America Tells Washington How it “Really Feels”

Archive for articles

America Tells Washington How it “Really Feels”

September 27, 2011 articles, blog, Featured, Princella Smith No comments

Why Google and FOX News should be applauded for its handling of the GOP debate and why interactive debates represent the height of American exceptionalism.

There was much applause, laughter, groaning, ooohhing and aaahhing during the FOX News/Google Presidential debate, and if you were forced to watch it online like I was, you were pleased that you could hear it all on a clear video stream without it “buffering” or cutting in an out.

However, FOX News execs must be ecstatic about the fact that most people viewed the debate on television. The Nielsen Company cited that 6.1 million people tuned in to FOX for the debate and that FOX set a new high among the coveted 25-54 demographic with 1.7 million viewers in that group. It was the highest-rated primetime showing for FOX this year.

FOX News and Google definitely deserve positive reviews for the debate format. (Some frontrunner candidates didn’t take advantage of that great format, but we’ll save that for another article.)

What was most appreciated about the debate format is that it was interactive. The fact that Google kept track of “word clouds” and of the most searched words on important issues meant that there was real value placed on what the voters and viewers cared about.

There were no silly “If-you-were-a-tree-what-kind-would-you-be” type questions, and the brilliant use of YouTube and live web streaming allowed Americans to tell Washington, DC how they really feel.

Earlier in the week, CNN ran a story and a poll throughout the afternoon examining why so many politicians have decided to focus on the issue of patriotism this year. They asked viewers to weigh in with their opinions.

Despite the underperformance of certain frontrunners at the FOX News/Google debate, each candidate did address at least on issue correctly, and that was the issue of reinforcing American pride and American exceptionalism.

Former Governor Mitt Romney said that he would work to “make America the hope of the earth”. Former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich wrote months earlier in a newsletter to his supporters that

America is a “nation like no other” and cited that America “…is the first country in the history of the world founded on the idea that the individual is sovereign—that we are the source of political legitimacy and that we loan power to the government.”

Political historian and philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville, first introduced the world to the term “American exceptionalism” during the 19th century, and since then several politicos have tried to define it, but it basically boils down to a belief in limited government, individualism, and the notion that the moral work of the individual is valuable. It places value on self-reliance and independence.

As I go through this stint of time on the other side of the world, I have been reminded daily that America IS indeed exceptional.

We’re the most benevolent. We’re the most free. We’re the only nation where people will literally break the law in order to GET INTO the country as opposed to breaking out of it.

We embrace innovation and individual freedom, and even American citizens who can’t even spell American exceptionalism let alone define it, still place high importance and value in the fact that our country is a republic where anyone from a farmer’s son to a millionaire’s daughter can pursue the dream of life, liberty and happiness.

The average American may not be able to define “republic” either, but they know that we live in a a country in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote, and is exercised by representatives chosen by them.

How many countries can or will hold a debate that allows its “everyday citizens” to submit questions to the candidates and ask them in a live format?

The American people are more than aware that our elected officials are suppose to answer to us not tell us what we “need to know”. In this type of representative government, those who would be our leaders have to understand this on the most fundamental level, and while I join the rest of the GOP primary electorate in its reservations with some of our candidates, I feel comfortable that each candidate who graced the stage at the FOX/Google debate understands this to be true.

The answer to CNN’s question about why politicians in both parties are focusing on patriotism and American Pride is this: Americans have an innate knowledge that we are an exceptional nation, and that is exactly why anyone who dares to run for President and represent us on an international stage must understand that. Not only must they understand it, they must fundamentally believe it.

That is why it is not only brilliant but patriotic to use technology in Presidential debates the way that FOX News and Google did. It gives the average citizen a voice in the electoral process, and whomever “would be President” should remember that the people put them there, and the people hold them accountable.

The American people want to know that our leaders understand our importance, and that Washington isn’t just a place that is “far, far away” where decisions are made over our heads.

America should have known better than to elect someone for President with not even a full U.S. Senate term’s experience. As we can see, that was not a good idea. However, the MOTIVE behind electing President Obama was on-point.

What Americans were hoping for was a leader who could reinstate their belief in the land of the free—not someone who would go on an international apology tour. Americans wanted an optimistic, competent leader who was eager to work on their behalf and ready to go to Washington with genuinely new ideas about how to get this country on track.

As Republican National Committee Chairman, Reince Priebus, recently stated: “People are hungry in this country not necessarily for all Republican answers or all Democratic answers. They’re hungry for real authentic people to lead this country.”

So for all the political insiders who still have yet to understand why Cain can upset Perry in a straw poll and why neither moderate nor conservative Republican voters can coalesce around the elite media’s “frontrunners”, this is how America really feels.

The Rush To Race Is Ridiculous

September 27, 2011 articles, blog, Featured, Tony Katz No comments

Over the weekend, businessman and presidential candidate Herman Cain won the Florida Straw Poll with a very convincing 37% of the vote. He more than doubled his nearest challenger, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and third place finisher, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Quickly, all the usual suspects weighed in on the significance of Cain’s victory. Much of the commentary focused on race. That GOP delegates in order to prove the party (and the Tea Party) isn’t racist, pushed Cain over the top.

Wrong. Is the establishment GOP really that interested in proving to a hate-filled Progressive minority that they are good people who should be liked? Are there members of the Tea Party who actually believe that Sen. Boxer, Sen. Schumer, Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo, Rep. Frank or others will like them because they voted for a black man?

Cain’s strong win in the straw poll is not about race, it’s about Cain!

Cain offers specific solutions. His “999″ Plan has taken hold; he is serious about reducing taxes. They see this in the shadow of President Obama’s $1.5 Trillion tax increase, and his continued attacks on productive society.

People have been leery – disgusted! – with Obamacare. They have heard all the talk about the need to repeal, or at the very least, to defund Obamacare. The personal story of Cain’s fight with Stage 4 colon cancer hit home with voters. They can visualize what their lives will be like under socialized medicine. Cain is alive because of an unencumbured health care system, where patients and doctors work towards success. Cain is clear: He would be dead under Obamacare. America was listening.

There have been some who have used Cain’s victory to combat the ignorant words of actor Morgan Freeman. On Piers Morgan’s show on CNN, Morgan stated:

FREEMAN: Look at, look, the Tea Partiers…Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term. What’s, what does that, what underlines that? “Screw the country. We’re going to whatever we do to get this black man, we can, we’re going to do whatever we can to get this black man outta here”

(PIERS) MORGAN: But is that necessarily a racist thing?

FREEMAN: It is a racist thing.

Why would Republicans or members of the Tea Party think it necessary to vindicate themselves from the words of Freeman, who did nothing more than reiterate the tired Racer meme popularized by Garofalo and Keith Olbermann? When Cain was asked for his response to Freeman’s accusations, Cain pointed out the problem with Morgan’s statement:

“Most of the people that are criticizing the Tea Partiers about having a racist element, they have never been to a Tea Party…Name calling is something that is going to continue in this because they don’t know how to stop this movement and this movement is making a big difference in politics…”

Cain didn’t mention his race. He didn’t mention being black. He didn’t mention his skin color. Cain did what Cain does: He focused on the statement, gave a thoughtful, straightforward analysis and moved on.

It is this candid, direct approach that is attractive to the American people. Cain doesn’t make excuses; he proposes solutions. He admits his mistakes, talks about what he is learning and focuses on giving America a clear set of rules, policies and procedures. Cain does what Obama can not; walking the walk after talking the talk.

If there is anything to take from Cain’s impressive victory in the Florida Straw Poll, its that the mainstream media will not be deciding who the GOP candidate is. The idea that America’s choices are reduced to Mitt Romney or Rick Perry are over. Herman Cain has joined the top tier, and he got there with hard work, an engaging personality and a great message. How long he stays there is up to Cain and the voters, not the MSM.

Einstein, Gore and that Pesky Science

September 26, 2011 articles, blog, Featured, Tony Katz No comments

Recently, scientists at the CERN labratory stumbled upon something so simply remarkable that they had to test, double check, and retest themselves. When they realized it was happening, they opened up their findings to the world:

You can go faster than the speed of light.

Researchers were sending Neutrinos – sub-atomic particles – on a 730+km ride from Geneva to the Gran Sasso underground laboratory in Italy. They noticed that the neutrinos were arriving ahead of schedule. It was only fractions of a second, but this is the world of physics!, and every nano-second counts. This is Einstein’s world – Albert Einstein – who theorized over 100 years ago that nothing could travely faster than light in a vacuum; a speed of 186,282 miles per hour.

The implications are overwhelming, even to those of us who are not physicists, or had to double check to see if I spelled physicist properly. Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to the field of Physics, though not for his Theory of Relativity. However, that is how we know him. All of us know him. We call smart kids “Einsteins.” There is a kids cartoon show called “Little Einsteins.” He has, in American culture, been cannonized. And its possible that he is wrong!

Ain’t science great? Over 100 years of a theory, used as the basis for physicists all around the world, and – by chance! – a subatomic particle on its way to Italy can possibly prove him wrong. Possibly, because the scientific community is going to be studying this data for a long time. There will be experimentation, there will be arguments, there will be calls for more studies and more experimentation, and, certainly, many more arguments. Jenny Thomas of University College London, stated:

The impact of this measurement, were it to be correct, would be huge. In fact it would overturn everything we thought we understood about relativity and the speed of light…

If one Albert can be wrong, why not two? For years now, former US Vice President Al Gore has been pushing the thesis of anthroprogenic (man-made) global warning. He has made movies about his thesis – An Inconvenient Truth. It won an Oscar. His thoughts on global warming have won him a Nobel Prize (for Peace, not science.)

Gore’s thesis has not been a part of American thought for a century…it’s existed for about 10 years (figuring he wasn’t aggressive about his ideas until after he was out of elected office.) Yet many scientists took to it as if it was oxygen. It was a must-have. It was conclusive. At a 2009 conference presented by the Wall Street Journal, when confronted by environmental skeptic Bjorn Lomberg about the validity of global warming, Gore stated clearly:

The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue…It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake…

Neither was the Theory of Relativity, until a mid September day when a neutrino did what was supposed to be – quite literally – impossible. The science of global warming is already in huge dispute. The emails discovered from East Anglia University were so damning that the controversy was renamed Climategate. Those emails, according to the article’s author James Deliingpole “…suggest Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.”

Yet, those who argue the existing science, or even argue that the scientific community hasn’t gone through this “chapter and verse,” are vilified in the press, by the United Nations, by the ever-violent environmental movement. The Discovery Building in Silver Spring, MD was taken hostage by a man who wanted more content covering global warming (he also referred to human babies as “parasitic!”) Green organization 1010global.org, in a slickly produced video on YouTube asked school kids to lower their carbon footprint by 10%. Those that chose not to were blown up in the video!

I’m not a scientist, yet I understand that scientists pride themselves on pushing the envelope. Science doesn’t have politics, it has an answer. And that answer is only good until someone comes along with a better answer. Einstein has reigned supreme for over 100 years, and only now is there the possibility of a more complete understanding of the universe. Gore is no Einstein, and no one will ever proudly proclaim that their child is a “little Gore.” The discovery in CERN and Gran Sasso only continues to prove that Gore, and his fundamentalist cronies in the Church of Environmentalism, don’t care about science, its methods or its realities.

APM EXCLUSIVEHigh School Teacher calls Tea Party leader “Nazi”

September 21, 2011 articles, blog, Featured, Tony Katz No comments

A panel conversation on the DREAM Act turned nasty when a public school teacher told the panel that they want him to act like an ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) Agent, and round up students who are in the country illegally. The teacher followed up by calling one of the panelists, a Hispanic Tea Party leader, a “Nazi.”

(video shot by Eric Adam of Tea Party Productions)

Jonathan Bryant, a government teacher at a local high school in the area, took the microphone and quickly made sure to recognize the kids in attendance, to which he received boisterous applause. Bryant then responded to a comment made by one of the panelists, Schuylar Crist – a supporter of the Minuteman movement and a coordinator for US Border Watch. Bryant said that it seemed that Crist wanted him, as a teacher, to act like an ICE Agent, and report students who are in the country illegally. When Crist was able to respond, he said,

“The fact of the matter is, if they’re in that classroom illegally, then the school administration has a responsibility of reporting them…under 287-G, the San Antonio police department…has that obligation.”

Bryant quickly retorted, “So you would have students in this room deported?” Crist shot back, “If they were illegal, you bet I would…in a heartbeat.” Crist was roundly booed by the students in the room. The moderator, KSTX reporter Hernan Rozemberg, quieted the crowd, and allowed a response from San Antonio Tea Party Leader George Rodriguez. Rodriguez said,

Again folks, if the person is here illegally, and is breaking the law, they have broken the law or are breaking the law, what do you want us to say? You know what I would have…I would have you teach more balanced, conservative thoughts, rather than just bringing folks that bring libreal ideals and placards here.

Without any hesitation, Bryant responded:

I mean you could just say what you are, a Nazi.

With some of his students applauding in the background, most of the room seemed to be audibly taken back by the comment. The moderator again tried to take control of the conversation. However, Rodriguez continued, “There it is. There’s the hate. There’s the hate.” Bryant shot back, “It’s an objective observation, that’s all.”

Rozemberg then tried to bring about decorum to the conversation, stating that as a teacher one needs to be, “…very careful about using those kinds of names and accusations…they may not be the best example to set for students.”

Along with Crist, Rodriguez and Rozemberg, the rest of the panel included retired Lieutenant General – and now Democratic Senate candidate – Ricardo Sanchez, immigration attorney Marisol Perez and college student Carolina Canizales, who admits she is in the country illegally.

It is clear that Bryant knew his students were in the room, and wanted to score some cheap points with them. Bryant could have spoken about a teacher’s responsibility, which is to teach, not deport. But, when speaking to Crist, Bryant tried to embarrass Crist rather than engage the conversation. All of Bryant’s words seemed poised for a set-up.

What also is clear is that Bryant, a government teacher, has no concept of what a Nazi is. Certainly it is beyond laughable that Rodriguez could be called such a name. But, for Bryant, those who think like him and those unfortunate enough to be his students, the term Nazi is now something you equate with someone you don’t like, rather than with a totalitarian regime that murdered 13 million people in the name of ethnic purity.

Finally, one should give kudos to Rozemberg for admonishing the words of Bryant. However, we can put to rest any idea of “civility” and “new tone” from the vast majority of the liberal Left. The outlandish vitriol is stronger than ever, and does not change – even in front of their students.

The Sickness of Cleaver’s Intellectual Dishonesty

September 20, 2011 articles, blog, Tony Katz No comments

congressional-black-caucus-head-emanuel-cleaver-if-obama-were-white

Recently, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) lamented the situation of the nation, and specifically the inaction of the White House. Cleaver candidly told The Miami Herald:

If [former President] Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House…There is a less-volatile reaction in the CBC (Congressional Black Caucus) because nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president.

Intellectual dishonesty is a disease. It rots the mind; it rots the soul. Cleaver’s quip reminded me of Evan Sayet’s 2007 Heritage Foundation speech, “Regurgitating The Apple: How the Modern Liberal Thinks.” Sayet speaks brilliantly, offering tangible examples of the rot that intellectual dishonesty brings the purveyor. At one moment, (paraphrasing) he refers to the fact that liberals, in an effort not to be bigoted (for what could be worse than bigotry) will purposefully dumb themselves down so as not to acknowledge reality. How else, Sayet posits, can you explain the TSA’s decisions on whom to screen at the airport?

Cleaver’s comments are not new to the CBC or its members. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA,) who recently declared the Tea Party can go to hell and she’ll help them get there, voiced the CBC’s impatience with the Obama White House:

We’re supportive of the president, but we getting tired, y’all…We want to give [Obama] every opportunity, but our people are hurting. The unemployment is unconscionable. We don’t know what the strategy is.

Cleaver and Waters reflect America’s frustration: Obama isn’t doing anything right. No one knows what his strategy is. He needs a wake up call. America is tired of waiting.

America has had enough. Enough of Obama’s failings on the economy, his blundering in the Middle East ahead of the UN vote for so-called Palestinian statehood, his overall ignorant foreign policy, the continual push for increased taxes, his constant politicking instead of leadership.

The Congressional Black Caucus, however, won’t allow themselves to take the next logical step – call Obama’s time in office a failure, and back a new candidate. If that is too extreme for the CBC, certainly they could march on the White House, they could send their demands to the President on what must come next to secure a better tomorrow for our children. The CBC could, should, (must?) engage the President, and point out his consistent failures so that they no longer plague the American citizens.

But because the President is black, the CBC turns the other way. They admit they’re angry and frustrated. They admit that things aren’t going right. They admit that there is no strategy. At least some admit, according to Cleaver, that the president is a “failure.” But rather than tell the president what they really think, they choose the path Sayet described almost five years ago, to intentionally dumb themselves down.

The CBC simply cannot bring themselves to chastise the first Black President. They cannot allow themselves to be honest, because the color of their skin matches the color of his skin. The CBC has chosen color over character. They chose to be intellectually dishonest, because it sounds a lot better than what they really are. Racist.

The Leftist White House whitewash of Solyndra

September 17, 2011 articles, blog, Tony Katz No comments

Tony Katz, host of The Tony Katz Radio Spectacular, was recently the Featured Story on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism.com with his story about how the Leftist press and pundits are trying to white wash the Solyndra scandal. Here is an excerpt. For the full story, click here:

In a piece on Politico, liberal standard bearer Sally Kohn posted her response to the growing Solyndra scandal, in which the Obama White House aggressively pushed through $535 million in loans to a company that was not financially sound, nor capable of providing the product or returning the loan.

Typical of a smear (where is our AttackWatch?) Kohn states:

The Bush administration initiated loans to Solyndra – and tried to push them through before Obama was inaugurated. Since the loan went through, knowledgeable private investors – high-powered Democrats and Republicans – have invested in Solyndra as well. But Solyndra couldn’t compete with Chinese counterparts because the Chinese government subsidizes its green jobs industry 30 times more than we do in the United States, helping jumpstart the new industry.

You see the problem? As Kohn wants it positioned, the issue is not that the Obama Administration pushed through bad loans, it’s that the Chinese are way better than the United States. That, while preventing its citizens from using the Internet and jailing those who publicly disagree with the Communist government, the Chinese care more about the environment because the government takes the people’s money and gives it to government run/coordinated/controlled “green” industries.

Anyone want to guess how much CO2 and other pollutants China puts into the atmosphere? It’s a lot.

This desire to subsidize the green industry is not solely the purview of Kohn…..

Read the full story here.

McCain 2012?

September 16, 2011 articles, blog, Tony Katz 2 comments

A booth at the California GOP Convention in Los Angeles, CA, was seen touting the Arizona Senator, and 2008 Presidential Candidate, as the needed candidate for 2012. Is this smart thinking, or is this the problem with the establishment GOP?

The GOP Candidate – as chosen by GLEE!

September 16, 2011 articles, blog, Tony Katz No comments

On the hit FOX show “Glee,” which centers around a “trying to fit in” group of high school student who come together to sing and dance their way to approval, they have come up with a very cutesy maneuver: emulating the sluttiest of high school students, the stars of Glee’s fake McKinley High School, when they “hook up” on the show, combine names to create lovable couple names to call themselves.

When good girl ingenue and brilliant singer Rachel Berry got together with resident bad boy Puckerman, the resulting couple was “Puckleberry” (Puckerman + Berry.) When the same Berry finally found her hero in intellectually challenged, but all-around good-guy quarterback Finn Hudson, the result was “Finchel” (Finn + Rachel). When Finn’s widowed mother married the widower father of character Kurt Hummel, the result of the new brothers was Furt (Finn + Kurt.)

However, what if you could take this construct into real life? As the myriad of GOP debates continue, how often can one wonder – aloud, and to themselves – I wish a candidate could be one part A, two parts B and just a smidgen of C. So, here are, with the inspiration of Glee, the “Wish We Had” candidates in the GOP field:

- CainGrich (Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain)

There may very well be something in the Georgia water that makes straight talkers. If applause lines translated into votes, Gingrich would have already won this race. If sheer determination and a brilliant back story translated into votes, Cain would have already won this race. Together, they fill in the voids. Brilliant historical perspective, strong work ethic, willing to take on the establishment press, unwilling to yield on America’s security. Take Cain’s penchant for plans and planning, and add Gingrich’s consistently well thought out thesis on near every subject, and what obstacle facing the United States could not be surmounted?

- PaulTorum (Rick Santorum and Ron Paul)

The knocks on these two gentlemen are well established. Paul, has a view of foreign policy that is dangerous. Santorum is too focused on the social issues. The answer, a well-tuned fiscal policy machine that correctly posits that it is the small business owner that creates wealth in America, not government. The Paul side will keep the Santorum side in check, pushing the American ideal on AMERICA, not necessarily the world. Government will shrink under PaulTorum, and the tax code will get kicked on its backside. Yet, when danger strikes around the world, the Santorum side will recognize that - more often than not – it is better to fight the battle over there instead of waiting for the battle to come to us.

- BachNey (Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann)

If Romney had any Tea Party soul at all, he’d be a hands down favorite. However, it would require the recognition of failure (Romneycare) and the willingness to shed the establishment love (which doesn’t lead to electoral victory!) Bachmann has the soul, and Bachmann has the record. What she needs is a better message about her own real world activities. Yes, she’s an accomplished tax accountant. Yes, she’s run a business. But Romney has an incredible track record, and has the inside track with the voters on his economic expertise. Plus, Romney puts a tamper on Bachmann’s social conservative message that rankles independent voters. And, great hair.

- JohnCotter (Thaddeus McCotter and Gary Johnson)

This is an interesting pairing. Gary Johnson is the former Governor of New Mexico. His libertarian leanings did him well there; reigning in spending and building surpluses in the state. Johnson endorsed Ron Paul in 2008, and shares too many of the same foreign policy views. Thaddeus McCotter is a Congressman from Michigan, and is the only person in the race who can stand with Gingrich intellectually pound for pound. He opposed TARP, but has a unique logic to why he voted for the auto-bailout. Yet, that logic might not be bought by the voters. Both would bring less government, an advance in state’s rights and (with McCotter) a cogent foreign policy. Perhaps if they share a podium, maybe someone will let them into the debate?!

- PerrIani (Rudy Guiliani and Rick Perry)

Rudy Guiliani isn’t in this race…yet…but someone needs to defend the border! Perry is the clear front runner, but his two debate performances should set off the following feeling – I like him, but is he a bit fuzzy? You can’t go against the Texas record, nor his three election victories for Governor. Jobs in Texas are going gangbusters, and his biggest contribution has been keeping government out of the way of private sector growth. But he muddied the waters on conversations about the border, and even with admitting his mistakes over Gardasil and forced vaccinations, his apology seemed wilted. Guiliani knows what it’s like to take heat from the press, and come out on top. He also fully understands the security needs of the United States. Yet, any inclination he has to the centrist concept of governing (translation: capitulating to the Left in order to get invited to a few more Christmas parties!) will be assuaged by the Perry side.

- Huntsman (John Huntsman and ?)

He’s still looking for a date. I don’t think he’ll find one.

The Shame of Paul Krugman

September 11, 2011 articles, blog, Tony Katz No comments

As America passed with solemn tribute the murder of 3000 citizens 10 years after September 11th, 2001, social media networks, like Facebook, were filled with tributes, thanks, passages from the bible, and pleas. Amongst those pleas, that we spend no time on 9/11 engaging in politics. We have many days ahead to talk about our ideas, our ideals, our desires for America and the best course of action for America. 9/11 is just not the day for politics.

And, as Americans, we watched the tributes on Saturday at Shanksville, PA. And again, the social media networks were filled with video and audio from the day. Specifically, people marveled at the words of former Presidents Bush and Clinton. For whatever we think of their politics, their time in office or their time out of office, they understood what we understand – now was not the time for politics or pettiness. 9/11 is something we, as a nation, survived together. We lost, we suffered, we felt anger, we are still angry. But we survived. For all of our problems, the republic is still here.

Yet, there are those who don’t understand. Who don’t have the basic humanity one assumes would exists in the hearts and souls of Americans. Who think their lofty position has entrusted upon them a higher intelligence, when all they have is farcical audacity and, indeed, deep seeded hate. One of those is Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning Economist who fancies himself an intellectual. As America has learned, we need people of intellect. Pseudo-intellectuals always lead to unmitigated disaster.

From Krugman’s blog in The New York Times:

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

Krugman didn’t get the memo about how to act on 9/11. (As if a memo on how to be a human being is actually necessary!) It’s like he’s wearing a clown costume to a funeral. Because Krugman is a clown, and 9/11 is a funeral. To start, Krugman’s elitism makes him think that he knows what people in America are thinking. His elitism has also immediately turned 9/11 in to a class war. People on the “right” know that what happened after 9/11 was deeply shameful? This isn’t true about people on the left? Actually, this isn’t true at all! It is a simpleton’s strawman argument to force through a failed meme – the left is more compassionate than the right. (A meme that is also destroyed by posting such a hateful, thoughtless article on September 11th.)

The attack continues, in discussing the “fake heroes” – Kerik, Guiliani and Bush. If you ask anyone on the right, the heroes of 9/11 are the ones who stayed behind when they could have run to safety, and in doing so saved countless lives. The heroes of 9/11 are those who ran into the buildings when others ran out. We call them First Responders – the same ones who Mayor Michael Bloomberg decided were not worthy to attend the ceremonies at Ground Zero! It would not be right to call Kerik, Guiliani or Bush “heroes” in that sense. Yet, it would be simply a false rewrite of history to deny the amazing sense of calm that former Mayor Rudy Guiliani placed in the city. That while most men cower in a situation like this, he was on the scene. He wasn’t cowering in the corner, he led the city – and by proxy the nation! – to believe that there was still a rule of law, that America was still in control of America. His strength and optimism stated clearly that New York would still be the capital of the world, and it will (we will!) return to normalcy again. It’s a far cry from Krugman’s idols, like Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and his inspiring words about Iraq, stating clearly, “…this war is lost.”

That Bush “raced to cash in” on 9/11 is just a nonsense, shameless, pathetic attack meant for cheap applause from mindless people. Did Janeane Garofalo write this for him?

Krugman continues with his ignorant screed:

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

What shame should those who lost loved ones feel? What shame should our nation have? Shame of our troops that fight for us? Shame of The Pentagon that has rebuilt? Shame in Shanksville, PA for building a memorial that I personally must get to in my lifetime? Shame of those who risked their lives for those they never met? Shame for those who spent days, weeks and even months slowly removing the debris from Ground Zero? Shame for those who work with such passion to bring about the new Freedom Tower?

Should America feel shame in a Mayor who let his city know that they will be back and better than ever? No, America should not. Should America feel shame in a President who set out to destroy the enemy that attacked us, and murdered 3000 of our fellow citizens? No, America should not. Should America feel shame that we will, year after year after year after year after year, commemorate this day, read the names of those who died, and tell our children that we learned on that day to be ever vigilant, ever strong, ever ready? No, America should not.

Krugman ended his 182-word post by stating this:

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

What is obvious is that Krugman doesn’t allow comments because Krugman is a coward. He is the image that should be juxtaposed to the men and women in uniform from that day, and every day before and since. Krugman’s cowardice should be set against Capt. Greg Amira, who was buried not once but twice in the rubble of the Twin Towers. Then, a few years later, he was called up to return to the war zone in Iraq. According to his interview on FOX News Channel, Capt. Amira gave up his disability payments – including money due him from a victim’s fund of over $1 million – to return to active duty with the US Army. He suffered injuries that forced him to spend 13 months in recovery in Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. And Paul Krugman thinks that America should be ashamed of this man, and of the thousands like him?

I feel no shame, and neither does America. The shame lies with Krugman, and those who believe his lies.

Tony Katz talks about The Palin Nation

September 5, 2011 articles, blog, Tony Katz One comment

Tony Katz, host of The Tony Katz Radio Spectacular, was one of the speakers at the Restoring America Tea Party Rally in Indianola, IA on September 3rd. Video of Tony’s speech will be up at AllPatriotsMedia.com soon. Here is his article for Pajamas Media on “Assessing the Palin Nation,” along with some incredible video:

When former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin took the stage at the Restoring America Tea Party Rally in Indianola, IA, the crowd that had sat through two and half hours of rain and humidity jumped to their feet and cheered. The view from your TV could lead you to believe it was just another rally. Being there, however, gives a whole new look into what Palin means to those who love her, and what Palin Nation will do to get her to run, and elected.

Palin’s speech, at least the bullet points, was somewhat leaked in the days prior to the event. She was going to bring a full on assault against crony capitalism, and the “good old boys” network. This has been a continual theme of Palin. She broke through that network to get elected in Alaska, and utilized this outsider approach in her introduction to the world stage as the Vice-Presidential nominee of Sen. John McCain in 2008.

She delivered. On crony capitalism, she explained clearly the perils associated with the disassociation from free markets:

This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts, of waste and influence peddling and corporate welfare. This is the crony capitalism that destroyed Europe’s economies. It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys.

When Palin posited to the crowd, “…what or who we will replace him (Obama) with…,” the crowd erupted. The chants of “Run, Sarah, Run!” went throughout the grounds. They cheered in every corner, they cheered from the booths selling every imaginable Palin-esqe tchotchke. By this time, the crowd had grown. During the rain – big rains – some of the crowd stayed in their cars, or in the booths at the top of the venue. While we could see the constant stream of cars coming in from our view on stage, we could not see where they were parked. But as the moment approached of Palin’s speech, the crowd filled in nicely for a rain soaked day.

Many looked to Palin’s speech as proof that she is going to announce, or not announce, her run for President. Those people miss the point. To understand what is happening, one needs to be on the ground with the people. You need to look into their eyes, listen to them speak, watch them react.

In Iowa, Palin has more than just love and admiration on her side. She also has a constituency. While Rep. Michele Bachmann and Governor Rick Perry both occupy the same space – the fiscal agenda that the Tea Party approves of, along with strong leanings to the social conservative side – that space is not fully explained or understood without Palin. Never mind any polling that includes Palin now, that is polling of a “maybe” Palin. Those numbers will be far different when people choose on a “candidate” Palin. And, as Palin said to huge applause and laughs – “Polls are for strippers and cross-country skiers!”

If Palin gets into the race, Bachmann will face huge challenges in Iowa. If Palin gets into the race, Perry will face challenges nationwide. More than Iowa was represented in Indianola. People came from California, Nebraska, Illinois and Missouri to name a few states. They also came from Texas. While Perry is a three-term governor, his vetting has only come from the Texas press. People on the ground feel that Palin has already been vetted by America. For more than three years, she has suffered through the whimsical and the wicked attacks. She has been called every name, used in every uninspired analogy and, simply, they see her as the stronger candidate.

Peter Singleton, who runs the Iowa chapter of Organize4Palin.com, stated clearly that both Bachmann and Perry are good at delivering rhetoric. Singleton called Perry’s record in Texas, “…not that conservative.” On Bachmann, while praising her willingness to stand up to the Obama Administration, Singleton said, “…(Bachmann) has been big on inspiring rhetoric, but has not been as strong on specific substantive policy proposals..,” like Palin has.

In her speech, Palin backed up Singleton’s thesis, and came forth with ideas. She talked about what she – or perhaps someone she approves of? – should do if President. As Jedediah Bila commented on The Daily Caller:

Most importantly, she offered real solutions, including a plan that serves as a stark contrast to our president’s perpetual empty rhetoric: repeal Obamacare, uphold the Tenth Amendment, rein in overregulation, prioritize significant and legitimate spending cuts, cancel unused stimulus money, “own up to the debt challenge that is entitlement reform,” tap into our God-given energy resources and make America “the most attractive and competitive place to do business” by eliminating all federal corporate income tax, corporate welfare and loopholes.

After it was over, Palin left the stage to sign autographs. 20 minutes later, she was still signing autographs. When it looked like she was going to finish, she turned back to sign more books, more t-shirts, more bumper stickers She didn’t stop. She signed, she smiled, she talked, she listened. All the while, the crowd pushed towards her, beckoning her, begging her for a few seconds of her time. At one moment, a young man approached, looking for Palin to sign his t-shirt. After signing the shirt, Palin gave the man a hug. He then put his hand to his mouth, and began to cry.

It was like watching a Justin Beiber fan win front row seats. It’s a reaction that you do not see at Bachmann rallies, and you will never see at a Perry rally….nor a Romney rally.

Craig Robinson, editor and publisher of The Iowa Republican.com, former political director of the Iowa Republican Party and with whom PJTV worked with to cover the Iowa Straw Poll, wrote this about Palin before the day of the event:

It takes more than just a willing politician to pull off a presidential campaign. Palin has always had the star power and charisma to succeed on the national stage, but that will only take her so far. Palin may have an inner circle that advises her, but what she needs are loyal professionals who will look out for her best interests in everything she is involved with.

To run for president you need people who will put their lives on hold and who will put their candidate’s best interests above their own. Palin doesn’t have anyone in Iowa that fits that bill. That alone is the reason why I’ve never thought she is running for president in 2012.

Robinson also stated that her speech would have to be “perfect” to avoid her “negative stereotype;” a stereotype placed upon her by the mainstream press. From all accounts, it’s clear that Palin gave a speech that clearly articulates a vision for America, her disdain for the status quo and an open question regarding who in the GOP field is really qualified to take on President Obama and lead the nation. It was a “perfect” speech for the occasion. But what of Robinson’s view that Palin simply doesn’t have the Iowa ground game to make a presidential run possible?

The Palin Nation would argue that this isn’t a normal election, and this isn’t a normal candidate. That what Robinson argues might be true of traditional politics, but Palin is not traditional. What draws people, those on the ground, is her folksy appeal. The idea that Palin is just like them; just a mom, just a wife, just worried about her nation and her children’s future. But, in politics, and her personal life, Palin is in many ways nothing like them. And politics, for all that it has changed with the Tea Party, still has rules. Money and organization do matter. Even more than that is setting the expectation. In an email, Robinson elaborated on his point:

Her speech, especially the portion where she laid out her platform, makes it hard to believe that she not going to run for president in 2012. Her ability to connect, motivate, and inspire members of the Tea Party would make her formidable populist candidate. As we have seen time and time again, the rules of campaigns past don’t apply to Sarah Palin, but the calendar and the clock still do. If Palin jumped into the race rather soon she can probably make up for lost time.

However, with the caucuses just months five months away and the possibility that they make move up to January, every second that Palin waits to announce works against her. Palin doesn’t need to do well in Iowa, she needs to win the Iowa caucuses outright. If she can’t win it here, she’s probably not going to win anywhere else. For Palin, the road to the nomination has to include a victory in the Iowa caucuses. It’s that simple.

It is anyone’s guess as to whether or not Palin announces a run for the presidency. But it is clear that the decision is all hers. Yes, she needs to have the fundamentals in place in Iowa, and nationwide, to move forward with a Presidential run. But, as Robinson and Bila point out, she has made a case – and has politically differentiated herself from the field. If she should decide, Iowa, and Palin Nation, will follow. They will campaign relentlessly. They will fundraise constantly. They will stand in the rain, in the blazing sun, in the bitter cold. They will make Obama supporters of ’08 look like chumps compared to the work they are willing to do. Palin Nation, from every indication, will not rest until their Grizzly is in the White Den. It is an authentic intangible that no other candidate, including President Obama, can engage. And it may make all the difference.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »

Archive for articles