cwwycoff1 (CC)

Now, I have to admit that I’ve heard Stranahan several times on this topic. I admire that he’s stuck with the story after all this time, and enjoy hearing him talk about it every time. He’s a storyteller, so it’s not like listening to Obama and his teleprompter-driven campaign speeches, that must be canned by some sort of twisted flying monkeys that are kept in the bowels of the White House somewhere. No, Stranahan’s like my grandfather, who could tell the same story a thousand times, but keep folks captivated even if they’d heard it a couple hundred times. And this story is still like an onion, with new layers being revealed all the time. But, I guess you could say that’s the case with any story about government spending, since the mainstream media decided it’s not going to play watch-dog anymore.

Yes, Andrew Breitbart was a visionary. I didn’t know the man, and it’s a rare occasion when I even mention him. Sure, I’ve seen many people who seem to have placed him on a pedestal, and still others that get highly annoyed (or even hateful) with anyone that does that. I learned a long time ago that human beings in general are far too flawed to run around worshiping them (myself included), and I’m not into that sort of thing anyway. I don’t worship any deities, so why in the world would I worship people? Anyway, that doesn’t mean I don’t give credit where credit is due. And Breitbart was spot on when he encouraged people to get out there and do what the media wouldn’t do – investigate, expose, and when necessary, demand action from the powers that be. Pigford arguably should become the folktale for that, since the irony is that the government assumed Breitbart was onto this scheme before he actually was. I know Arianna Huffington likes to call herself the mother of citizen journalism, or something like that. Personally, I prefer to consider her the original power-broker that decided to take advantage of writers to get free content, but that’s a whole other story. Breitbart should be considered the Godfather of citizen journalism, because he inspired an entire generation of people to stop taking what was being fed to them by the mainstream media. He didn’t do it just to get content for his own website, either. History will truly tell this tale, but I wouldn’t be surprised if later generations end up learning about Breitbart as the man that put the investigations of hundreds of “Watergate-style” scandals in motion, just by encouraging people to dig.

After that discussion with Stranahan, I ended up talking with my co-host about how effective these “Blog about Blank” days really are. Sure, it gets a lot of attention on a specific topic for a whole day, but then what? It’s a frenetic world out there, and the masses tend to have the attention span of gnats, when it comes to news. I’ve passed over stories as “breaking”, knocking them down to just “news” if the story’s been out for just a few hours. The links I pull each day in the morning are old news by the afternoon. What keeps people on stories like Pigford?

Years ago there were two journalists that chased down the story of corruption in the Nixon administration. If anyone asked their editors what they thought about that, no doubt they would have said those two were obsessed. And that’s what keeps stories like Pigford alive today. Breitbart has been described as obsessed about the story, and at least a few others – including Stranahan – picked up that torch when he died. The thorn in Eric Holder’s side over “Fast and Furious” is Katie Pavlich, and Mary Chastain, to name two. Brett Kimberlin will not be forgotten if Robert Stacy McCain or Aaron Worthing have anything to say about it. Of course, I’m not naming all the people who keep these stories alive, and that’s another reason why they won’t disappear any time soon. Even I have one of my own little obsessions, but that one hasn’t seen the light of day – yet. So, if you can figure out what drives the folks that end up being determined to uncover every fact and secret about a certain story, you will find that special element that keeps all these stories alive long after the days we devote to them. By the way, if you do figure it out, do let me know. Bottling it would make a fortune!

“Apologize for what?”

These three words have inspired and motivated millions of patriotic Americans. They have become a calling card to Conservatives everywhere who are sick and tired of out of control liberalism destroying this great country. On the anniversary of Andrew Breitbart’s death I’m sure he is looking down on us from that special reserved spot in heaven where the heroes lay and is smiling. In the post Andrew Breitbart Conservative era, his legacy lives on and his influence continues to grow.

From Twitter to Facebook and everything in-between, Andrew is alive and well in spirit. His death to most Conservatives, including myself is one you will always remember and not soon forget. Like a great fallen warrior his disciples have picked up where he has left off. Their very simple and loyal battle cry is, “I Am Breitbart.”

Andrew Breitbart was someone who was comfortable swimming in the belly of the beast and always relished the hatred and vitriol that he received from the left. He wore it like a badge of honor; never backing down or shying away. Andrew said things out loud that most of us would only think and that is what made him so effective yet controversial. He was the type of guy who would take ten to the chin just to deliver the one knockout punch.

Breitbart was unapologetic and his “apologize for what?” has posthumously become his trademark. He never let the left get away with anything which is why he was so demonized by them. His undercover investigative work was a major contributing factor to exposing the radical group ACORN. His work is the reason they were forced to change their name and are now thankfully defunded by Congress.

When the liberal media started to run stories about how the Tea Party was racist he called them out on it. Andrew knew that playing the race card was a Saul Alinsky tactic used by the left whenever they were losing the argument. Brilliantly, he offered a 100,000 dollar grant payable to the United Negro College Fund if they could find even one shred of evidence of racism at Tea Party rallies. Needless to say, the UNCF is still 100,000 dollars poorer.

His untimely death has always struck me as a little peculiar. Although I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories I do find the timing of his death remarkably odd. At the 2012 CPAC event, Andrew spoke about releasing “something big” on March 1st that apparently was going to be very damaging to Barack Obama. He spoke passionately about finally “vetting” Barack Obama and doing the job the liberal media has not done and refuses to do. Then coincidentally, the day he was to release this damaging information he allegedly dies of a heart attack?

More importantly, the media was very quick to point out that Andrew had a history of heart problems. The Los Angeles Police Department’s full investigation into Andrew’s death did not find any foul play and the Coroner’s Office performed an autopsy and full toxicology report which also turned up nothing.

Andrew Breitbart may be gone but his legacy still lives on. Like in war, when one soldier goes down the next soldier picks up the fallen soldier’s weapon and keeps on firing. Let’s just hope our aim is as good as his was. In this ideological war we find ourselves in we must master the strategies and tactics that Andrew perfected.

The silent majority in this country can no longer afford to be silent, or silenced. We can no longer be made to feel guilty or ashamed for our beliefs. We must be forceful in our convictions and be unapologetic for having them. This war is not about left versus right, it is about right versus wrong. This is about two very different visions for America. It is one of freedom and opportunity or slavery and bondage. As another great patriot Ronald Reagan once said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not passed down through the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed down to our children and their children to do the same.”

Andrew knew this all too well and he lived his life on the frontlines of this battle. So the next time a liberal asks you to apologize for your beliefs, you tell them “apologize for what”?

Suggested by the author:
www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com
How the left uses identity politics and fear tactics to influence voters
Welcome to the dependent states of America
Obamacare is bad for business and your health
How to end the class warfare argument

markn3tel (CC)

But I was an outsider then, and remain one to this day. I did not know Andrew Breitbart, and had absolutely no contact with him. I was aware of his existence, obviously, but he resided in the periphery for me. Since then, I have become relatively close to several people that did know him well, and have spent a fair amount of time sifting through their thoughts and feelings about the man. Perhaps because I didn’t know him at all, I’ve approached this from a fairly objective point of view – not entirely so, if only because I have no desire to end up picking fights with others over details about a man that can’t comment on what really happened anyway.

The conclusion that I’ve come to is that there are essentially two camps among conservatives where Breitbart is concerned. There are those who knew much more than I do about him that respect him greatly, and then there are others that resent the idea that the man has been elevated so much by his followers. And as an outsider, I reside somewhere in the gray area between them.

However, one idea does resonate with me that is often repeated by those that profess that they knew Breitbart well. It has been repeated more times than I can count that he would talk to anyone, about anything, regardless of their opinion, or position in the political continuum. That is something I can understand, and is arguably the way I have lived most of my life – that is how I was raised to be by my grandfather, a man whose limited experience in politics included being a mentor to one man who remains seated on the floor of the Pennsylvania General Assembly to this day. That was the highlight of my grandfather’s involvement in politics, and in hindsight, I wonder sometimes if he wouldn’t have had a following like Breitbart if he’d become sincerely involved. I say that because he was the sort of man that everyone gravitated toward, because of his openness and acceptance of others.

I know many individuals that knew Breitbart, might be reading this, and are probably sitting there thinking, “Yes! That’s what Andrew was all about!” I wish I could know for certain one way or the other, but I’ll just have to take their word for it. It’s been a year since he died. The internet has been littered with “Apologize for what?” and “I am Breitbart.” For myself, I don’t proclaim either because as I’ve said, I didn’t know him – I am not arrogant enough to lay claim to something I haven’t the right to in the first place. I’ll just continue as I have, keeping a respectful distance from associating myself directly with Breitbart, and remaining an outsider. And I will continue to do as what I know my grandfather would want me to do – talk to anyone, respect others even when I don’t agree with them, and stand up for the rights of everyone to speak their minds – especially when I don’t agree with them.

Let’s just get this out of the way right up front: Ana Marie Cox built her career on blogging jokes about anal sex at the reprehensible guttersnipe site Wonkette. She presented herself as a rambunctious youngster, but it turned out she was already pushing 30 and just naturally behaves like a annoying, hyperactive juvenile. Both Time and later the Guardian hired her in full knowledge of this colorful journalistic career.

First, there is no such thing as being “mean” in media. As Breitbart famously said, “truth isn’t mean. It’s the truth,” and sadly that characteristic fails miserably with left-wing journalists.  It’s not mean to point out that Ana Marie Cox built her career on blogging anal sex jokes. It’s just the truth. It’s not mean to point out that Rachel Maddow seems content with airing edited video in order to smear Sen. John McCain’s remarks about gun control.   Good Morning Americaedited First Lady Michelle Obama’s inaccurate statement about the tragic death of Hadiya Pendleton in Chicago because of time constraints.  It was censorship.

Mrs. Obama claimed, “And she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need.” This quote appeared online, but not on the February 26 interview with Robin Roberts.

[...]

However, when the interview aired on “Good Morning America” on Tuesday, viewers heard the first lady said this:

“She was absolutely right. She did everything she was supposed to do. She was standing in a park, with her friends, in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids grew up, where our house is. And she was caught in the line of fire. I just don’t want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first.”

ABC edited the response visually by using a cutaway in the middle of the answer of Ms. Roberts listening.

Cox wrote that the right-leaning media outlets have an MO that seeks to

 be outrageous, scurrilous and completely unfair. And then, when you get a rise, just shrug and say: “What’s your problem: can’t take a joke?”

But for something to be humor, it has to be funny. And as comedy goes, the Free Beacon’s jokes have all the subtlety of Jackass. The only difference is that instead of creating dubious hilarity at the spectacle of their self-inflicted pain, they’re using equally ridiculous stunts to laugh at yours. Clinically speaking, we call people with that attitude “sociopaths”, but in the political realm, [Michael] Goldfarb’s [founder of the Washington Free Beacon] punchlines – emphasis on punch! – are just the latest iteration of a burgeoning style of discourse whose practitioners have become influential enough to deserve their own designation.

So, editing video to smear – or convey a false narrative – is fair and accurate, Ms. Cox?  To smear James O’Keefe as a racist, who you also criticize in your column, without proof isn’t scurrilous? By the way, Salon.com, who published the piece from left-wing journalist Max Blumenthal, printed a correction stating:

The Feb. 3 “James O’Keefe’s Race Problem” reported that O’Keefe, the conservative activist arrested on charges he plotted to tamper with Sen. Mary Landrieu’s phone lines, helped plan a conference on “Race and Conservatism” that featured white nationalist Jared Taylor. The freelance photographer who attended the event, and snapped O’Keefe’s photo there, now says the right-wing provocateur helped out at the conference,but cannot confirm that he helped plan it. The story has been corrected.

The article also said that O’Keefe was terminated by the right-wing Leadership Institute in 2008, after videos were released of O’Keefe calling Planned Parenthood and offering to donate money to abort black babies. He was let go in 2007. Leadership Institute co-founder Morton Blackwell told the New York Times O’Keefe “wanted to do sting operations that would affect legislation; he made some calls which have been covered in the news media to Planned Parenthood. That was beyond the scope of what we had hired him to do. We are an educational organization. We are not an activist organization.” Blackwell says he told O’Keefe to choose between his job and his activism, “and he said he was committed to the activism,” according to the Times. The date of O’Keefe’s termination has been corrected, and Blackwell’s explanation has been added to the story.

Cox also slams O’Keefe for using “highly selective cuts,” which is the seat of irony.  Besides the examples I listed above, MSNBC was caught editing the recorded testimony of Neil Heslin, whose son was a victim of the Sandy Hook tragedy, on Capitol Hill.  Contrary to what the media reported, he wasn’t heckled during his testimony.

MSNBC has a history of editing video to slam conservatives. In 2009, MSNBC edited out a black man carrying an AR-15 rifle in order to engage in racial commentary about the Tea Party. In 2012, they edited out Mitt Romney’s comments about the perils of too much regulation in business, and cut to him discussing the checkout process at the WaWa Deli in order to portray him as out of touch. Lastly, let’s not forget how NBC edited George Zimmerman’s 911 call to make him sound racist.

However, Cox’s conclusion to her piece that left me aghast.

…the perversity of this post-Ann Coulter generation is that they believe the world is run by nerdy liberal elitists , that their antics are a righteous rebellion instead of an attempt to assert the law of jungle. Perhaps it is true that liberal nerds have made great strides in governing – certainly, our president is one – but the reactionary insurgents’ anti-establishment pose, which goes along with shoving a camera in someone’s face, breaks down when you consider the actual policies advocated by the guy behind the viewfinder. Policies that, say, continue to suppress voting rights of minorities won’t make them punk rock heroes.

The only thing remotely disruptive about the material generated by the Bratbarts is its incivility. In itself, that is simply a style, not an argument or a critique. Incivility can be OK: I am a big believer in disrespecting those in power, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with being flippant – there are times when it is the only proper response to authority. As journalist and defender of the lowbrow Gilbert Seldes put it:

“Comedy is last refuge of the nonconformist mind.”

But confusing satire and hazing? Mixing up muckraking with misinformation? Revelation with subterfuge? Laughter with cruelty? Those are the tactics of would-be authoritarians, not outlaw liberators.

Of course, Cox had to boot-lick Obama towards the end.  It’s a sign of respect for the great one, which ironically comes before she professes her advocacy in disrespecting elected officials.  I’m sure she will be equally harsh on the Obama administration, which has “made great strides” in collecting names for kill lists, convincing the New York Times towithhold information about drone bases, and blowing away Americans abroad with drone strikes. The legality of which is still in dispute.

Lastly, when the liberal media went “birther” on Sen. Ted Cruz (R- Texas), isn’t that a form of hazing?  Isn’t insinuating his Canadian roots a cruel exercise in “revelation with subterfuge?”  Isn’t that “mixing up muckraking and misinformation?  Cruz happens to be a conservative sticking to his principles, and his Canadian roots are an extraneous detail since he was born to an American mother, making him eligible to run for president.  Yes, in 2016, we could possibly see a Cruz candidacy.

So, Cox thinks that we on the right sit at the “mean” table in media.  Then again, if the liberal media didn’t act like “jackasses” themselves – we wouldn’t be so angry.

“For those who’ve been paying attention, this film is an affirmation. For those who haven’t, it’s a revelation.” – Stephen Bannon, CEO of Victory Film Group and close personal friend of the late Andrew Breitbart

Stephen Bannon, producer of the popular documentary Undefeated, teamed up with Citizens United and Andrew Breitbart to “rip the mask off” the Occupy movement.

In a theater near you is arguably the best work, and potentially most important work, of the late Andrew Breitbart. His last documentary, Occupy Unmasked, takes everything you think you know about the Occupy movement and turns it on its head. Through video evidence, documented proof and exposed email chains, Breitbart walks the viewer through the Occupy camps and rips the mask off the perceived intent of the protests to reveal the truly dark nature of the movement.

“This is not a bunch of college kids and hippies putting this thing together,” says Bannon. “Below the surface is a very dark, very ugly and very dangerous group of people.”

The film begins with nearly 4 minutes of media clips taking the viewer back to 2011, reminding us of the national conversation about America’s debt, the deficit and the debt ceiling debates that dominated the news cycles. The media would have you believe the Occupy movement grew out of disdain for government spending, that “largely peacefully” protests broke out all over the country in response to runaway debt. But only 2 minutes later the viewer will realize that media spin couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Just beyond the violence and chaos, drug use and property destruction, defecating on police cars and multiple rapes, are the Occupy organizers.

“They managed to change the narrative. Their goal is to create chaos, destroy the system,” continues Bannon. “They want to create anarchy, put the system in crisis and from crisis gain power.”

Occupy organizers were able to change the public conversation from cutting deficits and cutting spending to public outcry over income inequality. They created a narrative around class differences neatly packaged into a “haves versus the have nots” theme. This was no grassroots groundswell of otherwise unlikely political activists. Occupy is a well-crafted, carefully calculated strategy to dominate the national conversation to change America and eventually change the world. Occupy Unmasked proves this beyond doubt.

So who are the power-hungry, highly financed, media-connected Occupy organizers? Why did one such organizer, Malcolm Harris, a self-described communist, trick thousands of people into believing the band Radio Head would be performing at Zuccotti Park? Who is the New York Times writer who helped him? How are employee unions involved? Why is this group still organized, protesting and occupying? What are the real goals of the occupiers and what are the goals of the organizers?

See Occupy Unmasked in select theaters beginning September 21, 2012. To find a theater near you, click here.

“An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent…” – Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

See The Hope and The Change, a film with the potential to change the course of the November 2012 presidential election. To read my review, click here: The Hope and The Change, A Review

The Late Andrew Breitbart

The future of our republic is at stake and we have a serious decision to make this November. We are facing the most vicious political team ever.  However, when you watch this great video from Ben Howe, it should prepare you for the coming fight.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/why-romney-t-quit-trump-101346115.html

Never mind that twelve days prior to this latest Yahoo News hit piece, Ben Shapiro of Breitbart’s Big Government discovered that: “the official website for Dystel & Goderich, Obama’s literary agents – was using the Barack Obama “born in Kenya” language until April 2007, just two months after then-Senator Obama declared his campaign for the presidency.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/Obama-pamphlet-in-use-2007

On that same day Joel Pollack, also of Breitbart’s Big Government, revealed the existence of a pamphlet stating: “Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

The existence of this pamphlet reveals why people like Donald Trump still question the place of obama’s birth.

So the smug, “holier than thou” attitude openly displayed by Walter, Chalian, Klein, Coolidge & Pham in their attack on Trump for simply answering questions about the “birther” issue posed to him by members of the “progressive” Party Pravda is entirely misplaced. Trump simply used his influence and the power of his prestige to pressure obama into showing some proof of birth. Why this was and is such a monumental hurdle for the “most transparent administration” in the history of the Milky Way Galaxy to overcome raises more questions. If there is nothing for obama to hide, why is money being spent to fight revealing said records? Especially when that money could be directed to his re-election campaign? Is obama hiding his college records because they’ll reveal that he enrolled in multiple academic institutions as a foreign exchange student? Again, for the “most transparent administration” since the Big Bang, a simple request to reveal college records is more difficult a climb than Mount Everest?

For Walter, Chalian, et al to express such disdain for Romney’s candidacy because he wants to avoid alienating Trump’s supporters (their assessment) reveals the hollowness of the entire misguided attack.

Wanting to avoid alienating voters is exactly why obama refuses to distance himself from the likes of Bill Maher, whose indefensible, pathologically misogynistic attacks on Conservative women go beyond the pale. obama’s afraid to alienate Maher’s viewers, just as he’s afraid to alienate other members of his extreme, fringe leftist base. Without a mass turnout of his “tax the rich” “government’s job is to take care of us” “occupy whatever” supporters, obama cannot win in November and he knows it. So do his whimpering, obedient suck-ups in the “progressive” Party Pravda.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/why-obama-cant-quit-maher/

Register for Right Online 2012 today!

Warning: Only watch this when you are ready to tear up.

I might not have met Andrew Breitbart, but had seen him on Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld and also in a few YouTube videos where he confronted the Occupy Wall street people as well as some who opposed the Tea Party. Through those incidents I feel as if I had known Andrew Breitbart, and will uphold his legacy of citizen journalism and blow the whistle on those who seek to cause harm to the country.

Here are two of the best videos of Breitbart:

And this wonderful pic (h/t Sarah Rumpf of Sunshine State Sarah) of Dana Loesch and Company. (pic taken by Chris Loesch) with the tweet posted here.

Andrew Breitbart is a force of nature, and I use the current tense intentionally; he will never leave us. Many words have been said about his passing. Many tears have been shed. Shock over his death was not an uncommon emotion and while the conservative community rallied and mourned, the progressives showed their true, gangrenous heart through the vitriol that they spewed in all communication mediums.

But enough about what happened. Let us focus, instead, upon what is…and that “is” is a BIG one, just as BIG as Breitbart and all his BIG websites.

Andrew Breitbart IS John Galt.

If you don’t know who John Galt is, I’m not sure if I should tell you to stop reading now and get thee to a library or a bookstore and read “Atlas Shrugged” or tell you to keep reading and THEN go get a copy. But I digress.

John Galt, beloved character of “Atlas Shrugged,” brought the men of the mind back to their senses. He taught them that they didn’t need to apologize for their success or their independence. “You are attacked, not for any errors or flaws, but for your virtues. You are denounced, not for any weaknesses, but for your strength.”

Breitbart was repeatedly attacked by the insidious left and he, unlike many of us before he came along, reveled in it. Andrew showed us that all we need to do is shine the light…and the truth…on the lies of the left and they will writhe and shrink like slugs with salt poured on them.

Galt and Breitbart both shrugged the feebleness of the left off their shoulders as if they were no more than a feather. When John Galt is asked by a looter what he thinks of the looter, Galt’s response is, “But I don’t think of you.” When told he should apologize for something, Breitbart’s response was, “Apologize for WHAT?”

Galt led the way to a better life by ignoring the left and Breitbart led the way by attacking them, but both showed that the left…the progressive, unscrupulous left of yesterday and today…are the antithesis of goodness and right.

And while John Galt took away producers from the world, Breitbart urged today’s producers to “run towards the fire!” He recognized the looter mentality of the progressive movement, most especially the progressive news media and their selective reporting, if not their outright lies, and he went toe-to-toe with all of them, begging them to prove him wrong. They never could.

It was his conviction in his rightness that makes Breitbart our Galt.

It was his fearlessness.

It was, most of all, his virtue.

In my never-ending struggle to right all that is wrong with the universe, I came up with the idea of juxtaposing the left’s contrived outrage about the Fluketroversy with real, bona fide, hateful language from the American leftosphere.

Ransacking my limited political knowledge, a couple examples immediately sprang to mind.  Don Imus. George Allen’s “macaca” moment. The usual tripe. Then a progressive blogger went ahead and did all my heavy lifting for me, proving that I’m not putting up straw men to knock down.

So with no further adieu, here goes a side-by-side comparison of the top five most offensive comments of the right vs. the left, in reverse order. The point is not that “both sides do it,” but that the left gets away with it, while conservatives do not.

Top Five Insulting Conservative Comment #5: Brian Kilmeade jokes to Gretchen Carlson: “Didn’t men give you the kitchen?”

This was such a flaming ball of outrage there’s not even a YouTube video on it.  I’m going to have to admit it was… gasp… a joke and move on.

Top Five Insulting Left-wing Comment #5: Michelle Malkin is a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it”:

Much like Highlander, there could only be one video copy on YouTube readily available that had Olbermann using this quote. By coincidence (I assume), Olbermann mentions that Beck and Limbaugh referred to Senator Mary Landrieu (she of the infamous “Louisiana Purchase” fame) in terms suggesting she was akin to a prostitute. Interestingly, I was just reading Federalist No. 66 today, and there is evidence that two of our founders thought such language appropriate, and were referring to non-females at the time: “They might also have had in view the punishment of a few leading individuals in the Senate, if they prostituted their influence in that body as the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption.” Hmm.

Top Five Insulting Conservative Comments #4: Bill Cooksey thinks Massachusetts politician Karyn Polito is hot

Again, from the policymic blog:

Bill Cooksey, WRKO-AM radio producer, made sexist comments about Karyn E. Polito on-air in response to a caller who inquired, “Is she hot?” Cooksey stated, “I think she’s hot. She’s tiny, she’s short. She’s got a banging little body on her. Facial wise, I give her about a seven. Body wise, I give her about an eight-and-a-half. Tight little butt. I endorse Karyn Polito.” Tom & Todd, pictured above, responded by saying it was “delightful and humorous.”

Yes, the comments were “sexist” because Bill Cooksey is apparently a heterosexual man who finds Ms. Polito attractive. And the controversy is? Where was the outrage when media publications were fawning about Barack Obama with his shirt off? Oh, that’s not sexist.  Or George Stephanopolous laughably being drooled over on Friends? Or…

Top Five Insulting Left-wing Comments #4: Bill Maher’s Jokes about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann as “MILFS of the Republican Right”

This is just a place-holder for the litany of nasty things Bill Maher has said about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, some of which can be countenanced here and here.  For those who either haven’t seen American Pie or have been Rip-van-winkle for decades, MILF is an acronym for “Mom I’d Like to Frog.” (Although “frog” means something else).  But really, who knows where to start? There’s the comment where he talks about their breasts, and then calls them both “boobs.” These are Republican political figures, mind you. But Maher’s really good stuff is when he calls Palin what Dana Loesch calls a C U Next Tuesday. I’ll leave it up to you to figure that one out.

Top Five Insulting Conservative Comments #3: Don Imus’ “Nappy Headed Hoes” Outrageous Outrage

This is the infamous statement that got Don Imus fired from his job as a long-time, well-established disk jockey. But as someone who was raised in the south, I know that blacks use the term “nappy headed hoes” in a joking manner all the time. The term was not used derisively or racistly by Imus, in a manner that suggests whites are superior to blacks. Nonetheless, it was enough for Imus to be asked to pack up his mic and leave.

Top Five Insulting Left-wing Comment #3: Michael Moore Calls Rush Limbaugh a “Bitch”

Although it would be great to juxtapose Moore’s comments with Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” descriptor, let’s be frank: Moore doesn’t merit such a high position, because we all know his modus operandi.  He is a tendentious, unintentional mockumentary director, so what else are we going to expect from him? Nonetheless, in response to Rush’s “slut” usage in his satirizing of the now-notorious Ms. Fluke, Michael Moore did a touchdown dance and spiked the football yelling, “Who’s the prostitute now, bitch?“  Who’s the hypocritical hack, Moore?

Top Five Insulting Conservative Comments #2: Foster Freiss’ “aspirin” joke

This is not my list, folks. The top insulting conservative comments represent an obvious lefty’s list of the most over-the-top conservative comments he can come up with.  So who is Foster Freiss? Good question.  He is the Santorum spokesman who joked that one proven method of birth control was to put an aspirin between the knees and hold it there. Funny? Yeah, a bit.  Outrageously outrageous? Come on.

Top Five Insulting Left-wing Comments #2: Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Nancy Pelosi Compare Tea Party Protesters to Nazis

This is where we start getting into the nitty-gritty, where you have public figures shamelessly and inaccurately demonizing one segment of the American population they are supposed to represent.  We won’t even get into the left calling tea party protesters terrorists here, we’ll just stick to the Godwin’s law that eventually everything on the Internet goes back to the Nazis. Well, Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat’s former Speaker of the House, actually compared the tea party to Nazis. The footage can be viewed here.

But current DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’ comments are even more interesting, in light of the way she has been tapped by the media to comment on the Rush Limbaugh “Fluke” controversy.  This is what she actually said: “I don’t see any swastikas or any pictures of the President in black face or burned in effigy here.  The difference between the way we express our First Amendment rights and the way I’ve seen Tea Party extremists—Republican Tea Party extremists—express their right is dramatically different.”  This woman is the current DNC Chair, ladies and gentlemen.

Do we even have to mention that our sitting president Barack Obama once referred to the tea party, over one-third of the country by loyalty, as the dirty epithet “teaba**ers?”

Top Five Insulting Conservative Comments #1: Rush Limbaugh Satirizing Sandra Fluke over Condomgate

Rush Limbaugh is a talk radio personality who went after Sandra Fluke for fabricating an issue about a lack of condoms on college campuses and trying to use it to advance a Democrat agenda by comparing her to a slut. Repeatedly. Over the course of three days (sounds like a good time, doesn’t it?). But let’s not be deceived about Ms. Fluke. She interjected herself abruptly into the public forum as a law student at a major private Catholic college complaining about the lack of condoms on her campus as if she were in a third world country.  And she mischievously fails to mention she is a thirty year-old feminist activist doing this as a publicity stunt to advance the Obama agenda, so this was actually part of a political operation. If all’s fair in love and war, why not so in politics? Well, it is all fair game if you are a radical leftist.

Top Five Insulting Left-wing Comments #1:  Andrew Breitbart Post-Mortem Rage

The left tap-danced on the late Andrew Breitbart’s grave all last week. And for what? Because he tried to hold the left accountable? For exposing ACORN as a shameless organization? For his relentless pursuit of the truth about the Pigford scam? Or for Weinergate? Here is some of the truly vile things said about him.

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone actually wrote an article called, “Andrew Breitbart: Death of a Douche.”

Matt Yglesias of Slate wrote on Twitter, “Conventions around dead people are ridiculous.The world outlook is slightly improved with @AndrewBrietbart dead.”

And the hateful bile train just keeps on a’comin.

As an afterthought, I guarantee you that not a single person on the left will be asked to apologize, let alone lose his job, nor suffer any kind of retaliation whatsoever for anything that he has said or might possibly say in the future about the late Andrew Breitbart. Now consider if any of the above-listed things about Andrew Breitbart were said about any beloved figure of the left by a notable conservative. That person would be gone in a heartbeat. No questions asked.

So why do you young skulls full of mush believe leftists get away with over-the-top hateful rhetoric, while conservatives do not? Because the corporate media are interested in the truth? Or is it possibly because lefties are actually, in a way you might not yet understand, shills for the establishment?

And just for the left-leaning folks out there: Why is it that leftists in the media are able to ridicule middle America mercilessly, such as by defaming the tea party movement, when the left is supposedly for the little guy? Don’t you people who are not so far gone to the left see the hatred, the ridicule, the detestation of supposedly uneducated folks who felt powerless and tired enough of being exploited to rise up in mass and peacefully protest? While the Occupy Wall Street protesters, as provably violent and irresponsible as they have shown themselves to be, have been the beloved children of big government and even big banking (did Ben Bernanke ever “empathize” with the tea party?)

What have been the left’s solutions to our “heated” national discourse after the tragic Gabby Giffords shooting, which Debbie Wasserman-Schultz tried to tie to the tea party? A new tone? How about savagely mocking more than half of Americans and demanding the government exploit them more for their own good! Well, some of us have had enough!

Surprise!

courtesy of Sal Montag (@saltyhollywood)

Following the tragic loss of Andrew Breitbart, the Conservative blogosphere and media have been filled with memorials and accolades to his life, principles, and tenacity in achieving his goal of setting the Conservative message against the main stream media. The constant theme of them all is that Breitbart was a warrior for the cause, and an example to set before all involved in fighting the barrage of skewed information presented by the main stream media. Andrew set out to ensure that even media in pop culture was countered when he created “The Bigs” and added Big Hollywood to its ranks.

An article in The Atlantic Wire makes the thought provoking statement that Andrew himself was trying to make: the Conservative movement can’t just happen in blazer and cocktail dress filled rooms, or in e-vite organized Tea Party events, or even on Twitter and Facebook groups. It has begun to surface in the places that would have made Andrew more happy than anything: in pop culture. And it’s growing.

Movies like “Act of Valor” , endorsements by celebrities of Conservative candidates, and the willingness of more celebrities to talk openly about being Conservative, are what Conservatives need to encourage to help keep up with the constant barrage of anti-conservative messaging in pop culture.

The Atlantic Wire mentions Breitbart’s quest for a Punk Rock Republican as being unfinished. I would suggest that the author of that post never met the guys from Madison Rising. A recent interview with lead singer Dave Bray, and talking with the band in general, has proven that Breitbart was on to something. These guys fully intend to do their share to bring Conservatism to the rock area of pop culture.