Wisconsin Families Still Leading the Way, One Party Is Helping

Dedicated people in the Democratic Party are listening. The Wisconsin Democratic Party is listening.

Robert Kuttner has a typically insightful piece, A More Perfect Union in The American Prospect, noted this morning in the Democratic Strategist.

The Strategist concludes:

Kuttner's piece clarifies, without saying it, why the public workers of Wisconsin and Ohio have fought so hard to protect their collective bargaining rights. As Kuttner explains, 'In the end, this story is all about power, and power used responsibly.'"

Observers like the Strategist are calling Obama's speech a "Game-Changer," in the political power games in America, akin to something between ratification and democratic elections.

Power, the capacity to determine social arrangement and how decision making in our society is accomplished, is Democracy—why the Occupy and the 99 Percent movements have been being abused in the streets of the United States to deafening silence of politicians of every stripe.

Yesterday, echoing these citizens movements, President Obama [not soon enough for many] delivered this message in Osawatomie, Kansas:

In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year. I’m not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars. I’m saying people who make a million dollars every single year. For the top one hundredth of 1 percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about 6 percent.

Dedicated people in the Democratic Party are listening. The Wisconsin Democratic Party is listening.

The instant they stop listening, the instant the Party becomes a collection of bureaucrats and group-think, robotic careerists sucking up money; in a manner of speaking: The time then will come for blowing down that Democratic Party house and then re-building.

For now, the Democratic Party is our best ally against the likes of Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Reince Priebus and the bunch of flaky, Ayn Rand-worshipping colleagues feasting their eyes on our Social Security, Medicare and veterans benefits.

Jailed for Receiving PTSD Benefits, Wisconsin Vet Takes Case to U.S. Supreme Court

An innocent man looks to
U.S. Supreme Court

I still can't get over the fact that Vietnam-era veteran, Keith Roberts was targeted by the U.S. Dept of Veteran Affairs (DVA), convicted and then jailed in 2005 for receiving PTSD disability benefits.

By Michael Leon

His crime? According to the U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stephen Biskupic (2001-08), Roberts did not know his fellow airman, Gary Holland, [an absurd suggestion] who was crushed to death by a C-54 airplane at a U.S. base in Naples, Italy in 1969, and that Roberts who was on line duty exaggerated his efforts to save his friend's life.

Furthermore, Roberts was wrong to follow the advice of his Veteran’s Service Officer (Shawano County (Wisconsin)) who had determined that Keith Roberts was entitled to an earlier effective date for his diagnosed PTSD.

Roberts hates the VA, and rightfully so.

In fact, Roberts had been a thorn in the side of the Milwaukee Regional VA’s office as well as the Illinois-based regional VA Inspector General’s office for insisting on his rights as a veteran to his benefits in less-than-diplomatic tones and language.

“Keith Roberts was granted a 100% compensation rate for PTSD from his date of claim. To grant PTSD, we need both a.) a current diagnosis and b.) a verified in-service stressor. We found not only a stressor, but an in-service diagnosis for Airman Roberts,” said a source at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee who e-mailed the Lee Rayburn radio show in Madison after a broadcast of a show on Roberts. “[T]he only reason Airman Roberts was ever prosecuted was because he was a ‘belligerent ass’ who kept insisting that he get paid back to discharge. He was demanding an appeal in Washington. I'd have to say that you guys are TOTALLY (uppercase in the original) right about Roberts' conviction being bullshit. ...”

So, in response the former VA General Counsel attorney and VA national Director of Compensation and Pension Services, Renee L. Szybala, pushed U.S. Atty Biskupic to indict Roberts of mail [wire] fraud, predicating the indictment, it bears repeating, upon the ludicrous notion that Roberts and Holland did not know each other, and that Roberts exaggerated his reported efforts to keep his friend from being crushed to death.

For the record:

Holland and Roberts were both on line duty when Holland was killed:

• - Took two weeks-long classes together while stationed together in Memphis, Tennessee in 1968
• - Were quartered in the same barracks at Lakehurst, NJ where they also trained together for weeks
• - Went into the Naval Air Force base in Naples, Italy together as two young airman
• - Slept in close quarters (feet away from each other) while at Naval Air Station base in Naples, Italy
• - Worked in the same and only base air hangar together
• - Took an advancement test together on the morning of the day Holland was killed on Feb. 4, 1969

Roberts is basing his U.S. Supreme Court petition for a writ of cert upon the fact that he was denied his fundamental right to due process and was deprived of both liberty and property.

Roberts' 200 page-plus appeal gets legal and complicated after that.

But as someone who has reported on this case from the beginning, let me break down what happened.

As readers of Uppity Wisconsin may notice there is a comment from a veteran posted some years ago about Roberts, who corroborates Roberts' narrative.

But the wronged Navy Airman Keith Roberts (1968-71) had POed the wrong people and a corrupt U.S. Attorney [see U.S. Attorneys Scandal–Milwaukee] saw to it that an innocent man was wrongfully imprisoned for "tenaciously pursuing a claim for VA disability benefits" when the neocons were in charge of the U.S. DVA and U.S. DoJ.

To give you an idea who Biskupic is, see:

• The proven-innocent Georgia Thompson
• Biskupic tried to 'squeeze' Georgia Thompson
• Voter fraud cases
• Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals

Roberts and his family are still fighting to get their lives together.

As for Biskupic, he seamlessly moved from corrupt, Bush-era U.S. Attorney to defender of the corrupt Scott Walker campaign in Wisconsin.

Well, this regime is gone.

But the damage remains from this bunch, a fact worth noting in conclusion.

Politicalization of pubic officials - shocker

There are plenty of candidates for condemnation in this affair in today’s environment when whole agencies of the U.S. government have been usurped by an administration lacking in conscience and public accountability, politicizing virtually every agency in sight, including U.S. Atty Biskupic’s office.

· Special Agent Raymond Vasil of the regional VA Inspector General’s office [“A cop Vasil is not, just an idiot with a badge,” said one veteran assisting Roberts] who lied to and vocally mocked Roberts while flying around the country fabricating a case against Roberts.

· The VA benefits process that systemically wears down veterans with the apparent intention of inducing them to give up their fight for benefits [this process is being adjudicated in the unprecedented class action suit by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.] In fact, the VA claims process can be so frustrating that many vets (especially those suffering from PTSD) are thrown into fits of rage directed at the VA itself.

· The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that demeans veterans for seeking help with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in this “culture of trauma.”

· The Pentagon that blames veterans “personality disorders” and lack of faith in God for veterans suffering after service.

· Former VA national Director of Compensation and Pension Services, Renee L. Szybala, and Jon Baker, director of the Milwaukee Regional VA office actively participated in efforts to have Roberts prosecuted, while they intentionally took steps to ensure the VA Regional Counsel did not have an opportunity to perform the mandatory legal review before the matter went to the U.S. Attorney, as required by federal regulations. Again, Szybala knew that Roberts had an appeal pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and that under VA regulations until that appeal was completed the case should not have been released for criminal or collection action.

· Barbra Nehls, formerly of the Milwaukee VA Regional office, who wrongly claimed at trial that Roberts’ benefits were reduced based upon the VA’s determination that Roberts’ statements of facts from 1969 formed the basis of the VA decision to grant or deny benefits. This is a material misrepresentation of VA procedure.

· And of course, Carolyn F. Washington, VA deputy asst general counsel, a woman without conscience and quintessential social climber.

84-Year-Old Wisconsin Woman May Need $200 to Cast Legal Vote

Update: State Senator Jim Holperin (D-Eagle River): Birth record free if needed for voter I.D.; Holperin legislation says

Obstructing an 84-Year-Old Wisconsin Woman?

Jim Crowing African Americans in Milwaukee County?

Really?

Hey, Republican Party, is this what you really want to be in our country?

What's next, guys?

Armed guards at the polls? I mean Ms. Frank does look pretty dangerous.

And to the Civil Rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice, you know: Get off your ass and enforce - I don't know - civil rights?

Via Tanya Somanader at ThinkProgress, and Brad Friedman

Brokaw, Wisconsin - Population 310

For 63 years, Brokaw, Wisconsin [Northern Wisconsin, population-310] native Ruthelle Frank went to the polls to vote. Though paralyzed on her left side since birth, the 84-year-old “fiery woman” voted in every election since 1948 and even got elected herself as a member of the Brokaw Village Board. But because of the state’s new voter ID law, 2012 will be the first year Frank can’t vote. Born after a difficult birth at her home in 1927, Frank never received an official birth certificate. Her mother recorded it in her family Bible and Frank has a certification of baptism from a few months later, along with a Social Security card, a Medicare statement, and a checkbook. But without the official document, she can’t secure the state ID card that the new law requires to vote next year.“It’s really crazy,” she added. “I’ve got all this proof. You mean to tell me that I’m not a U.S. citizen?” But state officials have informed Frank that, because the state Register of Deeds does have a record of her birth, they can issue her a new birth certificate — for a fee. And because of a spelling error, that fee may be as high as $200

Add Frank's to the stories of 96-year old Dorothy Cooper in TN who has voted in every election since woman were granted the right to vote, but who may longer be able to cast her vote on Election Day next year, and 86-year old WWII veteran Darwin Sparks in the same state; along with hundreds of thousands of others who are likely to find themselves unable to cast their legal vote on Election Day next year thanks to new voter suppression laws implemented in about a dozen states by GOP legislatures and governor's since they took control in 2010.

In Wisconsin, where "an estimated 177,399 Wisconsin residents 65 and older do not have a driver’s license or state photo ID — 23 percent of that population", and where Frank may have to pay as much as $200 to cast her legal vote under the GOP's new anti-democratic and anti-Democratic polling place Photo ID restrictions, the non-partisan League of Women Voters has filed suit charging the law to be in violation of the state's constitution, as The BRAD BLOG detailed in October. That case is still pending.

Citizens Uncover Huge County-state Mistakes in Voter Obstruction Efforts

Wisconsin Catch 22 on Voter Obstruction

Update: Here's Richard Pinney's PR with contact info.

Folks may need a birth certificate to get a photo ID to vote, but they are told by the State and County bureaucracies they need a photo ID to get a birth certificate.

Citizens acting to ensure registered legal voters in Wisconsin are not denied their right to vote due to the Voter ID law have uncovered a big snafu with the potential to invalidate the entire law.

State law doesn't require a photo ID to get a birth certificate, but 2/3 of the counties are using forms that say a photo ID is required to get a birth certificate.

Richard Pinney built a website, Get Voter ID, to help people get a voter ID, but in the process found the snafu, a Catch 22 that Republicans love.

In fact, as Pinney notes:

In a systemic state-wide failure, the Election Division of the Government Accountability Board, the Department of Health Services, 48 counties and the Wisconsin Register of Deeds Association all post a link to a mail-in form that explicitly requires submitting a copy of the applicant's 'current valid photo ID'.

So, some folks may need a birth certificate to get a photo ID to vote, but they are told by the State and County bureaucracies they need a photo ID to get a birth certificate. What is this the U.S. Army?

View the complete GetVoterID.org Report here (PDF) with links to all sites-in-error mentioned above and examples of several versions of the mistaken photo ID requirements.

Man Arrested in Washington County for Defacing Recall Petitions

Republican intimidation and illegal dirty tricks against the Recall Scott Walker movement mount.

West Bend police confirm that a Washington County man has been arrested on felony charges for destroying recall petitions.

By Phil Scarr

From Facebook. Tip-o-the-hat to @ShainaLovesMKE on Twitter for the pointer! More as I learn it.

UPDATE: I spoke to the on-duty Sergeant at the West Bend police department and got the following details:

•Incident happened at a residence in West Bend just after noon Sunday

•30-year-old male

•He is still in jail

•Charged with 2 felony counts of defacement of a recall petition

•Apparently, according to a witness to the incident, he scribbled all over the petitions trying to deface the signatures,

UPDATE 2: The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has the story and reports on the incident today.

Scott Walker Unveils Policy to Have Protesters Pay Police, Cleanup Costs

Wisconsin Constitution, Article One

Scott Walker turned the Wisconsin capitol into an armed camp when citizens assembled to express widespread political opposition against him and his destructive policies.

Now, Walker says he is instituting a policy to make Wisconsin citizens pay for his palace guard, and all costs to maintain the capitol grounds.

By Luke Johnson

The administration of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) unveiled a policy Thursday to hold protesters in the state Capitol liable for extra police or cleanup, in the aftermath of massive demonstrations earlier this year against anti-union legislation.

Bob Dreps, a lawyer who handles First Amendment cases including work for the Journal Sentinel, noted that the state can put some restrictions on the "time, place and manner" of free speech. But he said it was 'laughable' to define a rally as four or more people. (MJS)

Under the policy, groups of four or more inside state buildings and 100 or more people outside the Capitol must obtain permits at least 72 hours in advance of protests. Groups could be charged $50 per hour per Capitol Police officer, while costs for other law enforcement agencies will vary. The police could also require advance payment and liability insurance or a bond. Cleanup could be charged to organizers.

The policy also makes it clear that spending the night in the Capitol, taping signs to Capitol walls not intended for signs, allowing the sale of food or other items in the Capitol and using sound equipment that would interfere with the building are all not allowed.

Wisconsin protest, Feb. 26, 2011 - Photo: Al Rodgers

The policy is effective immediately. The administration says no one will be denied a permit based on the content of their event.

Edward Fallone, an associate professor at Marquette University Law School, told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that the policy could be problematic since some groups might not be able to afford the costs. "I'm a little skeptical about charging people to express their First Amendment opinion," he said. "You can't really put a price tag on the First Amendment." ..

Gov. Walker is facing a recall effort. Activists announced earlier this week that they had gathered over 300,000 signatures in 12 days. For a recall, organizers need to collect 540,208 valid signatures by Jan. 17. An election could occur as early as March 27, but will likely be later.

Republican Hypocrisy on the Payroll Tax Cut

Sen. Blunt - Another Republican against families

We’ve seen Republicans in Congress vote to obstruct the American Jobs Act, a bill that independent economists have said could create up to 2 million jobs. They’ve voted against keeping teachers in the classroom, cops on the beat and firefighters on the job. They voted against putting construction workers back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges.

By Dan Pfeiffer

In addition to blocking these job-creating measures, Republicans in Congress refused to compromise to tackle our nation’s serious deficit problem. They chose to protect tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires at any cost, even if it means deep cuts to education, medical research and Medicare. They will not budge from that negotiating position.

And just last night, after weeks of saying “no” to just about everything, Republicans in Congress chose to allow taxes to increase on nearly 160 million hardworking Americans because they refused to ask a few hundred thousand millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. They voted against a bill that would have not only extended the $1,000 tax cut for a typical family, but expanded that tax cut to put $1,500 in their pockets next year, and given nearly six million small business owners new incentives to expand and hire. That’s not right. It’s not acceptable.

Now, you’ll hear Republicans try to come up with a substantive objection to the payroll tax cut. The fact is, we all know it’s a bad idea to raise taxes on 160 million working Americans. Independent economists agree. We can’t put our economy and the middle class at risk. We can’t play politics with the security of millions of American families and small business owners. Republicans know this. They’ve said so in past. Those same Republicans who voted “no” last night have previously supported the payroll tax cut. Let’s take a look:

Sen. Alexander

12/9/10: Sen. Alexander: “It Also Means That Your Employees Who Work There Will Get A One-Third Reduction In Their Payroll Tax Payments Every Two Weeks. And Maybe They’ll Spend Some More Money Creating More Jobs.” ”QUESTION: And if you look at the proportions, though, of the top, top sector of earners in this country getting the bulk of the benefits, why does that help?

ALEXANDER: Well, if you’re a small business person in Tennessee, what this means is that you won’t be paying tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps more, in taxes and you can use that to create a job. It also means that your employees who work there will get a one-third reduction in their payroll tax payments every two weeks. And maybe they’ll spend some more money creating morejobs. So it’s a combination of policies that all together are focused on jobs.” [NPR, 12/9/10]

Sen. Kyl

11/20/09: Sen. Kyl: “…What You're Suggesting Here Is That You Can Do Some Things To Stimulate Job Creation And Certainly Something Like Reducing The Payroll Tax, Which Has Been Written About Recently, Would Accomplish That…”“MR. KUDLOW: All right. Let me go to a couple of other things. We had Senator Thune on last night about ending TARP, putting a stake in TARP by the end of the year. But Mr. Kyl, let me just ask you. Suppose you got $300 billion from ending TARP. Wouldn't it be better to give it back to the taxpayers in the form of lower tax rates? Wouldn't that be a terrific thing with 10.2 percent unemployment, kind of "we, the people," the government works for us, and they could use the extra cash right now and maybe some incentives on lower rates for payroll taxes?

SEN. KYL: Yeah. As a matter of fact, the original intent here was that when the money was paid back by the banks, you didn't create a revolving account there, you lowered the debt. That is to say, you simply retired that aspect of the debt. Remember, this is all borrowed money from the Chinese and elsewhere. So you can do one of two things with it. You can either retire the debt, or what you're suggesting here is that you can do some things to stimulate job creation and certainly something like reducing the payroll tax, which has been written about recently, would accomplish that. There are other ways you can do it as well.” [CNBC, Kudlow Report, 11/20/09]

Sen. DeMint

11/29/11: “Republican Leaders Said Tuesday They Would Join Democrats In Supporting An Extension Of The 2011 Payroll-Tax Cut Despite Some Reluctance Within The GOP, Virtually Assuring That American Wage-Earners Will Continue To Receive The Benefit Next Year…..Mr. DeMint Said He Would Support The Extension Because ‘I Just Don't Think It's A Good Time To Increase Any Taxes.’” “Republican leaders said Tuesday they would join Democrats in supporting an extension of the 2011 payroll-tax cut despite some reluctance within the GOP, virtually assuring that American wage-earners will continue to receive the benefit next year. Republicans still oppose Democrats' plan to pay for the tax break with a tax on people earning more than $1 million a year. GOP leaders said they would find another way to pay for the tax break and predicted it would pass. ‘I think at the end of the day, there's a lot of sentiment in our conference—clearly a majority sentiment—for continuing the payroll-tax relief that we enacted a year ago in these tough times,’ Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said. Republicans and some economists have questioned the value of the payroll-tax break, saying its economic impact is limited by its temporary nature and the fact that some people use the spare cash to pay down debt, rather than buy things. Some argue Congress should revamp the whole tax code rather than temporarily reducing individual taxes. ‘I think it's a mistake to do this little tax and that little tax,’ said Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.). ‘We need to reform our tax code if we're going to be competitive internationally.’ Nonetheless, Mr. DeMint said he would support the extension because ‘I just don't think it's a good time to increase any taxes.’” [Wall Street Journal, 11/30/11]

Sen. Kirk

9/10/11: AP: “Kirk Said Obama's Proposals To Cut The Payroll Tax…Should Receive Quick, Bipartisan Action.” “Republican Sen. Mark Kirk said Obama's proposals to cut the payroll tax and approve trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama should receive quick, bipartisan action.” [AP, 9/10/11]

Sen. Blunt

7/8/10: Pulaski County Daily: “Blunt Agreed That A Payroll Tax Holiday, A 100 Percent Depreciation Of Capital Expenses, And Other Ideas Could Have Worked To Stimulate The Economy…” “Blunt agreed that a payroll tax holiday, a 100 percent depreciation of capital expenses, and other ideas could have worked to stimulate the economy, but said the $800 billion federal spending plan happened in 2009 because President Barack Obama has a fundamentally different view of how to help the economy than most Republicans and many rural Americans.” [Pulaski County Daily, 7/8/10]

Sen. Johanns

11/30/11: New York Times: “Another Republican Senator Has Opened The Door To Tax Increases On High Earners As A Way To Pay For A Payroll Tax Cut, Showing More Movement In The Party Ranks After Resistance All Year To Tax Increases. ‘I Sense A Change In Mood,’ Senator Mike Johanns, Republican Of Nebraska, Said Wednesday. ‘It’s A Little More Bipartisan. My Position Has Always Been, ‘Let’s Not Raise Taxes,’ But On The Other Hand, I Don’t Want Our Country To Collapses Under A Mountain Of Debt. If That Means Compromise, I Am Going To Do Everything To Get That Done.’” “Another Republican senator has opened the door to tax increases on high earners as a way to pay for a payroll tax cut, showing more movement in the party ranks after resistance all year to tax increases. ‘I sense a change in mood,’ Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska, said Wednesday. ‘It’s a little more bipartisan. My position has always been, ‘Let’s not raise taxes,’ but on the other hand, I don’t want our country to collapses under a mountain of debt. If that means compromise, I am going to do everything to get that done.’…Democrats are seeking to reduce the Social Security payroll tax paid by employees by half, to 3.1. percent of wages, a position many Republicans support.” [New York Times, 11/30/11]

2009 Republican Stimulus Proposal Included a Payroll Tax Cut

2/5/09: 40 Republican Senators Voted For The Republican Substitute Stimulus Which Included A Payroll Tax Cut. On February 2, 2009, 40 Republican senators voted for a McCain motion to consider an alternative Republican stimulus bill that “would have cut income and payroll taxes….” according to the Associated Press. The motion was rejected 40-57. [Senate Roll Call Vote #45, 2/5/09; AP, 2/5/09]

• 18 Republican Senators Voted Against Both Payroll Tax Cut Extension Bills On December 2, 2011 But Voted For A Payroll Tax Cut On February 5, 2009: Alexander, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, Cochran, Corker, Cornyn, DeMint, Graham, Hatch, Inhofe, Isakson, Johanns, Kyl, Roberts, Sessions, Shelby, And Thune. [Senate Roll Call Vote #45, 2/5/09; Senate Roll Call Vote #219, 12/1/11; Senate Roll Call Vote #220, 12/1/11]
• 10/15/09: Sen. McCain: “Mr. President, Earlier This Year I Put Forward A Proposal To Eliminate The 3.1 Percent Payroll Tax For One Year For All Employees In Order To Put More Money In Every Working American’s Pocket During These Difficult Economic Times. This Would Have Been A Real Stimulus To Our Economy.” “‘Mr. President, earlier this year I put forward a proposal to eliminate the 3.1 percent payroll tax for one year for all employees in order to put more money in every working American’s pocket during these difficult economic times. This would have been a real stimulus to our economy. Unfortunately, every Democrat in this chamber voted against this common sense proposal. ‘The regressive payroll tax oppresses all Americans, especially young men and women, and burdens small businesses that must match the tax that their employees pay. About 41 percent of Americans have no income tax liability. But every wage-earner is hit by the payroll tax no matter how much or how little one earns. For 86 percent of all working Americans, the payroll tax they pay is more than their income tax liability.” [Sen. John McCain – Floor Statement, 10/15/09– video available via C-SPAN]
• 3/26/09: Sen. McCain: “Our Proposal Would Have . . . Put Money Immediately Back Into The Hands Of All Americans Through A Payroll Tax Holiday.” “Our proposal would have helped fix the housing crisis, invested in our nation’s infrastructure through effective and restrained spending, put money immediately back into the hands of all Americans through a payroll tax holiday, and allowed businesses to keep more of their profits to hire new employees, invest in capital and expand their businesses.” [Sen. John McCain – Remarks to the Heritage Foundation, 3/26/09]

Scott Walker's Phantom 10,000 Army

Paul I. Tascoupe has the scoop, while Walker fabricates his own reality:

Walker again made the innuendo on a Republican-friendly CNBC show Tuesday, when he said, 'If they pay 10,000 people to come in, which they can legally do, they will probably get those signatures.' ...

It is Scott Walker himself who is relying on unlimited mountains of sleazy campaign cash from out-of-state corporations to defend his agenda - and it was the Scott Walker Republican party that engaged in the mercenary practice of paying violent out-of-state felons per signature to come in this spring to attack incumbent Democrats. Walker refuses to tell the people of Wisconsin to which states he travels, or when he is even out-of-state, so it is an especially cynical charge for even him to make.

Does Walker present any evidence? What out-of-state army is Scott Walker talking about? Where did he get this 10,000 figure? Can he name ONE Recall circulator who lives outside of state? I guess these questions don't really matter to Scott Walker.