EXCLUSIVE — Scott Walker to Iowa to Speak at Freedom Summit

[jjdoyle]

EXCLUSIVE — Scott Walker to Iowa to Speak at Freedom Summit

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker will speak at the Iowa Freedom Summit at the end of January hosted by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Citizens United, Breitbart News has learned exclusively.

“Governor Walker looks forward to sharing the story of Wisconsin’s successful reforms and common sense message with grassroots conservatives,” Walker’s spokesman Tom Evenson told Breitbart News.


Citizens United president David Bossie added that he’s thrilled Walker will join the already impressive lineup of speakers.


“Congressman Steve King and I are thrilled Governor Scott Walker, a leading conservative voice, plans to attend the Iowa Freedom Summit,” Bossie said. “The Iowa Caucus is the first step for any conservative running for the Republican nomination and we are pleased Governor Walker appreciates and respects its importance.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...tt-walker-to-iowa-to-speak-at-freedom-summit/

If anybody is wondering if Rand is speaking at it, I saw this at the bottom:

Two notable exceptions from the 2016 GOP presidential field won’t be there: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

No college degree. Discussion should end there.

 

[William Tell]

No college degree. Discussion should end there.

No, it shouldn't. I don't like Walker, but I would gladly vote for a farmer or any honest clear headed guy over a slimy lawyer.

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

No, it shouldn't. I don't like Walker, but I would gladly vote for a farmer or any honest clear headed guy over a slimy lawyer.

Because he will not be taken seriously as a candidate by the people, let alone the media.

If my father, who has worked 25 years for the same company and worked his way up to 6-figure regional manager positions and had the best regional sales numbers in the country year after year, can't advance to upper-management of a mid-sized corporation because he lacks a college degree, why should the President of the United States not be held to the same standard?

What are we going to tell our kids? Finish high school, don't go to college, and one day you can be President? It may work for a Governor but with the national media (especially if it's a Republican we're talking about) they will never hear the end of it. Not having a college degree is already an issue among Republican radio personalities, let's not make it an issue among our Presidential candidates.

 

[William Tell]

Because he will not be taken seriously as a candidate by the people, let alone the media.

If my father, who has worked 25 years for the same company and worked his way up to 6-figure regional manager positions and had the best regional sales numbers in the country year after year, can't advance to upper-management of a mid-sized corporation because he lacks a college degree, why should the President of the United States not be held to the same standard?

What are we going to tell our kids? Finish high school, don't go to college, and one day you can be President? It may work for a Governor but with the national media (especially if it's a Republican we're talking about) they will never hear the end of it. Not having a college degree is already an issue among Republican radio personalities, let's not make it an issue among our Presidential candidates.

That's elitism. Screw that. This notion that you need a slip of paper from a Government propaganda center is pathetic.

So many great minds are self taught.

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

That's elitism. Screw that. This notion that you need a slip of paper from a Government propaganda center is pathetic.

So many great minds are self taught.

Try selling that to the American people and the media.

A candidate without a college degree will be a non-starter, no matter their record or beliefs.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Two notable exceptions from the 2016 GOP presidential field won’t be there: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

The leading conservative alternative and the leading establishment candidate absent = loser convention.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

Because he will not be taken seriously as a candidate by the people, let alone the media.

If my father, who has worked 25 years for the same company and worked his way up to 6-figure regional manager positions and had the best regional sales numbers in the country year after year, can't advance to upper-management of a mid-sized corporation because he lacks a college degree, why should the President of the United States not be held to the same standard?

What are we going to tell our kids? Finish high school, don't go to college, and one day you can be President? It may work for a Governor but with the national media (especially if it's a Republican we're talking about) they will never hear the end of it. Not having a college degree is already an issue among Republican radio personalities, let's not make it an issue among our Presidential candidates.

Are you saying that a POTUS should be held to that, or only that they will? I agree that they mostly will, but I don't think they should.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

The leading conservative alternative and the leading establishment candidate absent = loser convention.

Yup.

 

[William Tell]

Try selling that to the American people and the media.

A candidate without a college degree will be a non-starter, no matter their record or beliefs.

If that's the case, its because the media and so many people are pathetic, so don't appeal to them for authority. If you agree with them you are the problem. Attacking people for daring to run for office without a certain degree is dirty politics. Its elitism, and has been used on someone I know personally.

Candidates should be judged by issues.

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

Are you saying that a POTUS should be held to that, or only that they will? I agree that they mostly will, but I don't think they should.

A little bit of both. Theoretically, I think people should be judged by their abilities, knowledge, performance and experience when applying for ANY job or promotion, whether they're applying to manage a Taco Bell or to be President of the United States. But with the way society currently is, if a college degree is an impediment for the regular hard working American to be promoted (or hired in the first place) regardless of the aforementioned qualities of that individual, the President should be held to the same standard.

But we all know the media would have a FIELD DAY with a Republican nominee lacking a college degree, regardless of his record as governor or Wisconsin. As a resident of neighboring Illinois, I would gladly take Scott Walker in this state, even over our recently-inaugurated Republican Governor, Bruce Rauner (a RINO elitist of the highest order). I think he's a pretty good governor and education aside, he'd be higher on my list for President than most of the other idiots considering running. But the media would never let this go.

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

If that's the case, its because the media and so many people are pathetic, so don't appeal to them for authority. If you agree with them you are the problem. Attacking people for daring to run for office without a certain degree is dirty politics. Its elitism, and has been used on someone I know personally.

Candidates should be judged by issues.

Absolutely. I agree with about everything you said. Read my reply to Rebel Poet, though. I'm not attacking Walker as a Governor or even Conservative nor am I passing judgement on his record or stances on the issues. I am simply saying that his campaign would be a non-starter with the media because of his lack of a degree, and especially so because he's a Republican who they already love to hate.

 

[William Tell]

Absolutely. I agree with about everything you said. Read my reply to Rebel Poet, though. I'm not attacking Walker as a Governor or even Conservative nor am I passing judgement on his record or stances on the issues. I am simply saying that his campaign would be a non-starter with the media because of his lack of a degree, and especially so because he's a Republican who they already love to hate.

Ok. What I don't get though is the whole idea that someone needs "a degree"
I mean, if you are going to hire a surgeon you want him to have knowledge of surgery specifically.
But having a liberal arts degree is enough to satisfy the people who want someone with a degree. There is no logic to it, these people don't care what a candidate actually knows. They just want him to have a slip of paper. A lot of politicians are lawyers, this would suggest they have knowledge of the constitution. However, that is rarely the case. And the way they vote proves that.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

A little bit of both. Theoretically, I think people should be judged by their abilities, knowledge, performance and experience when applying for ANY job or promotion, whether they're applying to manage a Taco Bell or to be President of the United States. But with the way society currently is, if a college degree is an impediment for the regular hard working American to be promoted (or hired in the first place) regardless of the aforementioned qualities of that individual, the President should be held to the same standard.

But we all know the media would have a FIELD DAY with a Republican nominee lacking a college degree, regardless of his record as governor or Wisconsin. As a resident of neighboring Illinois, I would gladly take Scott Walker in this state, even over our recently-inaugurated Republican Governor, Bruce Rauner (a RINO elitist of the highest order). I think he's a pretty good governor and education aside, he'd be higher on my list for President than most of the other idiots considering running. But the media would never let this go.

Well, I certainly can't argue that they would make a big deal about it, so it would be really stupid to open that can of worms, but I don't see why we should support the elitest nonsense.

Using your reasoning, we should imprison everyone who commits victimless crimes, since society has already decided that some victimless crimes should be punished that way.

 

[RandallFan]

What are we going to tell our kids? Finish high school, don't go to college, and one day you can be President? It may work for a Governor but with the national media (especially if it's a Republican we're talking about) they will never hear the end of it. Not having a college degree is already an issue among Republican radio personalities, let's not make it an issue among our Presidential candidates.

Have you been listening to Michael Savage attack Wallbanger?

The bigger story here is that some low information GOP voters actually think Walker is more conservative than Rand.

Rand is more conservative on Walker on pretty much every issue. On immigration they are almost identical, though Walker flip flopped and will be going to pretend his some sort of tough guy.


Rand and Jeb not appearing are genuine reasons.

Jeb only has open townhalls with donors not grassroots activists.

Steve King defended Rand when a lot of people attacked him for so-called running away from the Dreamers.


[h=3]S. King on Rand: Wasn't going to be a constructive place for him to be if he wants to be POTUS[/h]

 

[andym]

No, it shouldn't. I don't like Walker, but I would gladly vote for a farmer or any honest clear headed guy over a slimy lawyer.

Why do you "don't like Walker?" He seems to be the leading candidate among Birchers that I've spoken to. I know this is the Ron Paul Forums, but do you have to be related to Ron Paul to get our endorsement? This is a concern with Rand and national sovereignty issues in his unconstitutional support of the TPP...

Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...ioritize-passage-of-trans-pacific-partnership

 

[andym]

I think this whole argument about a degree will backlash against the MSM & Democrat Party, who's majority is made up of people WITHOUT a college degree. Think of it, you may have a college degree, but so many out there don't, and these are the people who vote only once every four years in mass. They may consider to vote for one of their own. And as William Tell wrote, it screams of elitism. We can use this to our advantage if the MSM pulls such tactic.

 

[andym]

Rand also voted against States Rights on this one (From the JBS The New American Freedom Index)...
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 965 to S. 954 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013): To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.
Vote Date: May 23, 2013 -- Vote: NAY
Product Labeling for Genetically Modified Food. During consideration of the Farm Bill (S. 954), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered an amendment (Amendment 965) to allow states to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product have a label indicating that it contains a genetically engineered ingredient, such as pesticide-resistant plants. Sen. Sanders remarked during consideration of his amendment: "This is a pretty simple issue, and the issue is do the American people have a right to know what they are eating, what is in the food they are ingesting and what their kids are eating.... What this amendment does is very simple. It basically says States that choose to go forward on this issue do have the right. It is not condemning GMOs or anything else. It is simply saying that States have the right to go forward." The Senate rejected Sanders' amendment on May 23, 2013 by a vote of 27 to 71 (Roll Call 135). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to prevent states from enacting their own product-labeling requirements.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00135

 

[andym]

Another bad unconstitutional decision by Rand reminiscent of the widely reviled Common Core Standards...
On Passage of the Bill S. 1086: A bill to reauthorize and improve the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, and for other purposes.
Vote Date: March 13, 2014 -- Vote: AYE
This bill (S. 1086) would reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant program through fiscal 2020 and would further institute new standards for education, health, and safety on child care providers that receive funds under this program. It would also expand the information required from states regarding how they will make use of the funds, as well as require that the states develop plans that include guidelines for training and teaching children from the time they are born until they enroll in kindergarten. The CBO has estimated that implementing this bill would cost $16.8 billion over the 2015-2020 period. The Senate passed S. 1086 on March 13, 2014 by a vote of 96 to 2 (Roll Call 77). We have assigned pluses to the nays because childcare funding is an unconstitutional activity of the federal government. Just based on the brief description of S. 1086 in the above paragraph, it is clear that this bill would increase federal oversight of child care and impose national standards reminiscent of what the widely reviled Common Core State (read National) Standards are doing to K-12 education.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00077

 

[Brett85]

Why do you "don't like Walker?" He seems to be the leading candidate among Birchers that I've spoken to. I know this is the Ron Paul Forums, but do you have to be related to Ron Paul to get our endorsement? This is a concern with Rand and national sovereignty issues in his unconstitutional support of the TPP...

Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...ioritize-passage-of-trans-pacific-partnership

Why would any Bircher or paleocon support someone who wants worldwide perpetual war with ground troops all over the world? Also, I'm sure that Walker supports the TPP as well.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scott-walker-wont-rule-out-boots-the-ground-syria-isis