Month: April 2012

Tony Katz On CNN, MSNBC Attack Romney, Mormons

Here is my latest article on The effort to destroy Mitt Romney is on. However, the Left is not interested in a discussion of policy. Rather, then want to instill fear in the electorate. The plan? Mention Romney is a Mormon, and try to scare the hell out of you:

CNN, MSNBC Attack Romney, Mormons

CNN has been having repeated discussions about Romney, his religion and the 2012 race. At MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell had the same conversation. Is the mainstream press starting a coordinated attack on Romney by attempting to drum up suspicion of Mormons, inciting voters and hoping it will be a self-fulfilling prophesy?

I’m not an expert on the Mormon religion, but have no real issue with Mormons. I find the concept of baptizing the dead off-putting (and baptizing Holocaust victims absurd.) But, as long as those beliefs stay in the church, and don’t make their way to federal law, I’m fine.

Im far more disgusted by those who want to push their beliefs on me via social justice (see, Obamacare) or through direct attack on the Second Amendment (see Operation Fast and Furious, or check with Katie Pavlich!)

I posted a question about this to Twitter and Facebook, and asked whether Romney’s religion would be a problem,  “…as opposed to the economy, Obamacare, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, gas prices…right?”

I was stunned to find a response from a Leftist who had no qualms with announcing his anti-Mormon stance (emphasis mine):

Write this down…America will NOT elect a Mormon as President. Although he could easily be the WORST Mormon ever. I guess he’s got that going for him. Obamacare was Romney’s idea. And to try & stop the perpetuation of a myth, the President has NO power over the price of gasoline. You’re welcome. Enjoy the next 4 years.

Never mind that the President CAN affect gas prices. However, he has to be willing to engage the natural resources at our disposal, and effectively end US dependence on foreign oil. (It also helps if they don’t believe in necessarily skyrocketing energy prices!) But what to make of the clear pronouncement that America will not vote for Mormons? Is that true?

The answer is no. People voted for Sen. Harry Reid in Nevada. They voted for Rep. Jeff Flake in Arizona, and Rep. Raul Labrador in Idaho. They vote for Democrat Mormons and Republican Mormons. Yes, Americans from all across America will vote for Mormons. Even in American Samoa, Rep. Eni Faleomavaega serves in the House as a non-voting member. He is a Mormon.

It’s not that America is afraid of a Mormon. It’s that the MSM and Leftists WANT America to be afraid of electing a Mormon.

At Newsbusters, Scott Whitlock remarked on how MSNBC is trying to connect Romney and the Mormon church to issues of race (emphasis mine):

In his piece, (BuzzFeed writer and Mormon McKay) Coppins cited a number of MSNBC regulars, including Marc Lamont Hill and Joy Ann Reid:

MSNBC analyst and Miami Herald columnist Joy Ann Reid — a prominent voice on race issues in a crucial swing state — said Romney deserves to be challenged on his church’s past.

“I think if he were a child when anti-black policies were in place, that would be different,” said Reid. “But he was an adult, active in the ministry of his church, and it’s fair to ask, if the media cares to — and they should — what he thought of those policies at the time. The question is very much legitimate.

Does that mean the question is also legitimate to ask of President Obama, and his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Of course not! Those questions have been deemed racist by the MSM. In 2010, Ed Driscoll documented how Leftist journalist involved with the Journolist worked to kill stories about Wright to protect Obama (emphasis mine):

At the Daily Caller, Jonathan Strong rummages through the JournoList and describes how documents from mid-2008 “show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright:”

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.

In 2008, CNN declared, while interviewing then candidate Obama, that the network was a “Wright Free Zone.

Discussions about Romney and policy are fair game, and should be engaged. But the Left can not dictate the terms of the discussion ever, just like they are attempting to do. CNN must immediately come out with a statement that they will be a Mormon Free Zone. MSNBC must be eschewed for their obvious Mormon-baiting. And how dare O’ Donnell (an admitted socialist) even engage a conversation about religion! As Lenin wrote:

Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated.

The MSM’s coordinated attempts to influence voters through peddling fear and religious bigotry will not be allowed to stand.

Tony Katz On Google And Obama At Odds

Here is my latest article on Obama thinks entrepreneurship owes something to the government that allows it; Google co-Founder Sergey Brin thinks government overreach stifles innovation. Maybe they don’t love each other as much as we thought?:

Google At Odds With President Obama

The President and Google co-Founder Sergey Brin are at odds. While Brin argues that unnecessary regulations inhibit entrepreneurship and innovation, Obama takes the position that government – and regulatory schemes – makes entrepreneurship and innovation possible.

Brin recently explained to The Guardian how government interference, and the dominance of Apple and Facebook make it extremely difficult to innovate in today’s Internet environment: (emphasis mine)

The threat to the freedom of the internet comes, he claims,from a combination of governments increasingly trying to control access and communication by their citizens, the entertainment industry’s attempts to crack down on piracy, and the rise of “restrictive” walled gardens such as Facebook and Apple, which tightly control what software can be released on their platforms.Brin said he and co-founder Larry Page would not have been able to create Google if the internet was dominated by Facebook. “You have to play by their rules, which are really restrictive,” he said. “The kind of environment that we developed Google in, the reason that we were able to develop a search engine, is the web was so open. Once you get too many rules, that will stifle innovation.”

A few days earlier, President Obama, lambasting the Ryan Plan, took credit for allowing companies like Facebook and Google to exist: (emphasis mine)

“I believe in investing in basic research and science because I understand that all these extraordinary companies that are these enormous wealth-generators — many of them would have never been there; Google, Facebook would not exist, had it not been for investments that we made as a country in basic science and research,” Obama said. “I understand that makes us all better off.”

Facebook and Apple have the right to exist, and no one is forcing Brin, or any citizen, to use their products or services. However, Obama is clearly saying that government involvement has created the opportunities for companies to exist. Obama would also lead one to believe that successful companies owe something to the government which “allows” them to exist, but in fact, government’s main role in Facebook and Google was to stay out of the way.

In 2008, then-CEO Eric Schmidt was a supporter of Obama. He claimed that his campaigning for Obama was personal, and that “Google was officially neutral” on the presidential race. Brin is not neutral. And chief among his complaints, along with his rivals’ internet dominance, is interference from governments. In discussing China, he was amazed at how much power they have:

He said five years ago he did not believe China or any country could effectively restrict the internet for long, but now says he has been proven wrong. “I thought there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle, but now it seems in certain areas the genie has been put back in the bottle,” he said.

But the genie is out of the bottle. 2012 is a much different year in 2008. The now-CEO of Google is advocating for less government intervention to get increased innovation. Obama is clearing saying (as he has said before) that government is responsible for allowing entrepreneurs to exist and innovate, and, in fact, are owed something by those companies.

Two very different visions for the future.

Tony Katz On – Obama Is Making The Case For His Own Impeachment

Here is my latest article on With President Obama’s assault on the Supreme Court, unconstitutional recess appointments and open mic “gaffe” to Russian President Medvedev, is Obama making the case for his own Impeachment?:

Obama Is Making The Case For His Own Impeachment

The President’s latest tactic, taking on the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review with a preemptive striking against justices who might contemplate an unfavorable ruling on ObamaCare, following on the heels of last week’s “open mic gaffe” in which he explained Russian President Dimitri Medvedev that he’d have more “flexibility” to sacrifice American security after his re-election, lead to one question: Is Barack Obama making his own case for impeachment?

Obama is no longer fit for the job. I don’t say this lightly. I don’t say it with glee or joy. And I don’t say it with malice. But rather with recognition that the Office of the President must be protected. And the citizens of the United States must protect themselves from a president who is either incapable or unwilling to fulfill his responsibilities to the American people and respect the Constitutionally proscribed limitations on his powers.

Obama’s pronouncement about the Supreme Court was so disingenuous and divisive as alone to warrant impeachment proceedings. Obama, a one-time senior lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, told a group of reporters at a Rose Garden news conference that since the Affordable Care Act was passed by a “strong majority,” a finding of unconstitutionality would constitute “judicial activism.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Judicial activism is when judges exceed their appropriate powers and legislate from the bench. Judicial review, in contrast, is one of the Supreme Court’s primary functions.

As Leon Wolf of RedState asks, has the professor never heard of Marbury vs. Madison (the 1803 case affirming the Court’s right of judicial review)? Further, if Obama believes the Court has no right to review – – and invalidate if necessary – – a law, so long as it was duly passed by Congress, what does he believe IS the Court’s role? What exactly did he teach his students at the University of Chicago?

On the international stage, Obama stunned US citizens and allies with his thinly veiled promise to Medvedev that he would put the missile shield – – a key component of our defense strategy – on the back burner after he’s re-elected, said with disdain for Americans. This stunning statement is worthy of a conversation about treason. A conversation that should take place in front of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Obama was undaunted by the fact the mic was open, and every disgusting word was caught on tape. Since then, he has twice joked about the conversation and the open mic. TWICE! Once, though completely improper, could have been dismissed as self-deprecating humor; trying to make the best out of a bad situation (it would not have worked, but it could have been dismissed.) Twice means not only does Obama not think it’s a big deal, but no one around him thinks it’s a big deal. How is that not dangerous?

Obama sees himself as above the law, and sees the Law as a detriment to his “moral” goals. As Ben Shapiro (also a Harvard educated lawyer) pointed out:

President Obama has made it his mission to wield the club against the other two branches of government in a manner unprecedented in American history. Yesterday, Obama, rejecting the heart of judicial review for purposes of his own power, stated, “I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That, of course, is precisely what the Supreme Court does on a daily basis….But for Obama, the Supreme Court is an obstacle to his own power.

In August, 2011, I wrote:

President Obama is actively engaging in a pre-meditated attack on the United States Constitution, and the American way of life. His words are not missteps, like 57 states or the insulting inability to properly pronounce the word corpsman. Obama is attempting to plant the seed into the already vitriolic and boisterous Progressives that the problem with America is the thing that makes America great – the rule of law that does not allow government to rule us.

Nothing has changed. In fact, with this latest round of assaults on the Court, they have gotten worse. Add to this Obama’s unconstitutional recess appointments. How long until we say aloud – The Nation Is Under Attack From Within?