Conservative Grover Norquist Talks Immigration Reform

Ted Hesson, ABC News, October 13, 2012

A conservative power player, best known for leading the Republican charge against tax increases, spent some time on Friday advocating for a different cause: immigration reform.

Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, gave the keynote speech at the Midwest Summit, which brought together 80 regional leaders from business, faith and law enforcement.

“It’s the most important thing to focus on if you’re concerned about the future of the country both as an economic power and as a serious leader of the world, or simply as a successful society,” Norquist said in the address. “It’s not only good policy to have more immigrants in the United States—dramatically more immigrants than we do today, to having a path forward for those people who are here. It’s not only a good idea, but it’s good politics.”

Republican candidates who champion restrictionist immigration policies are betting on a losing horse, Norquist argued in his address.

“We have tested this issue again and again and again,” he said. “It’s not like 10 times we win, 10 times they win. These dice are fixed, guys. The pro-immigrant, pro-comprehensive position keeps winning on this.”


In an interview with ABC/Univision after the speech, Norquist said that supporting reform doesn’t necessarily mean abandoning border security.

“I think we need comprehensive reform that deals with the people who’ve been here for some time,” Norquist said, going on to cite a quote whose origin he couldn’t quite remember. “I don’t care how tall the fence is as long as the doors are big enough.”


Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • The traitor should be hung from a rope made by third world invaders hair and thrown from the top of the Sears Tower.

    • Jed Sant Devi

      Doesn’t look like he said one word about jobs for White Americans.  The jig is up.

      • JohnEngelman

        What he wants is higher profits for the employer – investor class. 

  • Re immigration.

    Did anyone else watch the back and forth last night on immigration?
    What a farce.  Obama and Romney were arguing with each other over who is really the more pro-amnesty and pro-openborders.  If Romney was smart, he would have let Obama do all the talking, because all Obama was doing was playing his pro-openborder base.  At one point, Obama whined that “Romney is so extreme on immigration, even Bush wanted comprehensive immigration reform.”  Good going, Obongo — For months, he’s been trying to convince people that Romney = Bush, and now he went and undid that, especially on an issue that made Bush unpopular.
    But Romney couldn’t resist running his trap in response.

    The only way I figured Romney would win that conversation is if Obama had the last word, and luckily for Romney, that’s exactly what happened.  Obama’s last word was “the author of Arizona’s immigration law is Romney’s chief immigration adviser.”  Referring of course to Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

    People will walk away that Romney = Kobach, but we all know that’s not the case.

    I can tell you one of those things that I can tell you what I know, but I can’t tell you how I know it.  And what I know is that Romney and Kobach haven’t had anything longer since a momentary conversation about immigration or anything else since Romney won the Ohio Primary, and that was back on March 6.  Ohio is significant because Santorum dropped out a few days later, virtually guaranteeing Romney the nomination.  If Romney hasn’t wanted to talk immigration with his chief immigration adviser since then, then what it means, putting 2 and 2 together, is that the only reason Romney had Kobach on his team was for superficial appearance only, to fool enough people in to thinking Romney was for restricting immigration, so that he could win the nomination.  Once he effectively did that, Kobach to Romney became just another guy.

    •  If you wrote a book, I would buy it.

    • Eagle_Eyed

      Romney has been running away from Kobach, but if Romney is elected we don’t quite know the effect Kobach might have.

      When he was a senator, Sam Brownback was one of the “compassionate conservative” Republicans who saw illegal aliens as good Catholics and not as the costly, criminal, and Democrat-voting foreigners they are.  However as the governor of Kansas, his position has swung quite a bit.  He is much more conservative (careful) about voicing any support for illegals, and is supportive of Kobach’s voter ID and immigration goals. 

      Could Kobach have this effect on Romney?  Yes, if ever the two get to meet and discuss this face-to-face for an extended period of time.  The moderate/liberal beltway handlers for Romney no doubt believe the nonsense about winning the hispanic vote–this is all they drive in his head.  Kobach has rightly pointed out that blue-collar workers and other citizens (i.e. white moderates) are a much larger voting bloc than the illegals–who will vote Democrat *anyways*.  The welfare state is their friend.

      • There were immigrants that Brownback didn’t like while he was in the Senate.  White South Africans.  He said he would explicitly block legislation letting them in because of their “racism.”

        But you are right about his sudden change of heart now that he’s the Governor of Kansas instead of a Senator from Kansas.  The reason is that state budgets operate on shoestrings relative to the Federal budget, (Kansas’s is $13.41 billion for FY13), and a lot of Federal programs require state participation, such as Medicaid and Food Stamps.  While I’m sure the Kansas Constitution requires budget bills to start in their State House, any Governor is going to have a lot of moral suasion over the direction of the budget.  When you’re dealing with a mere 13 gigabucks, every dollar counts, and a dollar spent here is by definition a dollar that can’t be spent there.   It was easy for Samnesty Brownnoser to advocate for illegal aliens when he was 1/100th of the upper house legislative power of a government that spends terabucks and can borrow terabucks, because he wasn’t too immediately and singularly responsible for fiscal and budgetary issues.  Now he is responsible for a government that only has $0.01341 trillion to spend this year.  It’s a lot harder to be “compassionate” when the dollar spent on food stamps for illegal aliens means a dollar that can’t be spent on Medicaid for native Kansans.

        So Cal Snowman:

        If and when I can talk, it certainly won’t be book length material. Really only a long blog post.

        • I look forward to the day.  I just assumed it would be a lot of good info. like the above. I would look forward to the chapter titled : Fake Conservatives Who Flip Flop Faster Than Mitt Romney.

          Do you have a federal gag order on you or something?

          • It’s nothing like that. For now, social decorum keeps my lips zipped.

        • Eagle_Eyed

           So did Kobach not have anything to do with this, in your opinion?

          Maybe I’m just engaging in wishful thinking.  Although I’m already in his camp, hearing Kobach speak at a live event at the University of Kansas thoroughly convinced me he could persuade others toward the patriotic immigration reform position.

          • I’m not saying Kobach was irrelevant in Brownback’s sudden change of mind. One factor that might point to Kobach mattering is that politicians pay attention to election returns. Both Brownback and Kobach won their respective statewide offices in Kansas on the same day in November 2010. While Brownback won 63% of the vote for Governor, Kobach got 59%. While Kobach got less, he also turned out an incumbent Democrat Secretary of State as someone who never held public office before. You’ve gotta figure that Brownback noticed that.

      • Beth

        There are many anti-illegal immigration groups,  hopefully some of these people have joined up with the tea party groups to broaden the focus of the tea party to include immigration.   Tea party groups now have pacs which give them money clout which can in time  push out Norquist and other trickster/players.

    • ViktorNN

       Actually, Romney said he was opposed to amnesty, or at least hinted at it. He certainly did not say he was in favor of amnesty – he referred to amnesty in order to use it to point a finger at Obama, saying something like “HE’s the one in favor of amnesty.” That’s at least how I remember it (if I’m mistaken then I’ll be happy to stand corrected).

      • I think anyone paying moderate attention only to what Romney said in the debate on immigration is that he is sufficiently for some sort of amnesty.  Since Obama got the last word, and linked Kobach to Romney, a lot of people will walk away thinking that Romney isn’t really for amnesty if Romney has Mr. SB 1070 on his team.  Because I know what I know but I can’t say how I know it, what I said above about Kobach and Romney not talking immigration or anything else in the last six and a half months, that pretty much clues me into Romney’s real position.

  • Puggg

    A conservative power player, best known for leading the Republican
    charge against tax increases, spent some time on Friday advocating for a
    different cause: immigration reform.

    That’s a contradiction.  Taxes will have to go up to fund the welfare programs to support our new comprehensive reform crowd and Dreamers.

    • Stentorian_Commentator

      Amen.  What a two-faced bass turd (if that’s possible).  He acts like a union leader not wanting to give up on any stupid tax policy if repealing it might be a tax increase, and then he’s out there advocatingn for policies that will blow holes in federal and state budgets.  The hypocrtitical bass turd.  I understand he’s really just a front man for muslim interests these days.

    • C_C_Conrad

       Those that want to understand what is really going on with the Conservative / Wall Street / International Banker & power broker crowd, read –  Revolution from Above.  WWW. JACKSWAR. COM

  • WmarkW

    I used to think of myself as a conservative, but I do think taxes need to cover expenses, and that our society is stronger if our citizens can earn a decent wage.

    Norquist is introducing the kind of conservatism that will turn 80% of us into serfs.

  • Whirlwinder

    Norquist is no friend of conservatism nor of America. His agenda is to imbed Islam into positions of authority in our government. More immigration means more Islam in America. We need to shut down immigration and assess our damages that has been caused by same. The 20 million or so illegal aliens in our country certainly is not strengthening our nation nor is it building our IQ. But this can be fixed if we have the will to do so. Allowing anybody into the country willy-nilly is not building up America either. It is changing the fiber of America and we are becoming a polyglot of disperate peoples with no social cohesion. Allowing Islam to come into our country can be likened to introducing toxins into a healthy body. Islam is not compatible with western civilization in any way, shape or form. Our Republican form of government is totally alien to their tribal way of life. They will tolerate no freedom of speech, religion or freedom of assembly. They consider themselves the superior peoples and view all other peoples as sub-human. This is what Norquist is promoting in our country. He should be run out of the land.

  • Eagle_Eyed

    I’m in favor of immigration.

    All white, English-speaking, middle and upper class, college-educated, entrepreneurial, non-criminal, America-respecting British, Irish, Canadian, Australian, Kiwi, Rhodesian, Boer, German, French, Polish, Italian, Russian, Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, Romanian, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Danish, etc. should have a green card stapled to them.

    • FinnyMac

      As long as they’re not Jewish! No more Russian Jews!

      • JohnEngelman

        Insofar as I am suggesting that the Jews may have had some degree of unusual verbal skills going back to the time of Moses, I am naked before the evolutionary psychologists’ ultimate challenge. Why should one particular tribe at the time of Moses, living in the same environment as other nomadic and agricultural peoples of the Middle East, have already evolved elevated intelligence when the others did not?

        At this point, I take sanctuary in my remaining hypothesis, uniquely parsimonious and happily irrefutable. The Jews are God’s chosen people.
        – Charles Murray, from “Jewish Genius,” Commentary, April 2007

        • FinnyMac

          That is so silly. Our cultural discourse is ruled by political correctness, which prevents any frank discussion of what intelligence and true accomplishment are. So it’s inevitable that the most opportunistic victimized groups would take credit for intellectual achievements that are not theirs. The blacks do the same.

          And Charles Murray is just kowtowing to the masturbatory Jewish narcissistic element which has become prevalent in the New York media. As for the Nobel prize, it’s not a reliable indicator, being subject to political forces.

          By your perverse obsession with tests, we should be  an Asian country. In fact, you even say below that you want more asian immigration. Thank goodness there are sites like Amren to confront your unhealthy views as well as this insane political situation.   

      • JohnEngelman

        Between 1901 and 2012, around 850 laureates have been awarded Nobel Prizes. At least 172 have been Jews.  

        • FinnyMac

          See my comment above for riposte.

    • JohnEngelman

      In his “RACE, EVOLUTION,  AND BEHAVIOR,” Professor J. Philippe Rushton, who spoke at six American Renaissance conferences, points out that Orientals have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy than whites, and higher average IQs.
      I am in favor of Oriental immigration.
      Every country in the world should welcome whites of European descent, Ashkenazi Jews, and Orientals. Third world immigration should be restricted or prohibited, except in special cases.  

      • jeffaral

        Yes ,we need more Jews as we need a bullet in the  head

      • FinnyMac

        See my comment above for riposte.

      • FinnyMac

        The suggestion of historically transforming America into a quasi oriental country on the basis of some testing data demonstrates a complete absence of judgement on your part. These fallacies can only be advanced in a country in decline, where PC makes it impossible to discuss white genius and intelligence and how to measure it.  Did America’s  founding stock need more Asians because Anglo-IQ was not high enough? The notion is patently absurd, and, by the way, it is also somewhat offensive in a community that promotes *white* interests. i.e. Most people here want to live in a white country.

        • JohnEngelman

          Letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport, by George Washington 
          August 1790
          It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support…            May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants–while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.                 May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.G. Washington

          • FinnyMac

            All very well, but that’s completely irrelevant to this discussion, which is about *immigration* and *intelligence* not tolerance of Jews. Washington nowhere argues, as you do, that America should import more Jews in order to create a more intelligent population. That’s a radical proposal for a traditionally anglo and European country. And indeed if Washington, Jefferson, and Adams came back from the dead and heard your theory that Jews are more intelligent than Anglos, they’d probably think you were crazy. They’d point to Shakespeare, Milton, Newton, as well as to all the accomplishments of other European races in classical antiquity and the Renaissance.  

          • JohnEngelman

            Washington was not arguing that we import more Jews, but he is certainly not arguing that we prevent Jewish immigration. 
            At the time of the founding of the United States persecution of the Jews was just beginning to lift, so they had not yet demonstrated their intellectual gifts. 
            In their book “The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution” professors Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argue that the biological superiority of the Ashkenazi Jews only evolved after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. They specifically say that in the ancient world Jews were not considered to be exceptionally intelligent. 
            In the contemporary world the superiority of the Jews is impossible not to notice. Anyone who has sat in a classroom with several knows that they are exceptional.
            I am a Nordic Gentile and a Christian Zionist. Jews are not prone to praise themselves they way I praise them. 

      • Hi IQs take you only so far–it’s what’s in your heart that also matters.  You need American patriotism and a desire to work for the common good.

  • How in the hell can the MSM continue to call people like Norquist conservative?  He’s about as conservative as Governor Moonbeam here in CA.  The only thing people like Norquist are conservative about is keeping the gains made by the liberal democrats and socialists.  

    • JustaWhiteMom

      Its a deliberate tactic to create the appearance of consensus.  You continuously cut off the right wing of debate and then call the right-most survivor “conservative”.  Rinse and repeat until favorite elite policies seem like a moderate, centrist compromise.  It is so painfully obvious what is happening.

      • Stentorian_Commentator

        I agree.  The fact is that immigration control is supported by vast majorities of Americans.  It is the moderate position, but as you indicate, the leftists and other evildoers are trying to make it extreme.  They have learned one of the basic lessons of demagoguery, that each individual sees himself as being in the middle, notwithstanding where he would be by any objective standard.  The MSM plays to that by trying to portray extreme pro-immigration as moderate and in the middle, and majority-supported control as extreme.

  • IstvanIN

    I have agree with Grover on this.  Sometimes, on my way to work in the morning or on the way home, on one of NJ highways, I manage to get up to 20 or 25 miles per hour.  Definitely not enough people in this country.  If you look at places like India you can understand how a HUGE population equals a better life for all.

  • Eagle_Eyed

    What I wouldn’t give to be able to ask this simple question, in front of thousands of other conservatives.  It would show Grover to be a fool.

    “Mr. Norquist, all polling data from the past hundred years or more show that immigrants overwhelmingly support the big-government, high-tax, generous welfare-benefits policies of the Democratic Party.  How is bringing in more Democrat Party voters helpful to the goals of a conservative, low-tax, low-spending fiscal state that fiscal conservatives want?”

    • JustaWhiteMom

      This self-defeating Republican policy of support mass non-white immigration can only be explained by deliberate subversion.  This is not some sort of misguided optimism.  The party is self-destructing because it has been infiltrated and destroyed.

  • Jed Sant Devi

    The premise is that the GOP must become even more indistinguishable from the Dems in order to have a political future.   He’s right- the White minority in a post White privilege America will be relegated to meaningless through totalitarian humanism that institutionalizes speech codes and hate laws.

    We all know that White privilege is criminalized now. The future will just prove us rigth as our ability to have any protection from police and some courts disappears.

    We will be a tiny, powerless bloc that only serves to produce a few gorgeous blondes that can stand on stage next to the most authentically hideous voodoo Diversity.We need to be the John Galt of White Humanity long before that happens. 

    If we know our demise is coming, then stop funding it and stretch out the time and maybe create a miracle, like regional secession or something yet unheard of…

    • C_C_Conrad

       White privilege = the ability to control our destiny. 

      • JustaWhiteMom

        I like that CC.  I am a firm believer in the mantra approach.  Not just the formal mantra itself, but the general approach of spreaading subversive memes, including memes that expose the genocidal nature of the global attack on white privilege.  Every people needs to enjoy privilege somewhere in order to survive.

        The attack on white privilege is an assertion that whites are morally inferior, dangerous, or incompetent.  No one complains about Arab privilege in Saudi Arabia or Japanese privilege in Japan.  Its just white privilege that is a problem because our enemies have sown so much hate and fear of us around the world.

        • C_C_Conrad

          The non-whites are always saying that whites are dangerous, mean & cruel.
           We enslaved the blacks. 
          We conquered everybody. 
          We took everything from everyone. 
          We took America & wiped out the Indians. 
          We kicked out the Mexicans, etc, etc.
          Either they don’t believe their lies, or they are just plain crazy.
          Maybe they are just looking for a good old fashioned ass whipping?! 

      • Jed Sant Devi


  • On a unrelated note, we Americans need drastically more bullets,knives and pieces of heavy chain.

  • MekongDelta69

    Grover Norquist is no conservative. He loves illegal aliens and he absolutely flips head over heels for Muslims.

  • JohnEngelman

    The Republican Party exists to advance the economic interests of the richest ten percent of the country. If you keep that in mind, you will understand Grover Norquist’s position on immigration.
    More immigrants mean more people. More people mean more consumers and more job applicants. By the law of supply and demand that means higher prices, lower wages, and higher profits. The high rate of immigration is a major reason for the growing income gap.  

    • The__Bobster

      And the Democrat party exists to feed and house  the invaders to get their votes, all the while whining about all the Americans in poverty.

      • JohnEngelman

        Democrats are foolish to encourage third world immigration. A heterogeneous work force is more difficult to organize into labor unions than a homogeneous work force. When it was difficult for non whites to immigrate to the United States, and when most blacks were subject to Jim Crow legislation the vast majority of white blue collar workers voted Democrat, and the Democratic Party dominated the United States. Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal were popular among whites in the South. 

  • Grover Norquist was big on pandering to Muslim voters before 9/11, and didn’t let up on that even after 9/11.  He seriously thought Bush 43 would win Michigan if he pandered to Muslims enough.

  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    Grover Norquist is an effective lobbyist for causes in which he believes, such as illegal immigration.  In 1996, for example, he succeed in stripping out employee verification from a bill designed to curb illegal immigration.   Here are highlights of his colorful tactics — excerpts from “Illegal immgration bill weakened by unlikely alliance,” By Marcus Stern [2005 Pulitizer Prize Winner], COPLEY NEWS SERVICE, 04-Nov-1997:


    “After years of bitter losses, Sen. Alan K. Simpson thought the political tides finally favored his quest to create a way to keep illegal immigrants from getting jobs . . . This time, he would surely defeat the powerful and savvy pro-immigration lobby.”


    “…the National Federation of Independent Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Rifle Association, the Catholic church, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Bar Association and even some labor unions.”


    “Simpson wasn’t asking for anything remotely like a national ID card or national database of workers. He merely wanted the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to authorize pilot projects to test methods for verifying employment eligibility.  One pilot would have required participating employers to check their new employees’ Social Security numbers. Because it would apply to all of their new workers, discrimination against ‘foreign-looking’ job applicants would have been minimized.  But the anti-verification coalition painted the proposal as a sinister plot. It portrayed it as a retina-scan ID card, police-state power, the second coming of the Holocaust and even the fulfillment of a dark prophecy in the Bible’s Book of Revelation that people would be stamped with the ‘mark of the beast.’” 


    “Grover Norquist, a social conservative and anti-tax Republican lobbyist, reveled unapologetically in the tactics he used to undermine the verification initiative and to mock Simpson personally.   The peel-off bar-code tattoos [that he had people wear to suggest police state  ID cards] were supposed to remind people of the way Nazis tattooed Jews during World War II.” NORQUIST: “We had our guys walking around with tattoos on their arms. It drove Simpson nuts because the implication was he’s a Nazi.” 


    “Although voters tend to see Republicans as tougher than Democrats on illegal immigration, the weakening of the verification provisions was largely the handiwork of conservative Republicans and their behind-the-scenes strategists like Norquist.  Their success underscores how tough it is for Congress to do the one thing experts have said for decades is central to curbing illegal immigration: Establish a reliable, non-discriminatory employment verification system.”


    “Norquist has strong ties to the business community . . . But his forte is mobilizing support among social or moral conservatives, including gun owners, the religious right, home-schooling adherents and others he described as ‘anti-welfare and anti-police state.’ 
    “’A government powerful enough to find an illegal immigrant is also powerful enough to find your bank accounts,’ he said.  Conveniently, he ignores the fact that the government long has been able to find bank accounts with ease while it still can’t reliably identify undocumented workers.”

    “At one point during the debate, congressional offices received calls from fundamentalist ministers around the country asking about rumors that the verification provision would fulfill a prophecy in the Book of Revelation. Was it true, they asked congressional staffers, that people would be stamped with the ‘mark of the beast’ under the new law? 
    “Six-six-six,’ Norquist explained matter-of-factly during an interview. ‘That’s always been one of the arguments against the ID card. There’s something in Revelations about numbering people.  The ‘beast’ could be a big computer.’” 


    “The National Rifle Association was told the bill would lead to a federal computer registry that the government could use to hunt down its members and seize their guns. 

    “’Gun owners quite correctly understand that it would take Bill Clinton all of two weeks to add the question, ‘Got any guns? Could we have a list of them? Where do you keep them?’ ” said Norquist. 


    “Verification opponents also circulated mock national identification cards bearing Simpson’s likeness. On the back of the cards was a retina scan diagram suggesting that the legislation called for everyone to carry such a card.” 
    “‘That was a good one,’ Norquist chuckled.”


    “I view it as the camel’s nose under the tent for a national ID card.  The theme we played to Republicans was that if you’re trying to roll back big government, you shouldn’t be instituting this new police-state power.  Illegal immigration is part of the price we pay for being both a prosperous and a free country, and I’m not willing to sacrifice some of our freedoms to try to keep out immigrants . . .”


    “…this is a political issue. And the way you deal with illegal immigration is you increase the INS budget. It doesn’t do a lot, but at least politicians on both sides can go home and say, “Well, how can you say I’m not doing anything about immigration? I increased the INS budget.”’”
    “What you don’t do, he said, is involve employers in enforcement.” 

    * * *

    “Sometimes in politics you pass feel-good measures.  And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Passing a bill that’s mostly window dressing is a way of defusing public alarm about something. And in states like California, illegal immigration is perceived as a big problem.”


    “Congress has to act and Congress isn’t going to act if the only people it hears from are employers who don’t want to be sanctioned.”


    “People will go on dying of exposure and exhaustion as they try to get to the jobs that are waiting for them. They instinctively understand that despite the proliferation of border guards and fences, powerful forces in our society still want them to get across.” 


    “It gets back to the large issue haunting our democratic system right now — the overwhelming dominance of special interests.”

  • C_C_Conrad

     These conservatives have been making these same speeches for decades now, Ronald Reagan included.   All of us need to understand that there are only two groups in the world, pro-white & pro-white-genocide.  The Ronnie Raygun crowd is, and has been on the wrong side.  Con-servatives are NOT your friends. 

    Africa for the Africans.
    Asia for the Asians.
    But white countries for everybody.
    Can you say genocide. 

  • RisingReich

    I’ll moderate myself, because I’m pretty angry today.

    Traitors will NOT BE FORGIVEN, NOR will they BE FORGOTTEN.

    If browns, blacks, towel heads, camel jocks and heebs are so grand, go live in Saudi, Africa, or the nation of ‘those whom can’t be named’.

    Loser, poser, TRAITOR! 

    • No, really. Tell us how you really feel.

    • NM156

      Hard to believe that no one on the right has ordered this guy to be be chased down with a butterfly net and taken away, in a year with such a close election. Truly bizarre how much GOP Inc. disregards whites. If I saw him on the street in a regular basis, I’d wait for him with a pie destined for his face.

  • bluffcreek1967

    This “comprehensive immigration reform” mantra of Grover’s is simply a defeatist mentality. It’s akin to those who argue that our immigration laws are “broken.” No, they’re not broken; they’re just not enforced! If Grover thinks a mass of third-world immigrants are going to vote Republican, he’s more deluded than he appears. These people are never going to vote for a limited, constitutionally-based government as our Founders intended. They don’t even think in such terms! Moreover, by conceding to the “comprehensive immigration reform” line of reasoning, Grover and his fellow neo-c0ns are helping to displace the Whites for whom this country was originally intended!

    Grover thinks to do otherwise is like “betting on a losing horse.” Nonsense! Assuming that massive third-world immigration won’t alter the culture of the U.S. and won’t dispossess the Whites already here is really the “losing horse”! But it must not come as a surprise to us because Grover has been a Muslim sympathizer for quite some time. He is an intelligent man in many ways, but he is dead-wrong and utterly foolish on the issue of immigration.

  • Ceteris paribus there is no gender pay gap.  What appears to be the gender pay gap can explained by rationales that are hardly diabolical and misogynist.  Feminists want a Federal scheme called “comparable worth” that would artificially equalize the pay scales of certain jobs because women tend to some jobs that pay less in the marketplace.  I happen to think it will be one big convenient excuse to pay men less, not pay women more.

    • Bon, From the Land of Babble

      What appears to be the gender pay gap can explained by rationales that are hardly diabolical and misogynist.

      Except in obama’s White house.

      “Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work!”  obama said in his convention acceptance speech.

      But, in a report published by the Free Beacon in April, the 2011 annual report on White House staff revealed that the median annual salary for female White House employees was 18 percent less than male employees — $60,000 compared to $71,000

      And in 2008, Scripps Howard found that in Obama’s U.S. Senate office, women were paid less than men: The average male was paid $54,397, female staffers averaged $45,152.

      Too bad Romney didn’t use THAT instead of his (weak) defensive response to 0bama’s Lily Ledbetter comment.


  • tickyul

    Yes, this is the Phonycon’s favorite idea …..more and more 3rd-9th world immigration into the USA.

    This is why I do not vote anymore. Both side are insane and corrupt to the core.

  • tickyul

    Don’t be too suprised, these Republirat-Phonycons are the same folks who drool at the thought of endless war.

  • IKantunderstand

    Look, first of all, I can’t take seriously anybody whose name sounds like a Muppet. Secondly, this country DOES NOT NEED MORE IMMIGRANTS. How are 3rd world immigrants going to contribute to the economy? Making the U.S.  a “serious leader” of the world? Seriously? Right, illiterate Salvadorans are always my go to people when determining  U.S. foreign policy. I got news for you,  Muppet man, this country absolutely does not need MORE immigrants to be successful. It needs LESS.  Good for politics? What, you planning on running for president of Mexico, or something, Senor Muppet Man? 

    • Did no one tell Grover you can’t be a 1st world country by importing people, most of whom never graduated from the 6th grade? Oh, that’s right. Grover doesn’t love America. Like so many other “conservatives” today, he loves his wallet first. If the GOP begins advocating pro-immigration policies, I’m through with them.

      Becoming pro-immigration may win the party the votes of some of the new immigrants, but it will lose them the white male christian vote.

  • IstvanIN

     So he believes in his “party” before his own people.  How sad.

    • jeffaral

      Pray, Who is his people??!!

      • JohnEngelman

        His people are employers and investors. These benefit from unlimited immigration to the United States. 

  • Jay11

    I think one of the requirements before a person can call themselves a conservative is they have to be for immigration cessation.  A complete stop on immigration, with rollbacks and also cancelling auto birth citizenship for immigrants legal and illegal.

  • It’s been true for years that politicians posing as conservatives….especially the despicable neo-cons…. are actually radicals.  And they are radical in the service of trans-national interests.

    Norquist has shown himself to be a hack and a phony before; these comments are no surprise.  

  • John Bonham

    Can anyone say out of touch ??  I’m really amazed at how stupid the man really is..
    Is there a person out there willing to stand up for whites rights other than Mr Jared Taylor ??
    Seem like not..

    • Grover Norquist happily throws his countrymen to the wolves in order to eaten last. That he wants to further mongrelize this imperilled country should tell everyone how little honor he really has. After advocating a policy so inimical to the country’s well-being, no conservative who official who really loves his country should fear crossing this worthless piece of sh**.

  • FinnyMac

    True, but I doubt we live in an age of reason. His quotes sound like dictats; essentially they’re talking points. And the entire possibility of national discourse is paralysed by political correctness. There is only one way forward for whites, and that is supporting organisations like Amren. Tell everyone you know!

  • rightrightright

    “It’s not only good policy to have more immigrants in the United States—dramatically more immigrants than we do today, to having a path forward for those people who are here. It’s not only a good idea, but it’s good politics.”
    Where is his argument to back up what he thinks is a “good idea”.  I think it is a good idea for jigsaw puzzles to be handed out free to all 8 year olds.   So there.  

  • ViktorNN

    Grover is a pro-business libertarian Republican of the fairly extreme variety.

    When it comes to immigration, what this point of view translates into is a more or less open borders immigration policy. Norquist wants a glut of labor, as much labor  as business can get. Such a glut equals falling wages and beefits and  higgher profits.

    Too put it even more simply – Norquist is the exact same sort of white guy that brought blacks to this countrywho have cursed ever since.

  • Sloppo

    I wonder if he also wants more Han Chinese people in Tibet.

    • David Ashton

      Or in the USA, eh Mr Engelman?

  • SLCain

    Norquist married a palestinian muslim, and has two adopted children from overseas.  According to his Wikipedia article, he went to Afghanistan to help the Muhajadeen (presumably from behind the lines – I can’t imagine him putting his pudgy, porcine little body on the line).   I have read some speculation that he himself has converted to Islam.   He has no stake in the future of what used to be the American republic.  He is a traitor to this nation, as far as I am concerned.

  • JohnEngelman

    Grover Norquist’s chief offense against good government in the United States is his Taxpayer Protection Pledge. This opposes increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses, as well as net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate.       
    The Republican dogma that it is always a good idea to cut taxes and never a good idea to raise them is responsible for the increase in the national debt, which Republicans blame on President Obama and use in an effort to cut or eliminate popular domestic spending programs.
    When the top tax rate never got below 70 percent the national debt was paid down in terms of per capita gross domestic product. The decline happened under Democratic and Republican presidents. It happened during recessions and the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

    • My problem with Norquist’s pledge is that it’s a pledge.

      There seems to be a cottage industry of Republican and conservative oriented groups that spend all of their time concocting pledges for political candidates to sign. When there is a contentious Republican Presidential primary field, the people in this industry come out of the woodwork to earn their saltiest salt.

      I happen to think that pledges are the coward’s resume enhancer. Do you think Ron Paul needs to sign a pledge for us to know what he is about and what he would do as President? No, because he has a long and clear (yes, Obama, perfectly clear) record. Presidential candidates usually sign these “pledges” because their real record is less than conservative, and they think signing one conservative pledge will cover up ten “moderate” House or Senate votes, or ten “moderate” major initiatives or actions as Governor.A nubile running for his or her first dog catcher public office, fine. But by the time you run for President, you should have an established record such that these dorky pledges are unnecessary.


      1. Where are all the Democrat Presidential candidate pledges? Where is the cottage industry of leftist interest groups demanding that Democrats running for President sign them? When have Democrats running for President signed such pledges? Why is it that only the conservative/Republican interest groups demand Republican Presidential candidates sign these pledges, and why is it that only Republicans running for President think that signing a piece of paper gives them credibility among the base? I think the ultimate answer is because leftist voters have a lot more confidence in a typical serious credible Democrat Presidential candidate than their analogues on the other side of the aisle, because the Stupid Party instills a lot of disappointment in people.

      2. Who and how do you sue if a candidate violates the substance of a signed pledge once in office? Does contract law even cover this? Is it even applicable? I highly doubt it, because the person who wins a political race doesn’t usually get anywhere near 100%. If, e.g. Rick Santorum signs a pro-life pledge as a candidate, gets 51% of the national popular vote and wins, then vetoes a pro-life bill, can the pledge authors sue President Santorum? What of the 49% who didn’t vote for him because they’re not pro-life? If I sign a contract with you to buy a widget, all that is necessary to fulfill the contract is I give you money and you give me widget. Nobody else needs to get involved. Politics and elections are games of margins. This is another reason why pledges rank underneath toilet paper as a good reason to kill trees.

      • SLCain

         Well said.  Pledges are a dodge and a gimic.

    • SLCain

      “The Republican dogma that it is always a good idea to cut taxes and
      never a good idea to raise them is responsible for the increase in the
      national debt, which Republicans blame on President Obama and use in an
      effort to cut or eliminate popular domestic spending programs.”

      Thanks for finally outing yourself as just another redistributionist socialist.  Based on what you have posted here, there is little reason for paying any attention to you.  Now there is even less reason for doing so.

      Taxes should be low because the money does not belong to the government – it belongs to the people – and the government will just do stupid and harmful things with it.  And those popular spending programs you talk about are the reason we are going bankrupt, and becoming a nation of welfare cases.

      • JohnEngelman

        Tell that to the registered Republicans who depend on Social Security, Medicare, military pensions, farm subsidies, and business subsidies. All of these are dependent on taxes. David Stockman said all of these would need to be substantially reduced in order to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget. 

        • SLCain

          Apart from the wisdom of S.S. and Medicare (which I think should be drastically reduced), I was not aware that David Stockman is an all wise and infallible oracle.  You quote him as if he is, and that a mere invocation of his name is enough to refute any argument.

          It isn’t.

          • JohnEngelman

            David Stockman was Ronald Reagan’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985. He saw behind the curtain that the Wizard of Oz was a fraud. 

          • SLCain

            I’m well aware of who he is.  So he was budget director.  Maybe he wasn’t a very good one.  Maybe he was.  Regardless, he is just a man – you ascribe to him near papal infallibility.

            This is all besides the point – what is interesting in this thread is that YOU are defending AFDC, Food Stamps, and other socially harmful welfare programs, with this whole “middle-class entitlements” smoke-screen.

            A question for you:  Do you think that  AFDC, Food Stamps, and WIC (they are called something else now, but these are essentially the same thing) should be maintained or not?  If they should be maintained, should they be expanded?  Just answer that directly, and stop wasting our time.

          • JohnEngelman

            I am in favor of the continuation of food stamps, especially when there are five people looking for every job opening, and many employers refuse to hire anyone who does not already have a job.
            I am opposed to Aid to Families with Depend Children, and I am in favor of free abortion on demand. I would rather have unemployable females have abortions than give birth to children who are likely to become as worthless as their unmarried mothers. 

            My central point, which I repeat, is that middle class entitlements cost the government far more than anti poverty programs.

          • SLCain

             “My central point, which I repeat, is that middle class entitlements cost the government far more than anti poverty programs.”

            Thanks for your directness.  You really are a statist, at heart, though, aren’t you?  Government spending doesn’t cost the government anything – it costs the taxpayers.

            I agree that so-called middle-class entitlements are a bigger outlay.  And I repeat – even so, they do less damage to society as a whole than does the money spent on the lowest orders of society.

            And as others have pointed out, our vast, far-flung empire also costs us a great deal.  If we stopped meddling in other nation’s business, we could also save a great deal of money.

  • “It’s not only a good idea, but it’s good politics

    The pro-immigrant, pro-comprehensive position keeps winning”

    This traitor is a perfect example of how Republicans and Democrats are only concerned with keeping and/or attaining power. Their principles are dictated by their audience.

    At least the Racist doesn’t waver in his primary principles, and sees those principles as foundational, not dictated to by mob rule.

  • And it’s not as if Secretary of State is small potatoes. George Soros is spending a fortune trying to buy as many Democrats into those offices as possible to grease the skids for voter fraud.

  • Smkuehl

    The rich and the business class and it’s armies of well-anointed liars and whores and lackeys and propagandists, politicians and activists and intellectuals, of which Norquist is one of the most insane and execrable yet powerful and influential, are as much an enemy of whites as the explicitly anti-white left. Millionaires and billionaires and their demand for an endless supply of cheap and cheaper labor is largely culpable for an invasion of legal and illegal aliens that will ineluctably transform the U.S. into a nonwhite-majority country in which European-Americans will be an increasingly dispossessed and persecuted minority -with the exception, at least initially, of the rich and affluent. The overriding purpose and mission of “conservatives” and the Republican Party is to further enrich millionaires and billionaires through massive tax-cuts and deregulation and Third-World Immigration.

    They, fundamentally and predominantly, are responsible to the marginalization and demonization and resultant powerlessness and near-invisibility of race-realists and immigration restrictionists. They own and control the media and lavishly fund the critics and enemies and slanderers of race-realists and immigration restrictionists. Imagine if most or many or even a few billionaires and multi-millionaires gave their money to race-realists and immigration restrictionists. Imagine if one race-realist billionaire, just one, owned a network like FOX and a magazine like Time and a newspaper like the Wall Street Journal and, consequently, tens of millions of people were exposed hourly to the facts  ideas, positions, and arguments espoused  by writers at Vdare and Amren and similar websites.

    Lastly, do the rich and business class and activists like Norquist actually believe that they’ll have lower tax-rates in a minority-majority country of 400 and then 500 and then 600 million people rules predominantly, and vengefully, by browns and blacks? Do they actually believe that there will be less rather than more redistribution of wealth from the rich, disporportionately white, to the poor, overwhelmingly “African-American” and Mestizo/Amerindian?

    • jeffaral

      Put it simply: Conservativies are our deadliest enemies: Nixon, Reagan, The Bushes; now to top it off, the satanic Romney.

  • Why should we worry about the democrats when we’ve got ass-hats like Norquist as our friend?

  •  “Anyway talking about “conservatives” in general is not fair at all.
    There are many conservatives, like Pat Buchanan and the majority of the
    Republican base, who do not want to see the country overrun.”

    and there is precisely the point at which non-racial politics spits in the face of integrity,  intelligence and common sense. If the Republican base doesn’t support the actions of many of the politicians they’ve elected, but they still continue to vote for them, then how is a vote for a Democrat that much different than a vote for a Republican?

    This is the kind of madness and insanity you get when you vote for a Party instead of a real platform.

  • NM156

    The members of the neoconservative right and the major operatives of GOP Inc. such as Norquist should have stones tied to their necks and be dragged to the bridge and drowned. Unbelievable that this clown would publicly declare the exact opposite of what the group that they most need, working class and middle class whites, wants to hear. What an idiot. Perhaps he missed the widespread public outrage expressed to Congressional offices from coast to coast during the amnesty attempts of the Bush presidency. Perhaps he missed the crushing of the DREAM Act of 2010, while the Democrats held the White House and Congress. Perhaps he missed the overwhelming public support of AZ SB1070. Perhaps Norquist is so out of touch because he lives in a plutocratic fantasy world of an echo chamber, which is also inhabited by the likes of Mitt Rimney. The GOP is right about one thing: their fears of extinction or, in the short term, political irrelevance. These idiots insist upon courting the very demographic that seeks their oblivion.

  • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

     Why?  It is a fact that the EU concept has created a state of mind in Europe where not one of them would ever dream of attacking the other.  The EU has other problems we don’t like, but in that respect, they’ve made a great change in the white homelands to prevent future civil wars among whites.  Now if we can just get them to end immigration and encourage whites to have families…

  • SLCain

    “It’s true Republican leaders have not often been good on this issue, but the Democrats are certainly worse.”

    Unfortunately, being better than “worse” is not really good enough.

  • Norquist is an out-of-touch, open-borders, free trade fat cat globalist, one who sees himself as a citizen of the world and not the United States.  He shouldn’t be listened to by patriotic Americans.  Further, he’s not correct on the immigration issue–a strong case can be made for reducing immigration and better investing in those already here, one that becomes clearer as the sad consequences of open borders become more apparent.  He’s married to a Palestinian Muslim and Michelle Malkin noted problems with him a decade ago (  Like most neocons, he’s not really a conservative (and yes, his open borders views make a mockery of his goals for smaller government), he just acts like one to try to sway conservatives to liberal globalist positions that he holds dear.

  • Pat Kittle

    How the hell can there be endless growth in a finite place?

    What politician ever poses that question, and bases his/her politics on an honest response to it?

    Ex-Governor Lamm of Colorado comes to mind:…1c.1.Ahfg7ONe-Kg
    I’m trying to think of another.