of 6.2%.

"In times of need, a safety net that enhances low earnings for families with children, puts food on the table and encourages self-reliance — as Wisconsin's safety net does — makes a big difference," said Timothy Smeeding, the institute's director.

Smeeding and other researchers created the alternative measurement — known as the Wisconsin Poverty Measure — in an attempt to provide a more accurate picture of poverty in the state. It's also intended to give researchers and policy-makers a sense of how the economy and public policies are affecting poverty.

Researchers found in Milwaukee County the Wisconsin Poverty Measure was 18.8%, although poverty rates varied throughout the area, soaring to 41.6% in central city Milwaukee. Milwaukee and Dane counties, and 10 counties clustered in the northwest corner of the state all had poverty levels above the state rate.

"In brief, employment is not back to pre-recession levels and work support programs, especially refundable tax credits and food assistance, are still helping working families escape poverty," the report says. "Yet the economy is slowly turning around and the combination of greater earnings, tax credits and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) are moving many people over the poverty threshold, especially those in families with children."

In 2012, the federal poverty threshold was $26,731 for a family of four when including medical expenses and payments of mortgage principal.

The report found "that jobs, earnings, and wages are beginning to rise again in Wisconsin, lessening the impact of the safety net on poverty as benefits are lower because of higher earnings."

---

This is important, and I have an example. A family of 3, 2 adults and 1 child, earn approximately $1,000 a month from the mother who works 30 hours a week at $8 an hour and a father who took early retirement due to some high blood pressure issues and lack of jobs he can do and brings home $1,100 in Social Security (not disability, just reduced early retirement Social Security and about $200 of that is because of their child until he's 18yo or graduates from college for a total monthly of $2,100 a month, receives between $5,000 and $7,000 in federal earned income and child care income tax credits when they file their income taxes, and they still qualify for some food stamps, a small amount, but still some. The child qualifies for Medicaid coverage, the parents do not, but they will qualify for health insurance subsidies probably close to 100%, if and when they apply for Obama Care which they have probably done by now.

Does this make any sense to anyone? To me, this makes no sense at all. The mother is underemployed needing at least 40 hours at week but is restricted to 30 hours by the employer, the owner of the business is an immigrant from India. The father is unemployed and took early retirement because he can't find a job he can do. But do they show up in unemployment figures? Nope. Do they show up in poverty figures? Yep. Do they show up in poverty figures after taking into account the tax credits and food stamps? Nope.

How is this sustainable? There are tens of millions of Americans living this scenario at the expense of US taxpayers while all new jobs since 2009 have gone to immigrants.

This does not make sense. This is not sustainable.

This is insanity.

Koch Brothers, I hope you're reading and watching. You can help stop this madness, and I believe you will.

I have had some reservations about Scott Walker's ambiguity over illegal immigration. But come on patriots, he has come out loud and clear about stopping the overwhelming invasion of illegal immigration and control of massive supposedly "legal" immigration. With that, far and above the other candidates he has earned our full support.

I would like to believe the Koch brothers are patriots, but they seem to be ambiguous on stopping the illegal alien invasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csarbww

I would like to believe the Koch brothers are patriots, but they seem to be ambiguous on stopping the illegal alien invasion.

---

I think we need to get them to come out on that issue. I suspect they may actually be smart enough to see the adverse consequences of what's happening that people like them actually pay for because they're paying for the welfare and poverty spending that results from it which is much more costly than paying market wages. They may be trying to find a way to help the GOP gain Latino CITIZEN votes which is okay, nothing wrong with that, while not confusing the message with the immigration issue, even though they probably oppose illegal immigration and excess legal immigration, because anyone with 2 live brain cells still connected sees the harm and the cost of that harm to everyone who pays taxes to fund it. I noticed that they get blamed as being "pro-immigrant" because they "back" or formed or were some way involved with establishing this outfit called LIBRE, whose mission is to get the Hispanic and Latino vote out, not be a immigration advocate for illegal aliens. But, we'll see. Maybe they'll clarify with who they support, Scott Walker, then we'll know, if someone else, then the fuzz on them continues.

5:23 pm ET By Trip Gabriel

After giving a version of his stump speech to a mostly gray-haired crowd in Iowa, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin was pressed on Friday by two twenty-something Republicans about a percolating issue he did not mention: immigration.

Mr. Walker’s apparent hardening on immigration has inspired a flood of reporting and commentary. Most recently he told the radio host Glenn Beck that he favored restricting legal immigration in tough economic times, a position to the right of most other 2016 presidential hopefuls.

He repeated that view Friday after a speech in Cedar Rapids, when Eddie Failor, 24, expressed concern “as a young Republican” that the party must make inroads to new voter blocs, including by supporting a comprehensive overhaul of immigration.

Mr. Walker told Mr. Failor that his top priority would be securing the border. He also said he favored “making sure the legal immigration system is based on making our No. 1 priority to protect American workers and their wages.’’

Alexander Staudt, the treasurer of the University of Iowa College Republicans, also told Mr. Walker in the meet-and-greet line that he was concerned that by talking tough on immigration, Republican candidates would turn off Hispanics.

“In terms of how wide or how narrow the door’s open, our No. 1 priority is American workers and American wages,’’ Mr. Walker told him. “I don’t know how anyone can argue against that.’’

Both Mr. Staudt and Mr. Failor asked the governor what he would do about the millions of undocumented workers already in the country. Mr. Walker said they should return to their countries of origin and apply for legal entry.

Mr. Staudt liked that answer. “The bigger that number gets,’’ he said, referring to undocumented immigrants, “it’s going to become less economically viable.’’

But Mr. Failor, who has attended several Republican candidates’ events this year, said he was disappointed.

“He gave a conflicting message, in my opinion,’’ he said. “He said he’s not one who believes in spending billions of dollars to deport all these undocumented immigrants. When I asked if he supported a pathway to legal status, he said no, he’d send them back to their country of origin and let them get in line with everybody else. I don’t know how that works within the deportation equation.’’

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...n-stance/?_r=1

My dear young college Republicans, do not worry about Hispanic voters. Hispanic voters are Americans, who think the same as any American and want the same things for themselves, their family, and their country as any American. Some Hispanics, in fact most based on the polls of likely voters, agree with us immigration "hard-liners" because they want the same things for our country as any of us do. Some Hispanics, like some other Americans have a different view and want to end the US and merge with Canada and Mexico and become part of a New World Order reporting to a World Government run by the the WTO Cartel.

To win the White House, we need a majority or a plurality, we don't need 100% of any group. We need a majority of American men and women, regardless of their race, ethnicity or national origin who want to stand up for our citizens, our workers, our taxpayers and our country, and any candidate who is committed to doing that should have no problems winning an election in the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

We need a majority of American men and women, regardless of their race, ethnicity or national origin who want to stand up for our citizens, our workers, our taxpayers and our country, and any candidate who is committed to doing that should have no problems winning an election in the United States.

---

IMO the single biggest obstacle to a rational immigration policy is a liberal press which simply will not criticize 'Bama's illegal amnesty. NPR has had coverage of DHS which does not even mention 'Bama.

IMO Scott Walker is taking the road which might lead to victory in 2016: hammer away at jobs for Americans - and don't forget to say that "Americans" includes all Americans. Middle class Latinos will be undercut by illegals, just like every other middle class American. Latinos with entry level jobs may find that their children are being undercut by the next wave of illegals.
********************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vistalad

IMO the single biggest obstacle to a rational immigration policy is a liberal press which simply will not criticize 'Bama's illegal amnesty. NPR has had coverage of DHS which does not even mention 'Bama.

IMO Scott Walker is taking the road which might lead to victory in 2016: hammer away at jobs for Americans - and don't forget to say that "Americans" includes all Americans. Middle class Latinos will be undercut by illegals, just like every other middle class American. Latinos with entry level jobs may find that their children are being undercut by the next wave of illegals.
********************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

---

Exactly. And personally, I think Republicans need to send out better stronger messages to Black Americans, after all, our relationship with Blacks has been far closer for far longer than any relationship they've had with Democrats. Democrats really haven't done anything for Black Americans, it's only been Republican Agendas and Initiatives that have helped Black Americans, and of course, many of these Constitutional Amendments and Civil Rights Laws that were Republican initiatives, not Democrat initiatives, are the ones that have helped all minorities in the United States. To me, it's so strange, even weird and bizarre, that most minorities are registered Democrats instead of Republicans. Why would a minority in the United States want to register as a Democrat when Democrats fought to keep slavery in the United States, gutted every Civil Rights Act Republicans try to pass since Reconstruction, and sell out their livelihoods to this day to foreigners? I mean, WHOA, it's time to wake up and smell the manure pile you're sitting in with the Democrats.

I asked the question once of old time experienced Republicans about this, and their answer was quick and simple, Republicans never wanted what they did to end slavery or establish civil rights for black Americans to make blacks feel indebted to us. So, it was a moral decision not to pursue black voters based on what Republicans had done for them.

Well, I say, that's nice and righteous and all, but COME ON, if you don't get the messages out about our party and what we have done which in large part determines what we will do, then how will Black Americans voting today ever know the truth? They sure as hell won't learn it from listening to or reading the Democrat's Talking Points or ever hear about it from the media or in public education, so if we don't tell them the truth, who will? If they know the truth, then they can decide for themselves what party to belong to, but if they don't know, how can they be empowered to make a good decision? They're as entitled on their issues as anyone on any issue to know the truth about the Republican Party, not the lies they're filled with day after day, year after year for generations by the Democratic Party.

I believe it's time to end this Righteous Silence and start telling ALL VOTERS the truth, including Black Voters. The immigration issue is the perfect stage on which to do both, and I hope candidates in 2016 realize this and start doing it.

The media blames Romney's loss on his immigration "self-deportation" stance, that they think cost him the Latino Vote. No, Mitt Romney lost the Women Vote, the Black Vote and the Latino Vote.

And I can tell the GOP straight up, that if they don't win the Women Vote, it won't matter about the others. Women are the majority of the population, more women are registered to vote than men, and more registered women voters actually vote than men voters. So .... GOP, you better wake up and start pandering to people who actually vote, and you know what I'm talking about. It's time for the GOP to get its nose out of the bedroom and the doctor's office and focus on things our Constitution created this government to actually do which is control and prevent immigration, promote jobs for Americans, protect our trade, bring our industries back home, balance our trade deficits, balance our fiscal budgets, build roads and bridges, secure our nation and pay down the national debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csarbww

I have had some reservations about Scott Walker's ambiguity over illegal immigration. But come on patriots, he has come out loud and clear about stopping the overwhelming invasion of illegal immigration and control of massive supposedly "legal" immigration. With that, far and above the other candidates he has earned our full support.

---

I may not be to the "full support" stage yet, but he has certainly risen above the rest of the Republican field on the issue of immigration. If the vote was tomorrow, I would vote for him. Not because I think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread (there is still the question of whether he's speaking from the heart), but because none of the other candidates current positions measure up. Up until a about a weeks ago I thought Cruz was good, however, I then found out he supports the tripling of work visas, including those in the STEM field. For all of the candidates, with possible exception of Walker: "You've been weighed, measured, and found wanting." (quote from the movie A Knight's Tale)

Personally, I think Walker's change in position is something we should be proud of, not critical of. After all, hasn't one of our key goals been accomplished ..... and that is to convince politicians that our way is the best way to serve Americans and America? Walker is singing our tune now, and I for one am grateful for that. I say let's praise his message and continue to convince him that he's got it right through our support. Being critical of his past position doesn't do us, him, or the country any good.

Judy Wrote (excerpt):

Quote:

---

And personally, I think Republicans need to send out better stronger messages to Black Americans

---

I agree wholeheartedly because no group of people is being hurt by illegal immigration/excessive immigration more than the black community.

Aside from unable to take his state out of the red and is still facing a $2 billion budget deficit. Walker made the decision to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires, while slashing programs and refusing investments at the expense of middle-class families and Wisconsin’s financial well-being. He is against equal pay for women, would remove regulations that protect our environment from greedy toxic polluters, supports traditional dirty energy forms only and is against protecting endangered species. He would not get my vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csarbww

I would like to believe the Koch brothers are patriots, but they seem to be ambiguous on stopping the illegal alien invasion.

---

The Koch brothers are not ambiguous on illegal immigration. Neither is Scott Walker. They are both on the record in support of the kind of immigration reform amnesty for illegals ALIPAC has fought to stop legislatively.

W

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artist

Aside from unable to take his state out of the red and is still facing a $2 billion budget deficit. Walker made the decision to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires, while slashing programs and refusing investments at the expense of middle-class families and Wisconsin’s financial well-being. He is against equal pay for women, would remove regulations that protect our environment from greedy toxic polluters, supports traditional dirty energy forms only and is against protecting endangered species. He would not get my vote.

---

Yes, he definitely has other problems, but so do all the Republican candidates of late. But, I will support his new immigration stance and hope this forces all candidates into supporting it as well. He has even other issues that would prevent me from voting for him in a General Election, but so far, so do they all. The Republican Party must get back to its original set of principles. It was Republicans who established the EPA to protect our environment and our species under Richard Nixon. It was Republicans who supported the women's right to vote and equal rights for women, and Teddy Roosevelt was the first national politician to support the Suffrage Movement, so for any Republican to oppose equal pay for women is just beyond belief.

Our Party got infested and infected somewhere along the way after Nixon and Ford. Was it Reagan and Reaganites? I don't know. All I know is it's turned our country on its ear and plunged the US into darkness, because without the Original Radical Republicanism in active play today, our country has no chance of survival, because we're wilting faster than we can count the damaged leaves.

Dear "artist"

Where are you getting your "facts." The economy in Wisconsin is good and getting better. He stood up to the union thug bosses. The unions have long ago been taken over by screaming Marxists. If they hate Walker then he must be doing the right things. The fact that the union thugs were so crazy to remove him should be all of the endorsement any patriot would need to support him.

We can argue economics all day long, but the facts are that unions always hate those who are for economic and political freedom. Remember all of the unions are in the septic tank for open borders and amnesty--so much for their fighting for the working man.

Dear "artist:"
I am an artist too. And you really need to get a new set of friends to hang around with because your environment green pals don't know squat. I am sure you have never been told about thousands, yes thousands of scientists who refute the whole man made global warming thing. Aside from the whole of geological science that tells us there have been drastic global climate changes from a frozen ice ball to endless arid droughts.

Yes follow the money my friend. Let us talk about the mega rich like the Clintons, George Cloney, and yes Al Gore who got rich following the government subsidy money into investments for "alternate energy" failures that are heavily subsidized and still barely competitive with the evil fossil fuels.

When you talk critically about Marxists Democrats I will be willing to listen to you.

Dear artist:

Amnesty is the national survival issue of our time but you won’t vote for Walker because he likes fossil fuels? Are you kidding me? You really need to get your priorities in order.

Lets talk about millionaires and billionaires like the Silicon Valley mega rich and the Chamber of Commerce and Mark Zuckerberg and Warren Buffet, and Google etc. all of whom are for amnesty and are certain to hate Walker because he came out against it—
so much for your implication that Walker is a tool of the rich. And not to forget the Hollywood mega rich movie hams.

"WEDNESDAY, APR 22, 2015 05:15 PM EDTScott Walker is now toast: The crazy move right that cost him the Koch brothers — and probably the nomination

First he had the Koch endorsement. Then he didn't. Why? A Glenn Beck interview where Walker moved wackier than Cruz

HEATHER DIGBY PARTON

• Share 5K
• 643
• 
  
  Post
  
  
  
• 734

TOPICS: SCOTT WALKER, MARCO RUBIO, TED CRUZ, JEB BUSH, IMMIGRATION, GLENN BECK, KOCH BROTHERS,ELECTIONS 2016, POLITICS NEWS
http://media.salon.com/2015/04/scott_walker11.jpgScott Walker

(Credit: AP/Jim Cole)

According to a number of well-respected journalists, the Koch brothers are putting their heft and muscle behind Scott Walker for president. Or maybe not. It depends on whom you ask.


First, let’s acknowledge once again that the Great Whitebread Hope from Wisconsin seems to have everyone in the political establishment mesmerized by his alleged strategic and tactical brilliance. Sure, he makes epic gaffes over and over again, but that cannot take anything away from the fact that he barely won a recall election and two swing-state elections in years in which Republicans ran the table. Why this is considered political genius remains a question for the ages. However, there can be no doubt that much of the Republican base loves him and much of the Democratic commentariat sees him as a very serious threat.
So when the news hit that David Koch had told a gathering at a Manhattan fundraiser that the nominee should be Scott Walker, it was as if there was nothing left to talk about. The deciders had decided.
But then something kind of funny happened. Walker’s recently terminated spokesperson sent out a series of notable tweets:

Internal polling must be looking dubious, showing attrition to more grassroots-conservative-preferred candidates for him to try this one.
— Liz Mair (@LizMair) April 20, 2015

Interesting that it’s being reported that Walker got the Koch nod today, bc I’m hearing that Koch folks really pissed re: imm flip-flop.
— Liz Mair (@LizMair) April 21, 2015

David Koch then made a statement walking back this apparent endorsement:

While I think Governor Walker is terrific, let me be clear, I am not endorsing or supporting any candidate for President at this point in time.

---

They are now reportedly going to hold an “audition” of sorts during the summer for the Kochs’ primary Prom King. (Apparently their earlier “Koch Summit” was just a casual mixer.)
So what, exactly, did Scott Walker say that appears to have made the Kochs do such an about-face in record time? Well, it’s a doozy. Walker, you see, was once a “pro-immigration reform” Republican, which is likely one of the reasons the Koch brothers back him. Like most of the more libertarian-minded Big Business Republicans, they tend toward a more moderate stance on immigration. It’s good for business in a number of ways (for both good and bad reasons). Walker, being a proven anti-union, pro-immigration governor, was naturally at the top of their list of nominees. He had recently “moderated” his stance on illegal immigration but it was widely assumed to be a mild feint to the right for the purposes of winning the nomination. It brought him into line with all the other candidates like Rubio and Bush who had once also been pro-reform, so it was no harm-no foul as far as the primary was concerned.
But yesterday he went a step further. He appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio show and he said this:

“In terms of legal immigration, how we need to approach that going forward is saying — the next president and the next Congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages. Because the more I’ve talked to folks, I’ve talked to [Alabama Sen. Jeff] Sessions and others out there — but it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today — is what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages. And we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.”

It’s hard not to fall down laughing (or lose your lunch) over the most notorious union buster in America waxing on about protecting American jobs, but he’s the last person to understand the irony of his comments. But by taking a position against legal immigration, he’s just placed himself to the right of Ted Cruz on this issue. He’s out in Ben Carson land. Not to mention that he’s obliterated the last tattered shreds of a conservative argument to appeal to Hispanic and other ethnic groups: the idea that illegal immigration is unfair to legal immigrants who’ve been “waiting in line” to come to this country. Walker wants to close down the line altogether. Only the most hardcore neo-Confederates like Sessions want to go that far.
Igor Bobic in the Huffington Post explained the possible reasoning:

By aligning himself with an immigration hawk like Sessions, Walker may be hoping to placate conservatives wary over his previous support for a pathway to citizenship for many undocumented immigrants. Walker’s strategy is somewhat reminiscent of then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who, faced with similar questions over his devotion to the conservative cause in 2011, memorably tacked far right of his GOP rivals by endorsing ‘self-deportation.’ Yet not even Romney, who lost the Latino vote to Obama by more than 40 percentage points in November 2012, supported curbing legal immigration, a concept at the core of what it means to be American.

A bunch of Republican senators were appalled when they heard about this. (They can count votes …) Talking Points Memo got them on the record.

Arizona Senator John McCain: “I think most statistics show that they fill part of the workforce that are much needed. We have, and I’m a living example of, the aging population. We need these people in the workforce legally.
Utah Senator Orrin Hatch: “I basically think that’s poppycock. We know that when we graduate PhDs and master’s degrees and engineers, we don’t have enough of any of those. … The fact is you can always point to some negatives, but the positives are that we need an awful lot more STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] people. … Frankly a lot of us are for legal immigration and for solving this problem.
Ohio Senator Rob Portman: “We want legal immigration. … As a party we’ve always embraced immigrants coming here legally, following the rules. And it’s enriched our country immeasurably. It’s who we are. It’s the fabric of our success.”
Senate Republican Conference Chair John Thune: “I think if you talk to businesses in this country, they need workers. We have a workforce issue in this country and I know in my home state of South Dakota where the unemployment rate is 2.3 percent, they can’t find workers. So having a robust legal immigration process helps us fill jobs that otherwise wouldn’t be getting filled.”

But recall that Walker said explicitly that he’s working with Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions on this issue. And Jeff Sessions had a lot to say about this in his “IMMIGRATION HANDBOOK FOR THE NEW REPUBLICAN MAJORITY” dated January 2015. It’s a fascinating document and well worth reading. It is the perfect example of right-wing populism at its most traditionally xenophobic.
He sets forth an argument that income inequality is not a result of the tax structure or the concentrated power of wealth but rather the result of immigrants stealing the jobs of natural born Americans:

The last four decades have witnessed the following: a period of record, uncontrolled immigration to the United States; a dramatic rise in the number of persons receiving welfare; and a steep erosion in middle class wages.
But the only “immigration reforms” discussed in Washington are those pushed by interest groups who want to remove what few immigration controls are left in order to expand the record labor supply even further.
The principal economic dilemma of our time is the very large number of people who either are not working at all, or not earning a wage great enough to be financially independent. The surplus of available labor is compounded by the loss of manufacturing jobs due to global competition and reduced demand for workers due to automation. What sense does it make to continue legally importing millions of low-wage workers to fill jobs while sustaining millions of current residents on welfare?

He put it into philosophical and historical perspective:

We need make no apology in rejecting an extreme policy of sustained mass immigration, which the public repudiates and which the best economic evidence tells us undermines wage growth and economic mobility. Here again, the dialect operates in reverse: the “hardliners” are those who refuse even the most modest immigration controls on the heels of four decades of large-scale immigration flows (both legal and illegal), and increased pressures on working families.

Conservativism is by its nature at odds with the extreme, the untested, the ahistorical.
The last large-scale flow of legal immigration (from approximately 1880–1920) was followed by a sustained slowdown that allowed wages to rise, assimilation to occur, and the middle class to emerge.
This is heady stuff for the base of the GOP. It’s very much the essence of the kind of right-wing populism we’ve seen in the past and there’s been interest in this idea within the party for a very long time. The usurpation of Eric Cantor was arguably the first shot across the bow of the Republican leadership on this issue for 2016. There’s little doubt that base agitation over immigration was one of the animating issues that led to his demise. If you listen to talk radio, the tone is still nearly hysterical. So there’s an audience for this message.a
Sessions, being a bit more polished than Walker, put it this way when asked about the comments:

“I thought it was a good statement that he made, which is saying, ‘I’m gonna ask the question, what is it going to do for wages and job prospects for my constituents and the American people as I analyze how to create a proper immigration flow into America. We’re not going to end it, we’re going to maintain immigration.”

The question most other Republican leaders are asking themselves is, “How are we ever going to win the presidency if we keep alienating Latinos like that?” And yes, business likes immigration too, but they have always been able to finesse it quietly behind the scenes while their candidates throw anti-immigrant red meat at the base. That’s not going to work going forward. Little Latino pitchers have big ears. And their own TV networks.
I confess I was surprised to read that the Kochs had put their billions on the line for Scott Walker in the first place. I understand the desire for a winning young newcomer, but remain bewildered why anyone would think Walker is that guy. His ratings at home in Wisconsin are in the dirt (and they were never sky high to begin with) and the fact that he’s been pretty much a Koch and Club for Growth puppet is no endorsement — he’s been so clumsy about it he’s left a trail of evidence of dark money collusion in his wake. He’s been very amateurish on the trail so far and now he’s heading off on a wild tangent over one of the most delicate issues confronting the Republican Party.
At the end of the Koch Summit last winter, the consensus seemed to be that Marco Rubio was the fresh face they were looking for. He’s young, good-looking and malleable to their agenda. And he’s Latino, obviously. Whether he’s any more ready for prime time than Walker remains to be seen. But after Walker’s faux pas this week, it’s likely that he’s going to get a good close second look. And there’s always Jeb if things don’t work out with the new kids. What he lacks in charisma he makes up for in dullness. At this point, that may be the best they can do.


http://media.salon.com/2014/04/heath...ton_square.jpgHeather Digby Parton, also known as "Digby," is a contributing writer to Salon. She was the winner of the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis Journalism."



http://www.salon.com/2015/04/22/scot...he_nomination/

"WEDNESDAY, APR 22, 2015 05:15 PM EDTScott Walker is now toast: The crazy move right that cost him the Koch brothers — and probably the nomination

First he had the Koch endorsement. Then he didn't. Why? A Glenn Beck interview where Walker moved wackier than Cruz


TOPICS: SCOTT WALKER, MARCO RUBIO, TED CRUZ, JEB BUSH, IMMIGRATION, GLENN BECK, KOCH BROTHERS,ELECTIONS 2016, POLITICS NEWS
http://media.salon.com/2015/04/scott_walker11.jpgScott Walker

(Credit: AP/Jim Cole)

According to a number of well-respected journalists, the Koch brothers are putting their heft and muscle behind Scott Walker for president. Or maybe not. It depends on whom you ask.


First, let’s acknowledge once again that the Great Whitebread Hope from Wisconsin seems to have everyone in the political establishment mesmerized by his alleged strategic and tactical brilliance. Sure, he makes epic gaffes over and over again, but that cannot take anything away from the fact that he barely won a recall election and two swing-state elections in years in which Republicans ran the table. Why this is considered political genius remains a question for the ages. However, there can be no doubt that much of the Republican base loves him and much of the Democratic commentariat sees him as a very serious threat.

So when the news hit that David Koch had told a gathering at a Manhattan fundraiser that the nominee should be Scott Walker, it was as if there was nothing left to talk about. The deciders had decided.

But then something kind of funny happened. Walker’s recently terminated spokesperson sent out a series of notable tweets:

Internal polling must be looking dubious, showing attrition to more grassroots-conservative-preferred candidates for him to try this one.
— Liz Mair (@LizMair) April 20, 2015

Interesting that it’s being reported that Walker got the Koch nod today, bc I’m hearing that Koch folks really pissed re: imm flip-flop.
— Liz Mair (@LizMair) April 21, 2015

David Koch then made a statement walking back this apparent endorsement:

While I think Governor Walker is terrific, let me be clear, I am not endorsing or supporting any candidate for President at this point in time.

---

They are now reportedly going to hold an “audition” of sorts during the summer for the Kochs’ primary Prom King. (Apparently their earlier “Koch Summit” was just a casual mixer.)

So what, exactly, did Scott Walker say that appears to have made the Kochs do such an about-face in record time? Well, it’s a doozy. Walker, you see, was once a “pro-immigration reform” Republican, which is likely one of the reasons the Koch brothers back him. Like most of the more libertarian-minded Big Business Republicans, they tend toward a more moderate stance on immigration. It’s good for business in a number of ways (for both good and bad reasons). Walker, being a proven anti-union, pro-immigration governor, was naturally at the top of their list of nominees. He had recently “moderated” his stance on illegal immigration but it was widely assumed to be a mild feint to the right for the purposes of winning the nomination. It brought him into line with all the other candidates like Rubio and Bush who had once also been pro-reform, so it was no harm-no foul as far as the primary was concerned.

But yesterday he went a step further. He appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio show and he said this:

“In terms of legal immigration, how we need to approach that going forward is saying — the next president and the next Congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages. Because the more I’ve talked to folks, I’ve talked to [Alabama Sen. Jeff] Sessions and others out there — but it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today — is what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages. And we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.”

It’s hard not to fall down laughing (or lose your lunch) over the most notorious union buster in America waxing on about protecting American jobs, but he’s the last person to understand the irony of his comments. But by taking a position against legal immigration, he’s just placed himself to the right of Ted Cruz on this issue. He’s out in Ben Carson land. Not to mention that he’s obliterated the last tattered shreds of a conservative argument to appeal to Hispanic and other ethnic groups: the idea that illegal immigration is unfair to legal immigrants who’ve been “waiting in line” to come to this country. Walker wants to close down the line altogether. Only the most hardcore neo-Confederates like Sessions want to go that far.

Igor Bobic in the Huffington Post explained the possible reasoning:

By aligning himself with an immigration hawk like Sessions, Walker may be hoping to placate conservatives wary over his previous support for a pathway to citizenship for many undocumented immigrants. Walker’s strategy is somewhat reminiscent of then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who, faced with similar questions over his devotion to the conservative cause in 2011, memorably tacked far right of his GOP rivals by endorsing ‘self-deportation.’ Yet not even Romney, who lost the Latino vote to Obama by more than 40 percentage points in November 2012, supported curbing legal immigration, a concept at the core of what it means to be American.

A bunch of Republican senators were appalled when they heard about this. (They can count votes …) Talking Points Memo got them on the record.

Arizona Senator John McCain: “I think most statistics show that they fill part of the workforce that are much needed. We have, and I’m a living example of, the aging population. We need these people in the workforce legally.

Utah Senator Orrin Hatch: “I basically think that’s poppycock. We know that when we graduate PhDs and master’s degrees and engineers, we don’t have enough of any of those. … The fact is you can always point to some negatives, but the positives are that we need an awful lot more STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] people. … Frankly a lot of us are for legal immigration and for solving this problem.

Ohio Senator Rob Portman: “We want legal immigration. … As a party we’ve always embraced immigrants coming here legally, following the rules. And it’s enriched our country immeasurably. It’s who we are. It’s the fabric of our success.”

Senate Republican Conference Chair John Thune: “I think if you talk to businesses in this country, they need workers. We have a workforce issue in this country and I know in my home state of South Dakota where the unemployment rate is 2.3 percent, they can’t find workers. So having a robust legal immigration process helps us fill jobs that otherwise wouldn’t be getting filled.”

But recall that Walker said explicitly that he’s working with Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions on this issue. And Jeff Sessions had a lot to say about this in his “IMMIGRATION HANDBOOK FOR THE NEW REPUBLICAN MAJORITY” dated January 2015. It’s a fascinating document and well worth reading. It is the perfect example of right-wing populism at its most traditionally xenophobic.

He sets forth an argument that income inequality is not a result of the tax structure or the concentrated power of wealth but rather the result of immigrants stealing the jobs of natural born Americans:

The last four decades have witnessed the following: a period of record, uncontrolled immigration to the United States; a dramatic rise in the number of persons receiving welfare; and a steep erosion in middle class wages.
But the only “immigration reforms” discussed in Washington are those pushed by interest groups who want to remove what few immigration controls are left in order to expand the record labor supply even further.
The principal economic dilemma of our time is the very large number of people who either are not working at all, or not earning a wage great enough to be financially independent. The surplus of available labor is compounded by the loss of manufacturing jobs due to global competition and reduced demand for workers due to automation. What sense does it make to continue legally importing millions of low-wage workers to fill jobs while sustaining millions of current residents on welfare?

He put it into philosophical and historical perspective:

We need make no apology in rejecting an extreme policy of sustained mass immigration, which the public repudiates and which the best economic evidence tells us undermines wage growth and economic mobility. Here again, the dialect operates in reverse: the “hardliners” are those who refuse even the most modest immigration controls on the heels of four decades of large-scale immigration flows (both legal and illegal), and increased pressures on working families.

Conservativism is by its nature at odds with the extreme, the untested, the ahistorical.
The last large-scale flow of legal immigration (from approximately 1880–1920) was followed by a sustained slowdown that allowed wages to rise, assimilation to occur, and the middle class to emerge.

This is heady stuff for the base of the GOP. It’s very much the essence of the kind of right-wing populism we’ve seen in the past and there’s been interest in this idea within the party for a very long time. The usurpation of Eric Cantor was arguably the first shot across the bow of the Republican leadership on this issue for 2016. There’s little doubt that base agitation over immigration was one of the animating issues that led to his demise. If you listen to talk radio, the tone is still nearly hysterical. So there’s an audience for this message.a
Sessions, being a bit more polished than Walker, put it this way when asked about the comments:

“I thought it was a good statement that he made, which is saying, ‘I’m gonna ask the question, what is it going to do for wages and job prospects for my constituents and the American people as I analyze how to create a proper immigration flow into America. We’re not going to end it, we’re going to maintain immigration.”

The question most other Republican leaders are asking themselves is, “How are we ever going to win the presidency if we keep alienating Latinos like that?” And yes, business likes immigration too, but they have always been able to finesse it quietly behind the scenes while their candidates throw anti-immigrant red meat at the base. That’s not going to work going forward. Little Latino pitchers have big ears. And their own TV networks.

I confess I was surprised to read that the Kochs had put their billions on the line for Scott Walker in the first place. I understand the desire for a winning young newcomer, but remain bewildered why anyone would think Walker is that guy. His ratings at home in Wisconsin are in the dirt (and they were never sky high to begin with) and the fact that he’s been pretty much a Koch and Club for Growth puppet is no endorsement — he’s been so clumsy about it he’s left a trail of evidence of dark money collusion in his wake. He’s been very amateurish on the trail so far and now he’s heading off on a wild tangent over one of the most delicate issues confronting the Republican Party.

At the end of the Koch Summit last winter, the consensus seemed to be that Marco Rubio was the fresh face they were looking for. He’s young, good-looking and malleable to their agenda. And he’s Latino, obviously. Whether he’s any more ready for prime time than Walker remains to be seen. But after Walker’s faux pas this week, it’s likely that he’s going to get a good close second look. And there’s always Jeb if things don’t work out with the new kids. What he lacks in charisma he makes up for in dullness. At this point, that may be the best they can do.


http://media.salon.com/2014/04/heath...ton_square.jpgHeather Digby Parton, also known as "Digby," is a contributing writer to Salon. She was the winner of the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis Journalism."



http://www.salon.com/2015/04/22/scot...he_nomination/

Fortunately Heather Digby Parton is a Democratic blogger whose opinion will count little at the end of the day. She's a Navy Brat raised in Alaska who studied theater in San Jose, California where she still resides, and thus knows very little about the issues that impact our mainland economy, standard of living and sovereignty.

And Jeff Sessions gets it right on immigration, but misses the boat on the impact of the current income tax on jobs and wages, because he apparently doesn't understand that there's a formula for our standard of living, and it involves not only controlling immigration but repealing the income tax and replacing it with the FairTax, protecting our trade which protects our good jobs, capital investment and technology, ending the War on Drugs which currently allows if not protects a foreign cartel controlled black market to suck $300 billion a year of our money supply out of the country in drug sales, and of course producing more domestic energy including oil and gas. I rank them in that order:

Judy's Five Steps To Fix the US Economy

1. stop illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration
2. pass the FairTax
3. protect our trade
4. end the War on Drugs
5. drill baby drill, but do it right

re the birthing of women's rights, the environment and endangered species protections. It brings to mind the issue of the enormous population increase that is happening here and will be even more so in the future due to the overpopulation by illegals. They do not have to pay for schooling, health care etc. The more children, the more monies received. We are paying that bill and they are the future voting block and at this rate, their vote will be the majority. That is what is desired by those in charge.

The more populace the more energy demands and if it is dirty energy we will all suffer more toxicity. Will be less habitat for creatures and the need for food and water will skyrocket. Oil pipelines can and have destroyed water supplies, lands. Animal agriculture poisons our waters and lands also. Even plant crops increasing production with the pesticide methods used will greatly increase our health risks negatively.

The results of ignoring our immigration laws are enormous, outright dangerous & anti American.
Hope candidates surface that will steer this ship on another course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Fortunately Heather Digby Parton is a Democratic blogger whose opinion will count little at the end of the day. She's a Navy Brat raised in Alaska who studied theater in San Jose, California where she still resides, and thus knows very little about the issues that impact our mainland economy, standard of living and sovereignty.

---

Who Heather Digby Parton is, isn't important. I posted the article to show that Walker isn't exactly "in like Flint" with the Koch brothers.

"David Koch then made a statement walking back this apparent endorsement:While I think Governor Walker is terrific, let me be clear, I am not endorsing or supporting any candidate for President at this point in time."

by William Bigelow
26 Apr 2015
512 comments

The conservative movement’s leading media icons lined up to back Scott Walker after the media attempted to lynch him for talking tough on immigration.

After being attacked by outlets such as MSNBC, Mother Jones magazine and the Huffington Post, Walker stayed the course, telling the Quad City Times on Friday that American workers had to come first.

“A couple years ago, when the unemployment rate was at incredibly high levels and labor participation was low, why would we want to flood the market with more workers?” he said. “So that would be a time when you would have arguably less. As the unemployment rate goes down and labor participation rates go up, the two have to go hand in hand. Then it could be conceivably more than we have today. So it’s not a set number.”

The New York Times reported that Walker told Glenn Beck that he favored restricting legal immigration in tough economic times and that Friday, answering two young Republicans, Walker asserted, “In terms of how wide or how narrow the door’s open, our No. 1 priority is American workers and American wages. I don’t know how anyone can argue against that.’’

The conservative backlash came after Walker had been pilloried not only by the media but also some establishment Republicans such as Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Rob Portman (R-OH).

Matt Drudge headlined the New York Times piece: “Walker Unflinching; ‘Our No. 1 priority to protect American workers and their wages’ …”

Sean Hannity blasted, “If these establishment folks, instead of attacking guys like Scott Walker—if they put half the effort into helping these desperate Americans as they do into helping the people who don’t respect American laws, don’t respect American sovereignty, maybe those people would be back in the labor force and back working again. Also, maybe we wouldn’t be $18 trillion in debt. Scott Walker is right. These Washington bureaucrats have failed in their duty which is to secure our borders and now it’s resulting in a situation where it’s making it harder for our American citizens to find work.”

After one guest on Glenn Beck’s show stated, “Scott Walker is getting beaten up over his interview with us. Not necessarily by conservatives,” Beck stated, “Yeah, I know that. It’s been like four days now. He was on with us Monday and he’s still being beaten up. I saw another story this morning. So for four days he has been beaten up in the press because he said, “I want to protect American jobs and American workers.”

Answering a caller, Mark Levin bluntly stated of Walker that he was unafraid to take a hard stand, asserting: “Let me tell you Maureen, one did make it a couple of days ago, Scott Walker. To his great credit. And guess who’s attacking him? The crazy fanatics who write editorials, nameless editorials at the Wall Street Journal. Are you sick and tired of the Wall Street Journal? Are you sick and tired of Wall Street? I am. I mean we spent a million dollars bailing those guys out and now this Wall Street Journal editorial page is their mouth piece. We know who they want. They want Jeb Bush. We know what they want. They wanted Romney. They wanted McCain. We know who they are. Do you happen to know, Maureen, 25 or 30 years ago, they literally took the position, I have it here, I’ve read it before, that there should be an amendment to the constitution with 5 words, Thou Shall Have Open Borders. Did you know that? … So now they’re attacking Scott Walker. These little creeps who have done nothing. He’s run a state. He’s fought the public sector unions. He’s grown the state economy. And these little jerks sitting there at the Wall Street Journal. ‘We don’t like that.’ Open borders. Yeah, open borders. Open borders, my you know what!”

Laura Ingraham wrote, “Right on cue. No sooner does Scott Walker reiterate a principled and populist stance on immigration — one which would prioritize the jobs and wages of everyday working Americans — than the mainstream media and Establishment pols emerge ready to attack. Leading the pack of Establishment attack dogs is none other than failed former presidential contender, Sen. John McCain (which raises the question: should the GOP really be taking their lead on how to run a successful presidential campaign from John McCain?) McCain’s attack echoes that of the mainstream media which slammed Walker for adopting a so-called “protectionist” immigration policy. 

But what do all of the attacks against Walker’s immigration platform have in common? Not one of them mentions a single fact about the United States’ current immigration policy. After all, the cardinal rule of mainstream media reporting and Establishment messaging on immigration is to never mention current immigration numbers — under no circumstance, is a mainstream reporter to ever acknowledge that the United States currently admits one million legal permanent residents, 700,000 guest workers, 70,000 refugees, 500,000 student visas and 200,000 spouses of guest workers annually… Scott Walker’s pro-American immigration platform is an incredibly positive development in the 2016 race. It demonstrates that Walker is a leader who is listening to the American people and is prioritizing their needs above the big money special interests and corporatist elites. While other 2016 candidates like Marco Rubio will talk about a need to “modernize” our immigration system (read: import lots of guest workers for open-border billionaires),Walker is the only 2016 candidate talking about creating a legal system of immigration that (finally) puts the needs of American citizens and legal immigrants already here first.”

Michael Savage was brief, and well, savage: “A bunch of rotten villains, every last one of them. They’re all villainous. There’s no other word for it. The American political system is villainous. At this point, the only one I can back is Scott Walker, and I don’t know much about him. I will not back Rubio. He’s a non-entity and never should have run. He’s a clown. Ted Cruz is unelectable. He looks like a weasel and he sounds like a weasel. I don’t care how much you love him. So who’s left. Scott Walker. That’s all.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...l-immigration/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean

the cardinal rule of mainstream media reporting and Establishment messaging on immigration is to never mention current immigration numbers — under no circumstance, is a mainstream reporter to ever acknowledge that the United States currently admits one million legal permanent residents, 700,000 guest workers, 70,000 refugees, 500,000 student visas and 200,000 spouses of guest workers annually… Scott Walker’s pro-American immigration platform is an incredibly positive development in the 2016 race.

---

Is there anybody else who's willing to say "Americans first" in public?
*************************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vistalad

Is there anybody else who's willing to say "Americans first" in public?
*************************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

---

Not so far. But they've also been strangely quiet. Thinking I imagine on how in the hell do they run a campaign for President putting the welfare of illegal aliens and wannabe immigrants ahead of the best interest of American Workers, American Citizens, American Taxpayers and ... American Voters?

It's going to be a great year for American Politics in 2016, a very exciting race, and Scott Walker just made Immigration the Number One Issue of the 2016 elections.

Quote:

---

Michael Savage was brief, and well, savage: “A bunch of rotten villains, every last one of them. They’re all villainous. There’s no other word for it. The American political system is villainous. At this point, the only one I can back is Scott Walker, and I don’t know much about him. I will not back Rubio. He’s a non-entity and never should have run. He’s a clown. Ted Cruz is unelectable. He looks like a weasel and he sounds like a weasel. I don’t care how much you love him. So who’s left. Scott Walker. That’s all.”

---

IMO, Savage has got it right. Through a process of elimination, we're not left with much to choose from at this point. Is Walker sincere .......... only time will tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artist

re the birthing of women's rights, the environment and endangered species protections. It brings to mind the issue of the enormous population increase that is happening here and will be even more so in the future due to the overpopulation by illegals. They do not have to pay for schooling, health care etc. The more children, the more monies received. We are paying that bill and they are the future voting block and at this rate, their vote will be the majority. That is what is desired by those in charge.

The more populace the more energy demands and if it is dirty energy we will all suffer more toxicity. Will be less habitat for creatures and the need for food and water will skyrocket. Oil pipelines can and have destroyed water supplies, lands. Animal agriculture poisons our waters and lands also. Even plant crops increasing production with the pesticide methods used will greatly increase our health risks negatively.

The results of ignoring our immigration laws are enormous, outright dangerous & anti American.
Hope candidates surface that will steer this ship on another course.

---

You're most welcome, artist, and you're exactly right. Overpopulation is the single greatest threat to the environment and immigration is the single greatest threat to ours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

IMO, Savage has got it right. Through a process of elimination, we're not left with much to choose from at this point. Is Walker sincere .......... only time will tell.

---

I loved his choice of the word "villains" to describe these traitors, because that is exactly what they are: VILLAINS.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/27/sc...ration-stance/

Quote:

---

Scott Walker Hits Back At WSJ Attack On His Immigration Stance

Chuck RossReporter

6:14 PM 04/27/2015

A Wall Street Journal weekend editorial slamming Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s recent comments on immigration is “really wrong on so many different levels,” the likely 2016 presidential contender said on Monday.

In its editorial, entitled “Scott Walker’s Labor Economics,” the normally pro-Walker paper hammered the Republican for statements he made during an interview with Glenn Beck last week. Walker said he believes American jobs and wages should be the top priority when considering any change to immigration policy.

But perhaps his greatest sin — in the Journal’s eyes — was name-checking Alabama U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, an immigration hawk. In the editorial — subtitled “The governor needs a better tutor on jobs and immigration” — the WSJ lambasted Sessions and took Walker to task for heeding his ideas on immigration policy.

“Republicans used to understand this basic economic principle [more workers can mean more jobs], but the politics of immigration is turning some of them into economists for the AFL-CIO,” the editorial reads.

But Walker shot back on Monday in an interview with Boston-based radio talk show host Howie Carr.

“My position on immigration is simple,” Walker told Carr. Like virtually all Republican presidential hopefuls, he said that he is a proponent of securing the border. He also called for universal e-verify and no amnesty.

“If you want to be a citizen, that’s a whole different thing,” Walker said. “You’ve got to go back to your country of origin and get back in line like anybody else.”

He appeared to be baffled by the Journal’s jab, calling it “wrong on so many different levels.”

He said his main point to Beck was that he believes that immigration policy should “make American workers and their wages [the] number one priority.”

He told Carr he believes that is the right approach for not just immigration policy but for tax policy, entitlement policy, and regulations.

“If we’re always thinking of the impact on hard-working Americans we’re going to be fine. If we don’t think about that then we get bad policies in America,” he said, while adding that “there are restrictions on legal immigration today that just don’t make a whole lot of sense.”

Walker has struggled to clarify his stance on immigration policy. In an interview with Fox’s Chris Wallace last month he said he supported a measure that is tantamount to amnesty. He said he believes “there’s a way” for an illegal immigrant to embark on a path to citizenship after paying a penalty.

---

______________________

Quote:

---

“Republicans used to understand this basic economic principle [more workers can mean more jobs], but the politics of immigration is turning some of them into economists for the AFL-CIO,” the editorial reads.

---

WRONG!!! Republicans, Real Republicans, have always understood that more manufacturing jobs will mean more employed workers in the country. But more "workers" before there are more jobs means more unemployed workers in the country living on welfare and/or working at jobs that don't sustain them and using safety nets to survive, which means more poverty, more spending, more taxes and/or debt to pay for it, causing more manufacturing companies and capital investors to flee the country to avoid the higher cost tax environment and the adverse economic conditions of soaring national debt.

You know, I used to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and read it religiously every day, but then something happened, the WSJ was no longer reporting or telling the truth about our economy and was no longer a reliable source for accurate information. What a shame in our country to see both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal fall into the hands of the people destroying our nation and ruining the lives of our citizens. Today, they are nothing more than pawns of the villains bankrupting the United States.

By David Sherfinski - The Washington Times - Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is hitting back at a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that criticized him for recent comments he made saying American workers and American wages should be kept in mind when making decisions on legal immigration.

Mr. Walker told radio host Howie Carr his position on immigration is "simple" and that it starts with securing the borders and having an effective E-Verify system.

"No amnesty," Mr. Walker said. "If you want to be a citizen, that's a whole different thing. You got to go back to your country of origin and get back in line like anybody else."

On legal immigration, he said, "right now, there are restrictions in America - that column and others acted like there's no restrictions. There are restrictions on legal immigration today - they just don't make a whole lot of sense."

He said the Journal has been right for defending him in some of his battles with labor unions in Wisconsin, but "in this one - really wrong on so many levels."

The Journal piece points out that Mr. Walker mentioned recently he's talked to GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, one of Capitol Hill's staunchest opponents of illegal immigration who has spoken out against expanding H-1B visas for guest workers.

"Mr. Walker is right that the GOP needs to focus on raising the incomes of average Americans, but the way to do that is with policies that increase growth and improve upward mobility. Zero-sum labor economics will do neither," the piece says.

Mr. Walker, a potential 2016 GOP presidential contender, recently told talk show host Glenn Beck: "It is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today. What is this doing for American workers looking for jobs? What is this doing to wages? And we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward."

Mr. Walker defended his position in his conversation with Mr. Carr that "a strong economy should be paramount," "and priority number one in that regard should be making sure that we think about the impact on American workers and American wages."

When unemployment is high and labor participation rates are low, he said, "you don't have very much immigration because you don't want to flood the market."

If, over time, unemployment goes down and labor participation rates go up, "then you can change things," he said.

"I just said make American workers and their wages your number one priority," he said. "If we're always thinking about the impact on the hard-working Americans, we're gonna be fine and [if] we don't think about that, well, then we get bad policies in America."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...icizing-his-l/

Quote:

---

"No amnesty," Mr. Walker said. "If you want to be a citizen, that's a whole different thing. You got to go back to your country of origin and get back in line like anybody else."

---

Those are the kind of words we like to hear. Now let's see if you can stay on point with that message!