On Monday, I posted an article over at TownHall.com entitled “NRA Derangement Syndrome” on the the politicos, celebrities and Progressive social media who blamed the NRA for the massacre in Newtown, calling their members “murderers” who themselves should be shot.
Apparently, their ravings weren’t just hyperbole, as I received an email from someone who read the article, and quite literally wants me dead.
In part, I wrote:
Blaming the NRA for the horror of Sandy Hook Elementary is unfounded. Support of the 2nd Amendment did not lead to the murder of these children and their teachers. The millions of members of the NRA, by actively supporting their right to bear arms, did not condone, assist or make possible Lanza’s terror spree. To think otherwise is irrational, and dangerous.
The email I received from “mtbrooks12″ took issue with my article. It was short, full of spelling mistakes and altogether taken as a threat:
YOU ARE A ASSHOLE AND YOU ARE THE ONE THAT SHOULD BE WIPED FROM EARTH! WHATS WRONG? CAN’T YOU BUY A GUN OR IS YOUR RECORD TO BAD! YOU ARE A PIMP LITTLE WORM AND A FREEK OF NATURE!
I have no idea what a “pimp little worm” is. I have never heard that said before, nor was I able to find a mention of it in Urban Dictionary or a simple Google search. I did find “freek” in Urban Dictionary, but I’m pretty sure mtbrooks12 was not applauding my bedroom prowess.
Most concerning of course, is not the sophomoric use of language but rather the tone of the email, which is vitriolic and hateful, and in fact, suggests I should be murdered. What else could, “you are the one that should be wiped from Earth” possibly mean?
I wrote of those who are attacking the ability of lawful citizens to defend themselves and the ones they love, and was told I should be killed. Just one more reason that I am a member of the NRA, and one more reason why I actively and proudly support the 2nd Amendment.
On FOX and Friends, I talk with Alisyn Camerota and Clayton Morris about the continued violence at #OWS events across the country, as well as the truth behind their claims of “income inequality.” I end with asking the questions that the MSM refuses to ask President Obama - Why do you condone the violence of OWS? Why does you condone the bullying of school children? Why are you silent?
I am now a contributor to Daily Caller. In my latest article, I discuss my most recent appearance on RT, and the amazing number of comments I received from probable OWS supporters. What they have to say to me, about me and about what they want to do to me is, in a word, shocking….but one wonders if those words are also not surprising.
OWS supporters are doing a poor job of convincing me that they’re not anti-Semites
In a Wednesday appearance on the Russia Today television network, I discussed the violent confrontations between police officers and Occupy Wall Street protesters earlier this week in Oakland, California. I made it clear that I don’t condone police brutality. In fact, I am vehemently opposed to an oppressive police state. I also explained that though I disagree with the protesters’ radical agenda, I agree that cronyism is a real problem. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers on Wall Street, Main Street or any other street.
The segment lasted for the better part of 20 minutes. I had a spirited but friendly back-and-forth with my fellow panelist, OWS supporter Charlie McGrath. We agreed that there is no such thing as “too big to fail.” We agreed that violent rhetoric won’t help Occupy Wall Street get its message across (I still question what OWS’s message is, but certainly large-scale skirmishes with Occupiers hurling paint at police punctuated by tear gas being used on the protesters won’t make the message any clearer.) McGrath and I also agreed that it was strange that the show’s host kept showing clips of Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello at OWS rallies and asking us to comment on what he was saying.
Despite all these areas of agreement, the OWS-supporting viewers weren’t satisfied. In fact, many were furious. While a few supported my being on the show, the majority focused on my contention that many Occupiers are anti-Semites. Note: I have not edited the below comments from the Russia Today YouTube channel.
One commenter, “largegrainofsalt,” asserted that the fact that the protesters have observed Jewish holidays proves that they aren’t anti-Semitic:
tony wasn’t just an ass, he was demonstrably wrong. the protests are not in any way anti-semetic. several of the larger protest held events for a jewish holiday recently.
His comment was surrounded by others that undermine his thesis:
Tony Katz? What kind of surname is Katz? Another Jew-Zionist pig!!!!! This should speak volumes of what his message and hidden intent is: to protect the criminal dirt-bag jew element who have been ruining the world for decades. — waddietwo
Here is my latest piece on TownHall.com, discussing the inability to compare the Tea Party and OWS. One movement – the Tea Party – has a vision and values. One movement – OWS – has no vision, no values and is not a movement at all.
Tea Party and OWS — No Comparison
Steve Annear has an article on Metro.US about the new safety team circulating the Tent City Square, a.k.a. Occupy Boston, a satellite of the original Occupy Wall Street. According to Annear, a team of eight people – armed with neon vests and walkie-talkies – patrol the make-shift town to keep the “residents” safe.
Why is this necessary? According to the article:
On the heels of an incident last Sunday night, when a heroin addict allegedly pulled a knife on protesters and urinated on a tent….One guard donning a neon vest, who declined to give his name, said they are trying to keep the peace by “rounding up junkies and trying to kick them out,” adding that the so-called junkies have continually been a problem.
I have organized, hosted and spoken at Tea Party events around the country, and we never – ever! – have had to organize a safety team. Tea Party participants, who’ve gathered in cities and towns all across the country, have never had to worry about their safety from within the movement – - only from without. (see: SEIU) Never once has there been a report of a “heroin addict” urinating on tents….then again, there have been no tents! After each event, Tea Partiers return to their families, work/job search, school, etc. Heroin addicts don’t seem to be attracted to the Tea Party. And we make sure to have our rallies near public restrooms (usually associated with the properly-permitted spaces) or provide port-o-potties.
There is a difference in the participants, because there is a difference in the cause. The Tea Party is based on what I call “The Four Basics” – - The Constitution, Capitalism, Fiscal Responsibility and Smaller Government. In a broader sense, it is based on shared ideals for the country. The Tea Party advocates smaller, leaner, more pragmatic government; equality of opportunity. We do, all of us in the Tea Party, “…hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
People are made equal. What they do with their lives is up to them! The Occupiers are promoting anti-Semitism, the return of the guillotine (while “maybe” a joke at first, many think it is a good idea, and that I should be under it!), a hodge-podge of hate, vitriol and false truths.
The people of OWS don’t look to the future, to a better America, to a free and prosperous people unencumbered by government overreach to pursue their dreams, wants and desires. OWS is long removed from its proposed (legitimate?) objective – exposing and objecting to the federal government picking winners and losers on Wall Street and the too-close relationship often engaged between – and is now focused on, well, nothing. They are promoting Communism, a failed system of failed people predicated on a impossible, inchoate proposition that all people can be forced into equality.
The Tea Party promotes a better future, based on the prodigy of our Founding Fathers. OWS promotes lies, based on the abject failure of the Marxist thesis. Their once (potentially?) worthwhile message has been, unfortunately, hijacked by proud socialists and Marxists, the Democratic party, the unions, and a smattering of Hollywood – the latter three all hoping that OWS can be the Left’s version of the Tea Party, thus giving them something positive to look to in this upcoming election season.
The article continued, with one of the “guards” explaining the situation:
“People wander in here high and drunk and try and get in tents…You’re always going to have drunk a—holes, wherever you go,” he said. “The safety team is pretty efficient. It’s not like this is a junkie haven.”
The reality is, you don’t have drunk “a—holes” wherever you go. It actually depends on where you go. The Tea Party went towards a more prosperous America, rooted in the Constitution that allows people to live to the moment of their happiness. OWS went towards “eat the rich,” urinating on tents, threatening reporters, blaming the Jews and sexual harassment.
Here is my article about Occupy Wall Street, as originally posted on BigGovernment.com. In it, I discuss my appearance on RT.com’s program CrossTalk, where two OWS supporters stated clearly that the desire is to transform America into a direct democracy. Also, when the show was put on YouTube, it received over 900 comments – many of them violent and anti-Semitic in nature. Some of them are listed in the article. Reader, be warned:
In the beginning, I was willing to accept that a group of unhappy citizens utilized their First Amendment rights to protest what they believe to be an injustice (as I have written here and here): the picking of winners and losers by government with a weak coverup attempt via cronyism. I accepted, at first, their claims of being a “non-violent” group wanting to have their grievances heard.
Yet, as the “movement” began to grow, it became obvious that being “non-violent” is “non-correct.” Quickly, the OWS protesters were co-opted by those who believe in violence as a legitimate means of achieving their objectives: Van Jones, who wants to see an “American Autumn” emulating the Arab Spring (which was, and still is, very violent), Michael Moore — who has stated publicly that the “rich” can give up their money now, peacefully, or later (though he doesn’t elaborate on what happens to get the money later, one can imagine), and even Roseanne Barr got into the mix. Barr actually said she longed for the return of the guillotine and re-education camps for those who don’t give up their wealth willingly.
In my appearance on CrossTalk, I was joined by Jason Del Gandio – assistant professor of rhetoric at Temple University and author of “Rhetoric for Radicals,” (a handbook for 21st century activists) and Kevin Zeese, organizer of October 2011.org and activist. In that program a few things came to the surface:
Both Del Gandio and Zeese pushed the meme that the organizations across the nation were non-violent. Zeese made it clear that they were not allowing themselves to be co-opted by Jones, Moore, the Democrat party or anyone else, claiming:
Van Jones is not part of the Occupy movement…he’s a Democrat…if Obama and the Democrats embrace us, they gonna be very sad to see that we will be protesting them as well…we see them as part of the crony capitalist corrupt economy that has resulted in 400 people having as much wealth as 154 million, not because they are smarter or work harder, but because they are politically connected and essentially bribing through campaign donations…
I pointed out that Democrats have both embraced and have co-opted the movement. How else could you explain the petition on the DCCC website asking people to support the OWS crowd? I then pointed out that the issue is not “crony capitalism.” Who wouldn’t be opposed to people who break the law to get ahead? Rather, the issue is that OWS is opposed to Capitalism and people being able to keep what they earn. The conversation went south from there:
Me : “You’re opposed to Capitalism. That’s the problem. You’re opposed to the idea of people working for what they earn…you think it should just be given to them. This is what you believe.”
Zeese: “That is not true. That’s not true. You’re absolutely wrong about that. You’re absolutely wrong about that, Tony.”
Me: “I’m not wrong about that. Take a look at your own words and your own actions. Take a look at the video by Andrew Breitbart where people are booing Capitalism.”
Zeese: “Tony is a loudmouth who makes up stuff. Tony is a loudmouth who makes up stuff….puts out false information.”
Let’s take a look at the video tape – courtesy of Mr. Breitbart:
People. Booing. Capitalism. It’s not made up. It’s not false information.
While there is much more in the video, the most frightening moment appears towards the end, when Del Gandio pushed the idea of “direct democracy” (emphasis mine):
Lavalle (Host): “Is this really a test of democracy in the United States? Because we talked about Capitalism but its about participation, isn’t it?”
Del Gandio: “…it’s about direct democracy. about reclaiming our democracy, redefining our democracy, repracticing our democracy in a way that is responsive to each of our wants, needs and desires.”
Me: “….we are not a direct democracy, and the Founding Fathers knew better. We’re a Constitutional Republic, that way we don’t have mob rule.”
Del Gandio: “Well, we can change it. Let’s change it.”
Me: “And from the outside looking in, that’s exactly what you have in Occupy Wall Street. You guys gotta figure that one out.”
Del Gandio: “Let’s change the system. Change the system.”
There can be no more doubt that Occupy Wall Street is NOT in favor of reforming the system but rather dismantling the system. The brazen desire of “change the system,” if uttered by a member of the Tea Party, would be front page news for weeks in the mainstream press. It would be followed up by the usual suspects claiming that the Tea Party is in favor of violent overthrow of the government.
The Tea Party believes in government, just less of it. Occupy Wall Street has shown that it does not favor free markets, nor our Constitutional foundation. They wish to change both.
When the clip of my appearance was posted to the RT YouTube channel, the commenters went on a violent, homophobic, anti-Semitic rant about my appearance. While not every comment is crude, below is a sampling of those who favor the OWS movement:
Yeah, bring back the guillotine and start with the tea party bastards! –theHoundsofDoom
Tony makes me with I could punch people over TCP/IP.- HWGuyEG
tony katz is a fat pussy – cornsnakedk
HAs tony ever been punched? Id like to be the first. – MrMrEvin
The only acts of violence are by the police! don’t listen to that Jew! – murmur6666
lol, just what i expected from a tea party douche. Pull the string, get the pre-programmed ideas. Sheesh. – ForestSongUnLTD
The guillotine needs to make a comeback. – bamboo4tameshigiri
T. Katz needs a bitch slappin’. Pick me! Pick me! – phillisthebarbarian
Teabaggers need to be put in re-education camps! Roseanne Barr was right! –petersz98
Tony’s face would look good arguing from the bottom of a basket. – Will224000
What a fat fuck – arturro666
tony should be wearing a white hood… – SHACKTRESS
What a dumb Zionist tool in the bottom right corner – megamogx
will someone please violently obliterate the man on the bottom right – humanboy1221
Who is this stupid Tea Party guy. Make me want to stand up and punch his face. What a dick head!!! – nhu111
Tony do the world a favour and choke yourself, you ignorant pawn/pig of the establishment!!!! – karveljay
OHHHHH I get it, tony must affiliate with the 1% – What a fag – RoyalW1979
FUCK TONY KATZ I WORK MY FUCKING ASS OFF AND GET PAID DIRT W NO BENEFITS FUCK YOU! YOU STUPID FAGGOT COME TO WALL STREET AND COME SEE ME YOU FUCKING HOMO – fucuts
With similar anti-Semitic statements and calls for violence amongst the rank and file of the OWS crowd, this kind of vitriol is completely unsurprising. Occupy Wall Street has begun to clearly reveal exactly what it stands for–envy, hatred, and destruction.
Since the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), much ado has been made of the new tone in America. The concept of civility – how to treat one another, how to talk to one another. How two people can disagree, but not be disagreeable.
But what has come of that moment…that “teachable” moment.
First, before President Obama mentioned the words, there were the lies of Paul Krugman of the New York Times and Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, claiming that the Tea Party is the violent group, while violently lying about the Tea Party. Then, there was the Sadie Hawkins dance known as the State Of The Union, where Democrats like former Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to sit next to a Republican.
It would be comical if it weren’t so serious. No one would believe that everyone on one side of an issue were just choir boys. Certainly, I would never claim that of the Tea Party, nor of the anti-union groups that have been protesting. But what we are seeing from pro-union forces, and anti-Tea Party thugs, is a repeated record of violent behavior and assaults. These are not isolated incidents. They are interconnected.
So, The Conversation Is: When does the violence end? And will the left ever recognize their role in it?