Andrew Breitbart dead: Outspoken conservative was 43

[Jolie Rouge]

By Dylan Stableford | The Cutline – 3 hrs ago

Andrew Breitbart, the outspoken conservative writer, activist and website operator, has died unexpectedly in Los Angeles, where he lived with a wife and four young children. He was 43.

Breitbart, who may have been best known as the conservative who brought down New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, was pronounced dead at the UCLA Medical Center shortly after midnight, the Los Angeles County coroner's office told Yahoo News. The cause of death was not immediately known, a spokesman at the coroner's office said.

One of his websites, BigGovernment.com, announced his death early Thursday.

"Andrew passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles," the note on his website read. "Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love."

It's unclear what those natural causes were. A representative for the website did not immediately return a request for more information. According to the Associated Press, Breitbart collapsed while walking near his home in Brentwood. Paramedics could not revive him.

Conservatives reacted swiftly to the news. "I'm crestfallen," Rick Santorum told reporters traveling with his campaign. "What a powerful force. What a huge loss, in my opinion for our country, and certainly for the conservative movement. My prayers go out to his family. I'm really sorry to hear it."

More...
"RIP 'O Mighty Warrior!" Texas Gov. Rick Perry wrote on Twitter.

Perhaps Breitbart's biggest and most recent claim to fame was his outing of New York Rep. Anthony Weiner last June. Breitbart's BigGovernment.com website broke the original story of Weiner's lewd Twitter photo, which the Congressman initially denied was his. But, Breitbart finally forced his hand with the threat of more photos. At Weiner's infamous second press conference where he confessed his improprieties, Breitbart stole the show, preempting Weiner by grabbing the microphone and taking questions from reporters.

"I'm here for some vindication," Breitbart barked. "The media says, 'Breitbart lies, Breitbart lies, Breitbart lies.' Give me one provable lie." (Jon Stewart later compared Breitbart's scene-stealing appearance to Kanye West grabbing the spotlight from Taylor Swift at the Grammys.)

In 2010, though, Breitbart's credibility had been burned after his website posted video excerpts of a 40-minute NAACP speech by U.S. Dept. of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod that appeared to show her making racist comments. Breitbart drew heat when the speech was published in full, showing that selectively edited video had taken the remarks out of context--and Sherrod had been fired for it. (The White House later apologized for dismissing Sherrod, a longtime USDA official, and Sherrod sued Breitbart for defamation, a suit that was ongoing when he died.)

Breitbart's early foray into journalism began when he helped launch the Huffington Post before moving to the Drudge Report--where he served as Matt Drudge's deputy--and eventually launching his own cache of right-wing websites, including Breitbart.com, Breitbart.TV, Big Government, Big Hollywood, Big Journalism and Big Peace.

And in the hothouse world of online political media, they broke some big news. Breitbart--who once told Slate his "entire business model is to go on offense"--was credited with breaking a series of undercover videos showing alleged malfeasance at the offices of community-organizing group ACORN.

"All I can think of at the moment is what Andrew meant to me as a friend, starting from when we worked together," Arianna Huffington wrote in an email to Yahoo News. "His passion, his exuberance, his fearlessness. And above all, what I'm thinking of at the moment is his amazing wife Susie and their four beautiful young children."

Matt Drudge wrote in a note to readers at the top of his website: "Andrew Breitbart was a constant source of energy, passion and commitment. We shared a love of headlines, a love of the news, an excitement about what's happening."

The outpouring of condolences and reflections from conservatives--and even some liberals-- filled the airwaves and Twitter, as friends and colleagues applauded his courage and outspokenness.

"He was one of the most fearless people I ever knew," a shaken Jonah Goldberg, founding editor of the National Review Online, said on Fox News. "One of his favorite pastimes was to retweet all of the hate that people threw at him, because he considered it a badge of honor. It was his Wheaties."

"I'll remember his enormous, brawling passion and ready good cheer," ABC News' Terry Moran wrote on Twitter. "For better and worse, he reshaped modern journalism."

Ned Ryun, president of the American Majority and one of Breitbart's friends, said: "He did something many in the conservative movement are afraid to do--go right at the left and not back down. He served as an example to the rest of the conservative movement of how to fight for our values without apology or compromise."

In an update to his 2011 book, "Righteous Indignation," Breitbart emphasized his love of the chase."I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it...I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and--famously--I enjoy making enemies."

But in his final tweet, at 11:25 p.m. PST on Wednesday, the famously outspoken writer offered one follower an olive branch: "I called you a putz cause I thought you were being intentionally disingenuous," he wrote in response to Lamar White Jr., a Louisiana blogger. "If not I apologize."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/andrew-breitbart-died-los-angeles-144221781.html

comments

Please note the liberals here celebrating his death. Are these people and their belief that anyone who disagrees with them should die, who you want to be in charge of this country?

...

Death at 43 is not from natural causes.

...

Get ready for all of the hate posts from the "tolerant" left

..

You reap what you sow. I don't wish anyone death, but the world is a better place today.

...

One down..............

...

Natural causes! Really? I hardly think soooo...

...

Looks like GOD is cleaning house!

...

Being completley callous and spewing hatred over anyone especially in death and regardless of your politics shows the world that you are a dangerous person.

...

LOL, LOL, LOL, good riddance to the insecure little tiny creep....All the hate and racism in his heart, in his after life, we are certain the little weasel is being chased by Lions in Kenya, Obama's Sr. homeland...

...

The people on here celebrating this man's death speak volumes for what is wrong with country. The divisiveness is sickening. It doesn't matter what side you butter your bread, to celebrate a death is wrong.

...

RIP. A true champion of liberty.

Ignore the sociopathic left's celebrating. Of course they despised Andrew, He rooted out corruption.

...

Godbless You Breitbart!

[pepperpot]

Death at 43 is not from natural causes.



Natural causes! Really? I hardly think soooo...



Ignorance......

Left showing true colors? Hmmm.....

[Jolie Rouge]

Andrew Breitbart RIP

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/03/andrew-breitbart-rip.html?tw_p=twt

Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012) of Big Goverment has passed away.

Ed Morrissey has a eulogy and a bit of a medical update:

Update: When a man as young as Andrew passes, everyone wonders how it could have happened. According to Andrew’s father-in-law Orson Bean, he collapsed while taking a stroll near his home, and couldn’t be revived:

Breitbart was walking near his home in Brentwood, Calif just after midnight Thursday when he collapsed according to his father-in-law Orson Bean. Someone saw Breitbart fall and called 911. Emergency crews tried to revive him and rushed him to the emergency room at UCLA Medical Center, Bean said.

He is survived by his wife Susannah Bean Breitbart, 41, and four children.

MATT DRUDGE:

DEAR READER: In the first decade of the DRUDGEREPORT Andrew Breitbart was a constant source of energy, passion and commitment. We shared a love of headlines, a love of the news, an excitement about what's happening. I don't think there was a single day during that time when we did not flash each other or laugh with each other, or challenge each other. I still see him in my mind's eye in Venice Beach, the sunny day I met him. He was in his mid 20's. It was all there. He had a wonderful, loving family and we all feel great sadness for them today... MDRUDGE

comments

CPAC goers--didn't Andrew say something about some Obama tapes he had and that they would come out soon? I do hope they do an autopsy.

...

I can't help but have all sorts of conspiracy ideas about this one. ACORN and SEIU (to name just two organizations) are pretty far-flung, and if some of their members wanted to target him, I wouldn't think it would have been too difficult for them to find some way of secretly poisoning him or something.

...

It takes an extraordinary person to withstand the volume and intensity of vitriol which was poured onto Andrew Breitbart by opponents of the truth.

..

The always classy Matt Yglesias twats: Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias),

"Conventions around dead people are ridiculous. The world outlook is slightly improved with @AndrewBrietbart dead."

...

As Obama himself advocatedto his own followers, Breitbart "got in their face" and "punched back twice as hard" and usually "brought a gun to a knife fight".

Some didn't like this about Breitbart, but I sure did.

...

Quite frankly, when sleeze-balls like Yglesias, Moulitsas, the Journolistas, and the Leftie freak posters at Huff-Po and DU hate your guts, then I think you've done alright.

Be proud that you've earned their hatred and venom.

You may be an "extremist", too. But one is right and good, while the other is wrong and evil.

...

Not Sara:

http://www.examiner.com/republican-in-los-angeles/andrew-breitbart-announces-he-has-college-video-of-young-obama-s-radical-perspec

Next conspiracy: it was something he ate at Bill Ayers house.

....

Who will be next? Sean, Rush? I predict Mark Levin who actually DOES have a heart problem.

BREITBART was MURDERED.

Watch this video:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-andrew-breitbarts-fiery-cpac-speech-i-have-college-days-obama-videos/

This was the man who spoke out BRAVELY against the radical obama.
So they SILENCED him....FOREVER

Even if you are liberal, democrat it doesn't matter --

DO YOU THINK THIS WAS A COINCIDENCE?

Brietbart "died unexpectedly of natural causes" at 43?!?!? Are you KIDDING ME?!?!

If you don't stand up for this NOW they will be coming for us ALL later

Please, spread the word.

....

To wish (or be glad that) an opponent in the battle of ideas is dead indicates a complete lack of sincerity in one's own ideas as to prefer not to have to defend them. Not to mention a lack of dignity and basic decency. No surprise.

But I'd rather we not get all wacky like the left about conspiracy. I suspect we'll find out it was an aneurism or a heart attack. I can't think of too many other things that would take a 43-year-old with no warning.

[janelle]

As Obama himself advocatedto his own followers, Breitbart "got in their face" and "punched back twice as hard" and usually "brought a gun to a knife fight".

Some didn't like this about Breitbart, but I sure did.

That person's comment is wrong. Obama said, "If they bring a knife we will being a gun." Don't think he was even talking about Breitbart, just in general about everything.

I watched FOX last night and the people who worked with him and knew him personally. He was at a bar discussing politics, etc with people there then decided to walk home. It wasn't far. Too bad he didn't get help sooner. Call a cab or told someone he wasn't feeling well.

He did have heart problems last year but he also had many enemies. He exposed ACORN, Anthony Wiener, SEIU, and PP. I think the tapes he had are going to come out on Monday. This won't stop them from being released. There are others to carry on his work.

[Jolie Rouge]

That person's comment is wrong. Obama said, "If they bring a knife we will being a gun." Don't think he was even talking about Breitbart, just in general about everything.

That is exactly the point that the author was making ... Breitbart took Obama's advice to his followers to heart and used it himself.

[Jolie Rouge]

Andrew Breitbart’s Legacy in Three Words: “Apologize for WHAT?”
Posted by: ST on March 2, 2012 at 11:39 am

Like many, I was stunned yesterday at the news of mega-conservative publisher and social media giant Andrew Breitbart’s untimely death at the age of 43. I spent most of the day Tweeting and ReTweeting comments from fans/friends and foes alike, many of who (on the fans/friends side) wrote amazing tributes at their websites about their time and interactions with him. Some had only met him briefly, while others had a stronger connection through their mutual interests – mainly, fighting the left and their allies in the mainstream media on the all-important cultural frontlines.

I never met Andrew Breitbart.

Came pretty close a couple of times, last year at CPAC. Once, during lunch in one of the hotel restaurants, and the other while on Blogger’s Row. I wouldn’t have dared disturb him during lunch – he was surrounded, of course, but even if he hadn’t been I wasn’t keen on disturbing a man while he was refueling. When I saw him on Blogger’s Row, he was engaged in lively conversations with many of the bloggers and other new media types who were eager to get in a word or snag a picture with someone who was quickly becoming legendary in conservative circles. I stood back, in observation mode, content to enjoy watching the animations that played across his face as he spoke in that passionate way he always did.

Interestingly enough, he was doing in that picture what he was doing the last night of his life: playing on his cell phone in between having a lively conversation with a liberal at a local LA bar hours before his death: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/andrew-breitbart-dead-la-bar-politics-296386


Andrew Breitbart spent his final hours much like he lived most of his life: passionately talking politics.

Breibart, the 43-year-old conservative pundit and provocateur who died suddenly early Thursday while walking near his Los Angeles home, had stopped into The Brentwood, a nearby bar and restaurant. There, he struck up a conversation with Arthur Sando, a marketing executive who didn’t know Breitbart but likely was the last person to talk extensively with him before he died.

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Sando says he arrived at the bar in the tony Brentwood section of L.A. around 10 p.m. and soon the empty seat next to his was filled by a man with a familiar face. “I tried to figure out how I knew him,” says Sando, a veteran publicity and marketing executive who works for dietary supplement company MonaVie and has worked at CBS, King World Prods and Turner Broadcasting. “He was on his BlackBerry. And I said ‘Andrew?’ I told him I had seen his work.”

Sando says the duo quickly struck up a conversation that would last a little less than two hours.

“He was friendly and engaging,” Sando recalls. “I said, ‘You can’t be very happy with the slate of Republican candidates’ and he said, ‘Why would you say that?’ I said, ‘Well, they’re talking about contraception,’ and he said, ‘The conversation is being framed by the liberal media.’ I said, ‘Well, the media isn’t writing Rick Santorum’s speeches for him.’ We had a back-and-forth for awhile until we said we weren’t going to agree on some things.”

Even though I never met AB, I know of and circulate with many who did know him well and many of them would point out how, in spite of his visceral disgust and distaste for the way the liberals and the MSM almost always set the narrative on any given issue of national import, he would never hesitate to engage with the left directly – whether it be to loudly point out their hypocrisy directly to their faces or to have spirited, respectful one on one debates with those who wanted to get to know the man beyond the public persona as portrayed by his many detractors. Breitbart, like many of us, was a former liberal. He knew all their arguments – and he also knew how to soundly refute every one of them. When he had his opportunities, he would try to get people to see the light – just like he eventually did. I suspect he knew, like I did all those years ago when I “saw the light”, that it’s one of the most liberating experiences you’ll ever have.

The thing that always struck me about Andrew Breitbart whenever I saw him, read about him, watched him on TV, read what he had to say at his “Bigs” sites and on Twitter, was that he was absolutely fearless. And when I say absolutely that’s exactly what I mean. You didn’t have to get up close and personal to Breitbart to know this. He was someone who, unlike so many in our movement, never lost sight of the big picture, always knew exactly who and what he should be focusing on: the mainstream media and liberal public figures who have, for decades, shaped how any given issue is being discussed in the public arena, and who have created this false narrative of the opposition as being full of “hate”, “racism”, etc. He also was keenly aware that corruption was not a “one party” issue, and worked tirelessly to expose the corruptocrats on the left who the mainstream media so frequently give a pass to. He never gave up. Not ever.

Which is exactly the type of attitude we all need to have, even though sometimes the media/leftwing drumbeat can be so overwhelming that for a brief fleeting second the idea of just walking away from it all sounds tempting. As Breitbart and many of us knew (and know), we CANNOT and will not win long-term political victories if we can’t win the cultural war being waged against us by the hard left in the press and blogs, on the NYT editorial pages, in Hollywood, and in government.

We must never, ever walk away from the fight. Never, ever give up. We must all do our part, whether we are a “face” of the conservative movement, as Breitbart was, or a part of the movement process, which so many of us are.

Related to that, I wanted to share with you a series of Tweets I wrote last night that fits in with the discussion of Breitbart’s legacy going forward, and how he his death has emboldened many, including yours truly, to pick up his torch and continue the uphill but very necessary battle against liberalism (note: I changed some abbreviations used last night into actual words):

Having a Sally Field “they like me” moment after reading my Klout stats. It indicates I’m influential in a small way. That feels so good.

When I was a confused liberal teen I told mom I wanted to do more than just “exist” – wanted to make a difference in some way, even if small.

I thankfully grew up & away from liberalism & found light w/conservatism. 20 yrs later, I’m making that small difference. It’s overwhelming.

This isn’t my ego talking, btw – it’s pride in knowing you don’t have to be a big name to make an impact. Keep this in mind, young activists.

I see people start blogging all the time who want their name in lights [I used to be one of them]. Most don’t get there. You *have* to be ok w/ being part of the process rather than being the “face” of the process. It’s rewarding in its own way. Everyone working toward a common cause – the defeat of liberalism.

I’m thankful as heck for all who have made names for themselves in this epic battle, who are on the frontlines everyday. Am also grateful to be a part of the process via being one little link in the conservative chain of information & activism, even if it is on a small scale.

@AndrewBreitbart was out front, but anyone who ever met him will tell you he had great appreciation for activists whose names you’ll never know.

He knew, big name or not, everyone had a role to play in the struggle vs. liberalism, & that winning would be its own reward – enough for us all.

Remember that as you reflect on what he did, his impact/legacy, & consider the future of conservatism. Then identify your role – & go forth!

And one other thing to remember – as Andrew Breitbart wrote in his second to the last tweet:

http://sistertoldjah.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/bbarttweet.jpg

Apologize for WHAT?

Be strong. Be direct. Be fearless. Engage. Expose. Inspire. And never, ever apologize for being a conservative. EVER.

Everyone with me?

[Jolie Rouge]

Andrew Breitbart death sparks conspiracy theories.
.By Dylan Stableford | The Cutline – 12 hrs ago

Andrew Breitbart's unexpected death on Thursday has sparked a swift outpouring of grief and remembrances--but also the inevitable conspiracy theories about the timing of the outspoken conservative's demise.

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., last month, Breitbart claimed he had damning videos of Barack Obama, and planned to release them before the general election.

"[We] are going to vet [Obama] from his college days to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008," Breitbart told the CPAC crowd.

Steve Bannon, producer of "The Undefeated" and a friend of Breitbart's, told Fox News' Sean Hannity on Thursday that the tapes of Obama at Harvard do exist, and that they would be released "in a week or two."

The news quickly sent conservative bloggers--still shocked by Breitbart's sudden death--into a frenzy.

"In a stunning coincidence," Paul Joseph Watson wrote on InfoWars.com, "it appears Andrew Breitbart suffered his untimely death just hours before he was set to release damning video footage that could have sunk Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign."

Conservative blogger Lawrence Sinclair referenced a conversation he had with Breitbart in Washington D.C. three weeks before. "Andrew said, 'Wait til they see what happens March first,'" Lawrence Sinclair wrote.

Sinclair also took issue with the wording of Breitbart's death announcement as it was posted on BigGovernment.com.

"Claims that Andrew died of 'natural causes' are the opinions of his attorney Joel Pollak and not the statements of any medical personnel from UCLA or the L.A. County Coroners office," he wrote. "L.A. Assistant Chief Medical Examiner Ed Winter says autopsy to be done tomorrow (Friday March 2, 2012) and no official cause of death has been determined."

But the coroner's office told Yahoo News on Thursday that it is unclear when the results of an autopsy would be released.

With conspiracy theory allegations floating around Sinclair's website, the comments escalated into more predictions of foul play.

"I do not believe Breitbart died from natural causes," one commenter on Sinclair's site wrote. "He died for speaking the truth...He probably should not have announced he had videos of BO's college days... I find it quite interesting that he died alone on a street. There will be an autopsy and they will decide on natural causes, but there is a way to induce a heart attack in human beings."

Wrote another commenter: "One thing is for sure. 43-year-old people don't die from 'natural causes.'"

But it wasn't just Sinclair News that housed conspiracy theorists. Conservative site InfoWars.com had plenty of speculations too.
"I'm going to reiterate what I said before," a commenter wrote on InfoWars.com. "In my opinion THIS GUY GOT ELIMINATED. Plain and simple." And another wrote: "Anybody who gets too close to the truth will be killed."

After sending commenters into conspiracy overdrive, Sinclair later clarified his post while simultaneously blaming the media for opening the door to these kinds of allegations because of overzealous reporting.

"In light of the comments which have been posted on this article we want to make something perfectly clear," Sinclair wrote. "We are not and have not said nor do we believe the death of Andrew Breitbart is the result of anything other than a believed heart attack. We simply reported that different media outlets reporting the cause of death as being of 'natural causes' before a cause of death has been determined is wrong and has created this sense of something more sinister."

But, the Obama tapes weren't the only things Breitbart had up his sleeve. As Simone Wilson reported on LAWeekly.com, the death of the polarizing 43-year-old came days before he was expected to announce a new Web project.

"This has been Andrew's obsession," Joel Pollak told the paper. "He was working incredibly hard."

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail reported that Breitbart recently told friends that he was "in early talks with CNN about a Crossfire-style show in which he would argue from the right alongside former Rep. Anthony Weiner," the Congressman whose political career was throttled by Breitbart in 2011. (A spokeswoman for CNN, though, called the report "totally false.")

One thing that may quell the talk of a conspiracy: Breitbart's father-in-law told the Associated Press that he had suffered heart problems in 2010.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/andrew-breitbart-death-sparks-conspiracy-theories-galore-175523779.html


comments

Well, lets see the tapes or did those mysteriously disappear?

...

NEVER let it be known well in advance that you're going to release potentially damning evidence against a high level gov't official!!!

...

Control the Media, Control the Message, Control the Masses" -- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister.

...

sounds just like people close to the clintons commiting suicide and having car accidents just before bill`s investigations when he was president

...

Everytime I see that picture of Breitbart above I think of John Belushi in the movie Animal House. Not exactly the picture of health.

...

In the end there will be justice.

[Jolie Rouge]

Breitbart.com relaunches with Alinsky broadside on Obama
posted at 12:10 pm on March 5, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Our friends at Breitbart.com have relaunched the portals to their media empire, integrating into one “big” site today. This project has been in the works for weeks, and the late Andrew Breitbart (how odd it still is to say that!) had worked tirelessly to bring it to fruition. All of the components of the Breitbart empire now come together under one unified banner — Big Hollywood, Big Peace, Big Government, Big Journalism, and Breitbart.tv. The editors reassert Andrew’s mission: http://www.breitbart.com/


Prior to his passing, Andrew Breitbart said that the mission of the Breitbart empire was to exemplify the free and fearless press that our Constitution protects–but which, increasingly, the mainstream media denies us.

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” – “Who guards the guardians?” Andrew saw himself in that role—as a guardian protecting Americans from the left’s “objective” loyal scribes.

Andrew wanted to do what the mainstream media would not. First and foremost: Andrew pledged to vet President Barack H. Obama.

Andrew did not want to re-litigate the 2008 election. Nor did he want to let Republicans off the hook. Instead, he wanted to show that the media had failed in its most basic duty: to uncover the truth, and hold those in power accountable, regardless of party.

From today through Election Day, November 6, 2012, we will vet this president–and his rivals.

That effort includes Andrew’s last blast at Barack Obama and his Saul Alinsky roots, which conservative writers like David Freddoso and Stanley Kurtz pointed out in 2007-8, but which the mainstream media roundly ignored: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/04/obama-alinsky-love-song


In 1998, a small Chicago theater company staged a play titled The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the life and politics of the radical community organizer whose methods Obama had practiced and taught on Chicago’s South Side.

Obama was not only in the audience, but also took the stage after one performance, participating in a panel discussion that was advertised in the poster for the play. …

So, what’s in the play? It truly is a love song to Alinsky. In the first few minutes of the play, Alinsky plays Moses – yes, the Biblical Moses – talking to God. The play glorifies Alinsky stealing food from restaurants and organizing others to do the same, explaining, “I saw it as a practical use of social ecology: you had members of the intellectual community, the hope of the future, eating regularly for six months, staying alive till they could make their contributions to society.”

In an introspective moment, Alinsky rips America: “My country … ‘tis of whatthehell / And justice up a tree … How much can you sell / What’s in it for me.”

He grins about manipulating the Christian community to back his programs. He talks in glowing terms about engaging in Chicago politics with former Mayor Kelly.

He rips the McCarthy committee, mocking, “Everyone was there, when you think back – Cotton Mather, Hester Prynn, Anne Hutchinson, Tom Paine, Tom Jefferson … Brandeis, Holmes … Gene Debs and the socialists … Huey Long … Imperial Wizards of all stripes … Father Coughlin and his money machine … Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd … and a kicking chorus of sterilized reactionaries singing O Come, All Ye Faithful …”

And Alinsky talks about being the first occupier – shutting down the O’Hare Airport by occupying all the toilet stalls, using chewing gum to “tie up the city, stop all traffic, and the shopping, in the Loop, and let everyone at City Hall know attention must be paid, and maybe we should talk about it.” As Alinsky says, “Students of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your juicy fruit.”

The play finishes with Alinsky announcing he’d rather go to Hell than Heaven. Why? “More comfortable there. You see, all my life I’ve been with the Have-Nots: here you’re a Have-Not if you’re short of money, there you’re a Have-Not if you’re short of virtue. I’d be asking more questions, organizing them. They’re my kind of people – Hell would be Heaven for me.”

At this late date, I’m not sure how much this will impact the election. It helps to explain why Obama pushed for shell legislation like ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank that shifts legislative power from Congress to the executive branch, and how we can expect that to turn out. Otherwise, Republicans will have plenty on the record over the last three-plus years to use in a campaign against Obama. He has to run on a record now, and that record has produced chronic unemployment, economic stagnation, and serious incursions on liberty, as we have seen in the application of ObamaCare mandates. Still, Breitbart.com isn’t a candidate in the race, and it’s not unhelpful to have at least one media outfit doing the kind of vetting on Obama that the mainstream media will perform on the Republican nominee.


http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/05/breitbart-com-relaunches-with-alinksy-broadside-on-obama/

[Jolie Rouge]

What’s the matter with Soledad O’Brien?
by Michelle Malkin March 14, 2012

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien isn’t used to criticism. In the world of media elites, she’s a beloved figure and an award-winning news anchor. But last week, she revealed her true, decidedly non-neutral colors. And she’s not happy about the hoi polloi questioning her hallowed journalistic objectivity.

On Thursday, O’Brien interviewed Joel Pollak, editor-in-chief of the late Andrew Breitbart’s online empire. Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com released a 1991 video of Barack Obama (then a 30-year-old law student) at a Harvard rally embracing radical racialist Derrick Bell and his push for more aggressive race-based hiring at Harvard. Bell is a proponent of critical race theory (CRT), which posits that America remains a hopelessly racist country dominated by Jews and white supremacists.

O’Brien lost her cool when Pollak shed light on Bell’s fringe legal theories. Acting more like an Obama campaign surrogate than a disinterested host, she angrily jumped on Pollak’s mention of CRT. “That is a complete misreading of critical race theory,” she shrieked. “That’s an actual theory. You could Google it and some would give you a good definition. So that’s not correct!”

When viewers took to Twitter to pepper O’Brien with follow-up questions about critical race theory, the CNN star had a twit fit. She invited a liberal professor, Emory University’s Dorothy Brown, on her television show to back her up and then lashed out: “See? That was our critical race theory 101. Stop tweeting me. We have moved on, people.”

Not so fast, sister.

Turns out that O’Brien, a Harvard grad, has a rather emotional connection to Bell. As documented at my new Twitter curation/aggregation site Twitchy.com, O’Brien tweeted that it was a “rough day” for her when Bell passed away last fall. She wrote that she had “just started re-reading” one of his books and mourned again: “RIP Prof. Bell.” O’Brien also shared tributes to Bell from fellow Harvard prof and friend of Obama Charles Ogletree. That’s the same Professor Ogletree who bragged that he “hid” the Obama/Bell video during the 2008 campaign.

O’Brien failed to disclose her pro-Bell bias to viewers before her segments.

O’Brien also failed to disclose that the liberal prof who denied on her show that critical race theory had aaaaaanything to do with bashing America as a white supremacy-ruled government actually wrote the exact opposite. In one of her own books, Brown asserted that the purpose of CRT was to “highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.” Oops.

O’Brien is entitled to her opinions, of course. The problem is that she masks her political activism under the banner of corporate media “diversity.” Of multicultural heritage, O’Brien has won countless accolades for her “Black in America” and “Latino in America” documentaries for CNN. The medical school at historically black Morehouse College created the “Soledad O’Brien Freedom’s Voice Award” to honor “outstanding catalysts of social change.” The first recipient of the activist award? Soledad O’Brien, of course.

O’Brien is also a card-carrying member of two racial/ethnic-centered journalism lobbying groups: the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. These organizations are inherently politicized entities that enforce a skin color-deep ideological solidarity and push a social justice agenda of advocacy journalism. I know because I’ve fought their collective herd mentality for the past 20 years.

Liberal minority journalists have themselves acknowledged their slavish fealty to Obama and his progressive agenda. During the 2008 campaign, the NABJ, NAHJ and Asian American Journalists Association held a “journalists of color” confab where then-candidate Obama was welcomed with Justin Bieber-style mania. One journalist squealed, “He touched me!” after Obama’s address, which was interrupted multiple times with standing ovations, cheers and whistles by the press.

Organizers were so concerned about public displays of Obamedia affection that they issued several warnings to their news professional members that the speech would be broadcast live on (Soledad O’Brien’s) CNN. “Professional decorum” was encouraged. One wire story even fretted: “Can minority journalists resist applauding Obama?”

Nope, liberal minority journalists simply can’t resist carrying water for Obama. That’s because their journalistic unity demands political unanimity. If you don’t accept the left-leaning agenda of “social change” journalism, you’re enabling racism. If you don’t support the pursuit of racial hiring goals as a primary journalistic and academic goal, you’re selling out.

Now you know the reason for O’Brien’s thin-skinned reaction to Obama’s critics. When you vet the president, you vet the media. And they don’t like the narrative table-turning one bit.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/03/14/whats-the-matter-with-soledad-obrien/


comments

There’s nothing wrong with Soledad. She’s just like every other journalist in the MSM, lacking in curiosity and integrity. Oh, yes, also lacking in that diversity thing of which they are all so proud. How diverse is your group if you all look different but you all think the same?

..

No surprise. As David Limbaugh wrote in a recent column, liberals, especially in the media, are literally incapable of recognizing bias in themselves, but even they can recognize the whackiness of some of their theories and will go to any lengths to avoid publicizing them.

...

If people on the left really think they are smarter and their ideas are superior, why do they go to such lengths to hide what they truly believe? When someone unearths their past and exposes their true beliefs, first they attack the messenger, then they deny the facts and act like they’re being smeared.

Why all the deceit? Why be ashamed of the truth if that is what your “smarter” brain and higher education convinced you is right? Is it because you knew the emperor had no clothes but you went along with the ruse anyway because it made you feel superior? And now that you’ve been exposed, you don’t have the honesty to admit it. So you continue down the same path hoping your lies and obfuscations will obscure the truth and give you cover.

...

I think everyone has missed something here. In her interview of Brown, Brown appeared to understand SB as saying that Pollack claimed that CRT advocated white supremacy. Listen to the interview and you’ll see.

They then conducted the entire interview based on this straw-man argument. Simple Jounalistic Malpractice. This is the sort of thing that wins jounalistic prizes today.

...

Minority my a**. She is paler than me after a long, cold winter. She uses her couple drops of black and Hispanic blood to take advantage of all the affirmative action programs, accolades and benefits bestowed on professionals of “color” (especially liberal ones) without actually ever having suffered a day of discrimination in her life. My children are half-Hispanic and I would kick their butts if they ever used that as a crutch to get ahead as she does so shamelessly. Their very dark skinned Hispanic, straight from South America mother would too. But I doubt she will ever win any awards or even interest from liberals for her commitment to diversity, overcoming adversity… as she she refuses to play the victim card for them.

..

Why is it that those who accuse us of being racist, have all these race-based organizations? Isn’t the real racist the one who is fixated on race?

[Jolie Rouge]

...


O’Brien also shared tributes to Bell from fellow Harvard prof and friend of Obama Charles Ogletree. That’s the same Professor Ogletree who bragged that he “hid” the Obama/Bell video during the 2008 campaign.

It’s also the same Professor Ogletree who spoke for his “client, friend, and colleague” Henry Louis Gates Jr. after Cambridge Police arrested him for disorderly conduct. While admitting that he didn’t know all the facts, Obama still accused the officers of acting “stupidly” toward his friend Gates, which eventually led to the Great Beer Summit of 2009.

Details, shmetails. Yet these details–these people, what they do, what they say, how they act, how they react–all link together; and our supposedly objective newsmen and women tell us that it’s no big deal, especially when we’ve got more important things to talk about, such as that guy on the radio who hates all women or that dumb broad from Alaska who hates a black man or those guys trying to replace our long-awaited savior who promises to create a beautiful utopia where love and good health are truly free and unconstrained by religious principles that might at one time have played a slight role in the founding of our great land but are outdated now.

Objective? Not a chance.

We were told by former Professor Obama himself that the Gates controversy was a “teachable moment” for Americans, that we were to use it to further the everlasting discussion on racial unity. The problem here is that Obama was friends with Bell, Ogletree, and Gates, and those three men have made careers out of dividing Americans based on their perceptions of race and social class. If we are to stand as a people united, everyone has to give. All they want is to is take and take and take.

Coincidentally, I’m sure, Ogletree was Anita Hill’s main legal counsel during Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas’ Senate confirmation hearings. Again, just a minor detail. But there is a mountain of such details to provide overwhelming evidence that Obama associated with radicals who have promoted and instigated divisiveness and disharmony. It’s what they taught. It’s what they encourage. It’s what they practice. It’s also what Americans should know and should have known before the 2008 election.

While Soledad is right to the extent that some of these details have been out there, available for the public to find, most Americans don’t have the time, the know-how, or the interest to research all this information themselves. They often rely on mainstream news sources to get this information. To a great extent, they also rely on these sources to explain to them why these things are important.

But the times, they are a’changin’. We have new tools at our disposal, new avenues in which to get our information. Thanks to people like Andrew Breitbart, Michelle Malkin, and a growing number of others, it should be apparent by now that the usual news sources have intentionally neglected to shine a light on the information everyone has the right to know. It’s gotten to where the conventional outlets of subjective objectivity publicly chide and attempt to dismiss the rising competitors who are willing to put that information forth to the people to judge for themselves. It’s the sign of an establishment desperately trying to stay relevant.

Regardless of what we hear from them, regardless of their promises and calls for unity in these United States, some people want us to stay forever divided. No, that’s not quite true. They see the division as a step in the process where the end goal is to unite us by imposing rules and laws that prohibit the ability to refuse, which means the majority of us has to submit, whether we want to or not. Nothing would make them happier than for all of us to one day say to ourselves, “If we can’t beat ‘em, we may as well join ‘em.”

Excuse me, but to hell with that.

[Jolie Rouge]

What’s the matter with Soledad O’Brien?
by Michelle Malkin March 14, 2012

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien isn’t used to criticism. In the world of media elites, she’s a beloved figure and an award-winning news anchor. But last week, she revealed her true, decidedly non-neutral colors. And she’s not happy about the hoi polloi questioning her hallowed journalistic objectivity.

On Thursday, O’Brien interviewed Joel Pollak, editor-in-chief of the late Andrew Breitbart’s online empire. Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com released a 1991 video of Barack Obama (then a 30-year-old law student) at a Harvard rally embracing radical racialist Derrick Bell and his push for more aggressive race-based hiring at Harvard. Bell is a proponent of critical race theory (CRT), which posits that America remains a hopelessly racist country dominated by Jews and white supremacists.

O’Brien lost her cool when Pollak shed light on Bell’s fringe legal theories. Acting more like an Obama campaign surrogate than a disinterested host, she angrily jumped on Pollak’s mention of CRT. “That is a complete misreading of critical race theory,” she shrieked. “That’s an actual theory. You could Google it and some would give you a good definition. So that’s not correct!”

When viewers took to Twitter to pepper O’Brien with follow-up questions about critical race theory, the CNN star had a twit fit. She invited a liberal professor, Emory University’s Dorothy Brown, on her television show to back her up and then lashed out: “See? That was our critical race theory 101. Stop tweeting me. We have moved on, people.”

Not so fast, sister.

Turns out that O’Brien, a Harvard grad, has a rather emotional connection to Bell. As documented at my new Twitter curation/aggregation site Twitchy.com, O’Brien tweeted that it was a “rough day” for her when Bell passed away last fall. She wrote that she had “just started re-reading” one of his books and mourned again: “RIP Prof. Bell.” O’Brien also shared tributes to Bell from fellow Harvard prof and friend of Obama Charles Ogletree. That’s the same Professor Ogletree who bragged that he “hid” the Obama/Bell video during the 2008 campaign.

O’Brien failed to disclose her pro-Bell bias to viewers before her segments.

O’Brien also failed to disclose that the liberal prof who denied on her show that critical race theory had aaaaaanything to do with bashing America as a white supremacy-ruled government actually wrote the exact opposite. In one of her own books, Brown asserted that the purpose of CRT was to “highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.” Oops.

O’Brien is entitled to her opinions, of course. The problem is that she masks her political activism under the banner of corporate media “diversity.” Of multicultural heritage, O’Brien has won countless accolades for her “Black in America” and “Latino in America” documentaries for CNN. The medical school at historically black Morehouse College created the “Soledad O’Brien Freedom’s Voice Award” to honor “outstanding catalysts of social change.” The first recipient of the activist award? Soledad O’Brien, of course.

O’Brien is also a card-carrying member of two racial/ethnic-centered journalism lobbying groups: the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. These organizations are inherently politicized entities that enforce a skin color-deep ideological solidarity and push a social justice agenda of advocacy journalism. I know because I’ve fought their collective herd mentality for the past 20 years.

Liberal minority journalists have themselves acknowledged their slavish fealty to Obama and his progressive agenda. During the 2008 campaign, the NABJ, NAHJ and Asian American Journalists Association held a “journalists of color” confab where then-candidate Obama was welcomed with Justin Bieber-style mania. One journalist squealed, “He touched me!” after Obama’s address, which was interrupted multiple times with standing ovations, cheers and whistles by the press.

Organizers were so concerned about public displays of Obamedia affection that they issued several warnings to their news professional members that the speech would be broadcast live on (Soledad O’Brien’s) CNN. “Professional decorum” was encouraged. One wire story even fretted: “Can minority journalists resist applauding Obama?”

Nope, liberal minority journalists simply can’t resist carrying water for Obama. That’s because their journalistic unity demands political unanimity. If you don’t accept the left-leaning agenda of “social change” journalism, you’re enabling racism. If you don’t support the pursuit of racial hiring goals as a primary journalistic and academic goal, you’re selling out.

Now you know the reason for O’Brien’s thin-skinned reaction to Obama’s critics. When you vet the president, you vet the media. And they don’t like the narrative table-turning one bit.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/03/14/whats-the-matter-with-soledad-obrien/


comments

There’s nothing wrong with Soledad. She’s just like every other journalist in the MSM, lacking in curiosity and integrity. Oh, yes, also lacking in that diversity thing of which they are all so proud. How diverse is your group if you all look different but you all think the same?

..

No surprise. As David Limbaugh wrote in a recent column, liberals, especially in the media, are literally incapable of recognizing bias in themselves, but even they can recognize the whackiness of some of their theories and will go to any lengths to avoid publicizing them.

...

If people on the left really think they are smarter and their ideas are superior, why do they go to such lengths to hide what they truly believe? When someone unearths their past and exposes their true beliefs, first they attack the messenger, then they deny the facts and act like they’re being smeared.

Why all the deceit? Why be ashamed of the truth if that is what your “smarter” brain and higher education convinced you is right? Is it because you knew the emperor had no clothes but you went along with the ruse anyway because it made you feel superior? And now that you’ve been exposed, you don’t have the honesty to admit it. So you continue down the same path hoping your lies and obfuscations will obscure the truth and give you cover.

...

I think everyone has missed something here. In her interview of Brown, Brown appeared to understand SB as saying that Pollack claimed that CRT advocated white supremacy. Listen to the interview and you’ll see.

They then conducted the entire interview based on this straw-man argument. Simple Jounalistic Malpractice. This is the sort of thing that wins jounalistic prizes today.

...

Minority my a**. She is paler than me after a long, cold winter. She uses her couple drops of black and Hispanic blood to take advantage of all the affirmative action programs, accolades and benefits bestowed on professionals of “color” (especially liberal ones) without actually ever having suffered a day of discrimination in her life. My children are half-Hispanic and I would kick their butts if they ever used that as a crutch to get ahead as she does so shamelessly. Their very dark skinned Hispanic, straight from South America mother would too. But I doubt she will ever win any awards or even interest from liberals for her commitment to diversity, overcoming adversity… as she she refuses to play the victim card for them.

..

Why is it that those who accuse us of being racist, have all these race-based organizations? Isn’t the real racist the one who is fixated on race?



Soledad O’Brien claims she’s so special that she’s above bias; mocking, debunking ensues

Posted at 3:06 pm on August 16, 2012 by Twitchy Staff

http://twitchy.com/2012/08/16/soledad-obrien-claims-shes-so-special-that-shes-above-bias-mocking-debunking-ensues/