Have you considered Scott Walker as a viable candidate for the GOP nomination for President? Think again.
On the surface, Scott Walker seems like a gun owner’s dream candidate for president. The Wisconsin governor is backed by the National Rifle Association, which lauds his signing into law concealed carry and castle doctrine legislation. The “On the Issues” political leadership website notes Walker opposes restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
It’s unsurprising then, that NRA Director Grover Norquist has co-authored a piece for Reuters explaining “What makes Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker a good choice for 2016.” But in this case, Norquist is wearing a different hat – that of president of Americans for Tax Reform, teaming with ATR’s director of state affairs, Patrick Gleason.
So what’s not to like? Don’t both issues track with greater freedom? Where’s the conflict?
Wearing that different hat, Norquist campaigned for and endorsed Bob Dold for Congress, in spite of the “Republican’s” support for restricting gun purchases and possession which was known at the time. The unsuitability of Dold’s Democrat opponent notwithstanding, NRA Director Norquist chose his priorities and endorsed a known gun-grabber who went on to accept an award from the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
There’s an issue besides taxes Norquist has yet another hat for: immigration. Just like Barack Obama, Norquist endorses rewarding alien nationals who have broken U.S. law by entering and remaining in this country illegally with a “pathway to citizenship.”
And Walker agrees with him.
He’s owned by the Chamber of Commerce. He’s no different than George Bush, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney and most other republicans. David’s article is well researched and full of URLs for you to go and study the issue yourself. I intentionally don’t supply the reference material so that you will visit Gun Rights Examiner.
The reasons for my rejection of Walker because of his stance on immigration are multifaceted. First of all, the envelopment of America by immigrants changes everything, from language and culture, to generational demographics, racial demographics, and economic health of the country.
The immigrants to whom we have opened our borders are in the main low paid, low skill workers. Big business loves them, because they can cut their bottom line. They get away with this because we – middle class America – foot the bill for their medical care, SNAP, welfare and other necessities, thus providing corporate welfare for executives and members of the boards of directors.
The Democrats love them because they will vote democratic. Recall what we’ve already discussed.
“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”
One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished. South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology. Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build. This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.
So Hispanics and Latinos think and vote as collectivists, but do their views on gun control reflect that heritage?
Latinos take a more conservative view on pot legalization and a more-pro view on gun control, according to a fresh report on politics from the Pew Research Center.
About 49 percent of Hispanics polled support legalization of marijuana versus 53 percent for the total U.S. population. Liberalization of pot use is gaining support around the nation. Come January, in Dallas County, there may be some loosening on pot prosecution with a pilot project that gives tickets rather than jail time for simple possession, as we reported here.
On gun control, 62 percent of Hispanics polled by Pew say they support controlling gun ownership, versus 45 percent for the nation.
David warned you, and again. And listen to me yet again on this. With every immigrant crossing the border, you will see the government acceptance and acknowledgment of your God given gun rights evaporate, further every day.