Sunday, December 15, 2013


After the huge tragedy in Newtown just over a year ago, NRA President Wayne LaPierre was roundly scorned, mocked and vilified by the Left for merely suggesting that one way to reduce the violence from school shooting incidents would be to place armed officers in our public schools.

After the initial firestorm however, many communities decided that what LaPierre said made sense, and actually began moving to place armed guards in their local schools.

In a stunning reversal after weeks of the Left's anti-NRA attacks aimed at the supposedly outrageous idea of armed officers in schools, in February of this year, the community of Newtown itself voted to place armed officers inside it's elementary schools. [The middle & high schools already had armed officers]

Now imagine how popular the idea of armed officers in schools will be after this news gets out: Today CNN is reporting that an armed school resources officer at the Arapahoe High School trapped the would-be mass shooter in the school library by responding so quickly to the sound of gunfire. Rather than trying to get past this armed school officer in order to get at more victims, 18 year old Karl Pierson took his own life.

The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school, Robinson said. Once he learned of the threat, he ran -- accompanied by an unarmed school security officer and two administrators -- from the cafeteria to the library, Robinson said. "It's a fairly long hallway, but the deputy sheriff got there very quickly."
The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff, Robinson said. "We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life."He praised the deputy's response as "a critical element to the shooter's decision" to kill himself, and lauded his response to hearing gunshots. "He went to the thunder," he said. "He heard the noise of gunshot and, when many would run away from it, he ran toward it to make other people safe."
There have been several instances where would-be mass shooters have been thwarted early in their rampage by unexpectedly facing armed opposition. The best known before Friday afternoon's shooting at Arapahoe High School was the Clackamas Mall incident in which a shooter wearing a hockey mask got off 16 rounds and killed two people before retreating in the face of an armed citizen with a drawn Glock 22.

Another example is the Trolley Square incident in Salt Lake City in which a mass shooter with big plans for a wholesale slaughter had them ruined by an off-duty police officer who kept him pinned down with his handgun until SWAT could arrive.

Though the Left mocked LaPierre mercilessly for claiming "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", subsequent events continue to demonstrate LaPierre was correct.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013


The biggest damage from the developing ObamaCare trainwreck is to the carefully crafted illusion that progressives have worked so hard to create for the past several decades: that Big Government self-anointed elites in Washington DC are competent super-managers of sterling character who can be trusted with an ever-increasing amount of power and control over the lives of citizens.

The Washington Post obtained a memo that detailed the White House in-fighting over how ObamaCare should be implemented. The memo goes over the struggle within the administration between what it dubs 'the economics team', who argued for bringing in private sector specialists with experience at start ups and complex problem solving of the magnitude that the ACA called for, and the 'political team' who wanted fast implementation by it's own in-house political staffers who fully believed they were up to the job.

After all, who needs actual experience when you believe all the 'right' things? The noble cause will grant you competency, or something. Progressives seem to actually believe this,and as David Horowitz explains here, this is why every central planning escapade turns into a flaming trainwreck.

When the political team won the debate, many members of the economics team, such as Larry Summers and Christina Roemer, jumped ship to avoid the looming disaster they saw coming. Recent developments have shown their decision was prescient. The political team that thought itself supremely competent to launch something of the size and scope of the ACA despite having had no such prior experience has now been exposed as totally inadequate.

As the scope of the abject failures involved in ObamaCare's implementation mount, even the die-hard Old media completely in the tank as propaganda arms of the DNC have to shake their head in bewilderment at how they are going to spin a disaster this obvious.

It used to be it took a decade or more for the results of bad social policy to manifest - which gave big government elites & their media allies plenty of time to put out plausible sounding excuses to paper over the failure and deflect any fallout onto others.

The difference with ObamaCare is that Obama & his administration have gone about passing & implementing this disastrous new policy so quickly with such a high level of deception and such abject incompetence that there isn't any gap in time of a few years in which to spin the increasingly evident bad results.

Never before have the progressives driving for social change gone for it with the speed - and the outright deceptions - that the Obama administration has. Which means the bad results are cropping up immediately and in a way that it's impossible to paper them over or shift the blame onto others.

Those who tried to warn the country what ObamaCare would actually do had to endure almost 5 years of ridicule, mocking and name calling for trying to sound the alarm. They were called racists and far worse. And now it's evident they were right all along.

Progressives have done more to destroy their carefully crafted illusion of competency with this ObamaCare trainwreck than the GOP establishment ever did.

Progressives like Obama can only lobby for more power to be given to them based on promises about what they will competently do with it. In just a short amount of time, Obama & Co. have revealed themselves to not only be abject liars, but also completely incompetent blunderers.

The blowback for this should reach spectacular proportions. The Democratic Party can lie and spin all they want, say whatever they think will get them a momentary advantage. But millions of people over the next year will clearly see their experiences on health insurance are not matching the Democratic leadership's increasingly desperate rhetoric.

It must be remembered the vast majority of Republicans - and certainly almost all Conservatives - knew not to trust Obama as he traveled around the country repeating his 'Keep Your Plan' lie. The people he was out to deceive were in his own base. Remember, the ACA passed only after months of threats, arm twisting and outright bribery to gin up the required number of Democrat votes. Why did it take so long? Because Democratic lawmakers were getting opposition to the proposed law from their own constituents.

Keeping more people in the Democratic base from realizing what the law would actually do became crucially important to ever getting it passed. That is precisely why Obama embarked on a months long strategy of making false claims to his own base. And the fallout from this could be catastrophic.

I humorously point this fact out in my new 'Downfall' parody, in which Hitler hatches the 'Keep Your Plan' lie with his generals and then is shocked at the magnitude of Obama's hubris:

Monday, May 27, 2013

Update: Since I've Been Asked To Be A 
Regular Contributor At, This Blog Will
Self-Destruct In 3........2........1......

Well just kidding.  But it does mean most of my new articles will be going up on the Bigs.  

Two have been accepted already & you can see them here:

I have another article currently in submission that could appear soon.  Thanks to all who helped support the blog the past 14 months.  I'll still be posting here occasionally, just not as much.  

Sunday, May 19, 2013

How Media Progressives Like Those At
The New York Times Go About
Shaping The 'Correct' Perception
People Should Have Of News Stories

Some real news came out of the release of the Inspector General's report on the IRS abuse, and from the Congressional hearings this week.  The Obama administration lied when it claimed it had no idea the IRS was targeting Conservative groups for delays & denials of their applications for tax-exempt status.  

Everybody lied.  The then-IRS Commissioner lied last year to Congress when he insisted no such targeting was going on, and Obama lied when he claimed he learned of the IRS scandal just last week by reading the newspapers.  

But you wouldn't really know that if you read the New York Times.  You MIGHT if you dug way down deep into the story towards the end, if you can read a little between the lines.  

Thankfully, as the following screenshots will show, you can learn for yourself how a breaking news story containing REAL new information gets 'massaged' by a media professional to ensure that readers come away with the 'correct' impression.
This is Jonathan Weisman.  He's sorry for reporting real news 
& promises it won't happen again.

When Jonathan Weisman first put his story up on Friday following more Congressional testimony, this is what the headline  and the opening sentence looked like:  

Now, notice what Weisman did here: in the HEADLINE and in the OPENING SENTENCE he revealed the MAJOR NEWS that came out of that day's testimony.  The IG directly contradicted the Obama administration's claim it had no idea anything was wrong at the IRS or that certain groups and citizens were being targeted for harassment due to 'incorrect' political beliefs.  

In other words, WEISMAN DID WHAT A REPORTER IS SUPPOSED TO DO.  He led with the news and made it easy to see.  

Well that really bothered somebody higher up, who decided that Weisman's piece was 'incomplete' and needed some 'massaging' to bring out the REAL STORY.  

Take a look at what Weisman's original piece was turned into after it was helpfully 'edited' by Jeremy W. Peters: 
Hello! I'm Jeremy Peters, the Political Morale Officer
here at the NYT's!  I see Jonathan left the real news out of his article!
No problem, I can fix that!

As you can see, Jeremy W. Peters knew EXACTLY what Weisman's article needed; the real story is about the REPUBLICANS trying to use this breaking scandal for their own political benefit.  

So how could Weisman have left out the word 'Republicans' in the headline? How could he have not inserted Republican attempts to enlarge the scandal to score political points against the White House in the very first sentence?  Well Peters made sure those were the very first things that got changed.  

Peters must have also wondered: Hey Johnathan, WTF? Why are you LEADING with the IG's testimony that he informed top administration officials of the scandal back in 2012?  Don't you realize this directly contradicts what Obama & the administration spent all this week claiming? Why the bloody blue hell would you make THAT the lede?  Are you seriously trying to give your readers the sense there's a REAL scandal here instead of just another political witchhunt?  No man, you gotta BURY that crap and  hide it way further down in the story like this: 

Weisman's original opening sentence: 

What Peter's butchered it into way down in the 9th paragraph: 

See Johnathan? THAT'S how it's done, bro!  You change it from 'senior Treasury officials', which reveals a bunch of top Administration people knew, to just the 'Treasury's general counsel', a single person.  It's important to give the present administration as much cover as you can! Are you taking notes, bro? 

In the USSR's military, there was the military commander and then there was the 'Morale Officer' which is a kind way of saying Communist Party hack.  The military commander would make decisions and then would have to run them by the Morale Officer first for approval.  That often meant sound military decisions were changed and suborned to stupid party ideology.  

How is what Peters did to Weisman's article any different?  Sound reporting was 'massaged' until it reflected Party Ideology.  There is no way anybody can call that revised article anything but propaganda.  

From a real news story into a political hack job - The NYT's at it's best! 

Congratulations, media 'journalists' like those at the New York Times.  You don't break news any more, you cover it up.  You don't speak truth to power, you cover for The Power.  How's it feel to be today's version of the USSR's Pravda?  

Since Jeremy Peters is on Twitter at @jwpetersNYT , how's about we all go tell him what a smashingly good job he did improving the article by burying the real news & interjecting a lot of political spin?  

Youse guyz can follow me on Twitter at @drawandstrike if you really want to.  

UPDATE:  It's #ACCOUNTABILITYWATCH DAY 10 since Lois Lerner tried her 'controlled explosion' on Friday May10th.  You know what one of the biggest outrages of the IRS scandal is? 

That the Obama administration quickly proffered two patsies who weren't even in charge when most of the abuses took place.  A guy who was leaving next month anyway and a guy who'd been on the job a grand total of 8 days.  

That's NOT accountability.  Accountability would be the people in charge at the time the abuse took place getting fired, not the people who replaced them.  But for some reason the MSM seems pretty darn reluctant to point out that Lois Lerner and Sarah Hall Ingram still have jobs at the IRS.  

Why is that?  

Friday, May 17, 2013

The IRS Scandal's Sacrificial
Resignations To Cover For
The *REAL* Culprits
It's masterful the way the Obama administration tried to pull this off.  Now, it didn't work, but you have got to admire the planning that went into it.
Having known for weeks that an IRS scandal was about to break, the administration quickly sacrificed outgoing Acting Commissioner of the IRS Steven Miller - who as it so happens was leaving that job next month anyway.
The unlucky Joseph Grant - NONE of the criminal conduct happened
while he was on the job the last EIGHT DAYS but canned anyway! 

It's next move was to 'force' the resignation of the fellow presently in charge of the IRS division where this targeting of Conservative groups occurred from 2009-2012.  The problem? That guy had only been in that job for a grand total of 8 days.

Meanwhile, the two people who were in charge of that IRS division while the actual abuse was occurring?  Nothing whatsoever has happened to them.  In fact, both received huge bonuses over this time period and one of them was actually PROMOTED to a new, higher position.  
Last Friday Lois Lerner had a planted question asked to her at a conference so the IRS could get out ahead of the release of the Inspector General's investigative report that came out this Wednesday.  Lerner was attempting to do what's in media parlance called a 'controlled explosion', where the offending party breaks the bad news itself, offers an apology and minimizes their own culpability in an attempt to head off further damage.

In her statement to a stunned room of conference goers last Friday, Lerner admitted the IRS division in charge of granting tax exempt status to non-profits had deliberately targeted Conservative groups for delays and denials of their applications for tax exemption.  She then made a concerted effort to blame just a handful of low level rogue employees in one office in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Further investigation - and the release of the IG's report this Wednesday - has revealed that just about everything Lerner claimed was false.

Kevin D. Williamson at NRO's excellent 'The 9 Lies Of Lois Lerner' breaks down her falsehoods so go read it:
Today former Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller defiantly told Congress that the IRS's deliberate targeting of certain groups due to their political beliefs was 100% legal, before backing away from that statement.

As the scandal grows, the glaring fact that 2 patsies offered up thus far weren't in charge when the abuse occurred, while the two people who were sail on untouched will be much, much harder to justify.
   Lois Lerner                                       Sarah Ingram Hall
Riddle Me This: How in the hell do these two people STILL have
jobs at the IRS?

Sarah Ingram Hall, who was actually in charge of the tax exempt division when this criminal conduct occurred, not only hasn't been fired, she was actually promoted to the head of the IRS's new ObamaCare enforcement division.  Lerner is also still safely ensconced at her IRS job.

Last Friday when the attempt at a 'controlled explosion' was just getting underway after Lerner's revelation & apology, the IRS told reporters that no one had been fired or would even be disciplined for these abuses. Karen Tumulty at the Washington Post:
That smug attitude quickly changed, leading to the offering up of two scapegoats, but the real question is how can the IRS - and the Obama Administration - claim the scandal has been dealt with when the people most responsible for the scandal are still there?

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Liberal Stupidity Case #23,443: 

Concrete Example From The Benghazi Talking Points Of The Obama Administration's Attempts To *DEFINE* The Threat Of Islamic Terrorism Out Of Existence With Word Games 

CBS New's Sharyl Attkisson - one of the few real investigative reporters that will follow the story no matter WHERE it goes - was discussing the Obama administration's heavy editing of the CIA's talking points on the Benghazi attack.

As ABC News' Jon Karl revealed on Friday, those talking points underwent 12 revisions, and at no point was a YouTube video mentioned in any of them, something that reduced Jay Carney to a stuttering idiot yesterday in his briefing with the White House press corp.

Attkisson was tweeting out the nature of the administration's edits, which you can read about here:

Note this peculiar particular edit she mentions:
Uh really? An attack supposedly over a video in an area inhabited by Islamic militias, why would they feel a need to remove the word 'Islamic?
Oh. That's issues.  The Obama administration had LIMITED the language federal agencies can use when discussing 'man caused disasters' overseas.  

Even as they were getting ready to put out the false narrative about our consulate being sacked & Americans being killed by an Islamic mob due to a YouTube video, somebody in this administration objected to the use of the word 'Islamic' in the CIA talking points.  

Marvel for a moment, if you will, that people locked into this kind of stupidity are presently in charge of our national security.  

As you'll recall, I ranted about how this stupid Obama policy of trying to DEFINE the threat away just last week:

.....from the earliest beginnings of this administration's roll out of it's 'smart power' policy of redefining the domestic terror threat out of existence, people were warning this would put the walls between federal agencies right back up and put us on a pre-9/11 footing again.  AND AMERICANS WOULD DIE BECAUSE OF IT. 
Dick & Liz Cheney were exactly right, as all the fumbling and bumbling by the FBI, CIA, DHS and White House the past 2 weeks has amply demonstrated.  
Click on image to view at full size, read from the bottom right

With his eyes wide open, Obama led a rebuilding of all the walls between federal agencies when it came to sharing info and being alert for foreign & domestic Islamic terror activity.   Because, as in everything, he was convinced it was in his political interest to do so. 
From Bengahzi to the Boston Marathon Bombing, Obama's stupid and dangerous short-sighted policy of playing word games with real existential threats has already borne bloody fruit and will continue to do so until we get new people in charge.  

Thursday, May 9, 2013

With Eyewitnesses Finally Coming Forward Despite Threats & Retaliation, The Truth Is Coming Out:

The Obama Administration Lied To America About A Terrorist Attack For Weeks For No Other Reason Than To Cover Its Own Ass & Win An Election

Deliberately lying about a terrorist attack for even a single day would have been bad enough.  But the Obama administration desperately tried to sell its YouTube video version of the Benghazi attack for over two weeks.  
U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice launched the cover up on 5 Sunday news shows.  For the next 17 days the administration sold the video narrative to whoever would listen - including the grieving families of the 4 Americans that died.  
A moment that will live in infamy: Hillary Clinton knows the
truth that there was no Benghazi demonstration over a YouTube video
when she blames it for the Benghazi attack -
and then tells Charles Woods they are going to 
prosecute the videomaker
Listen at 16:40 as Hillary Clinton blames an inflammatory 
YouTube video as the 'cause' of the Benghazi attack that killed 
US Ambassador Chris Stevens & 3 others

They finally gave up because even the WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORP couldn't help itself and started laughing out loud at Jay Carney's attempt to keep the meme alive.  

The great thing about the Benghazi conspiracy for the Progressive Left is that the cover up had a TIME LIMIT. 

The cover up lie about Benghazi being a 'spontaneous event' caused by 'a YouTube video' ONLY needed to last until the election was over.  The whole point of the cover up was to make sure the administration avoided any political blowback over it's own incompetence that led directly to this attack and 4 dead Americans.  Blowback might hurt Obama's reelection chances, so a cover up became necessary.

A sitting President & his administration made a calculated political decision to lie to the American people for WEEKS about a terrorist attack in which Americans died so they could avoid any accountability for it and win an election.  And once the election was over and they won it, it was time to turn the page on Benghazi forever.  

For over two weeks the administration had all it's ducks in a row: Obama, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney - at every opportunity when asked about Benghazi they CONSTANTLY blamed the YouTube video and claimed it was the cause of the attack.  This DESPITE the fact there was NEVER a shred of evidence provided by anybody in Libya that there had been any kind of protest at all.  All the evidence they had from people on the ground pointed to a terrorist attack. 

But it couldn't BE a terrorist attack on a consulate they had isolated & stripped security from in a terrorist hot zone on the anniversary of 9-11.  It just COULDN'T be.   This fact was not politically helpful.  
Neither Gregory Hicks or anybody else on the ground in Libya that day
EVER reported any kind of demonstration/protest at Benghazi. 

When Their Man In Libya called and asked just where in the heck did this idea come from that the Benghazi terrorist attack was REALLY just a 'spontaneous protest over a video', since neither he or ANY BODY ELSE on the ground in Libya he was aware of had EVER told anyone back in Washington that, he was basically told to shut his mouth and drop this line of questioning.  
The same administration that had told him what an awesome job he did during and after the Benghazi attack then turned on Hicks and demoted him for not being a team player and questioning their cover up.

The media reaction to this has been predicable.  A whistleblower who just happened to be the State Department's top guy in Libya once Steven's died & he had to take over just testified to Congress that wherever the administration got this weird idea that the Benghazi attack happened during a video protest, they certainly didn't get it from him or anyone he talked to, and this isn't some big revelation.

The media is DISTINCTLY uncurious about who decided to totally invent this talking point about a video protest in an attempt to get this administration off the hook for getting caught with it's pants down on 9/11/12.

Something Ace of Spades & I discussed on Twitter:

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Lefty Media's Big Excuse For Missing
Pigford & Benghazi Stories:

"Right-Wing Media Covering Those Stories

Made Them Untouchable.  So Our Lack of
Coverage Is Their Fault."

I am not joking.  This is not a parody.  They are actually saying this at places like MSNBC,, and The Atlantic.

First, The Atlantic article by Conor Friesenwhatsis in which he admits Breitbart was right about Pigford BUT it was also Breitbart's seizing hold of Pigford that MADE 'progressive journalists' not want to look into the claims of fraud:

Friensendoofus' take on this is that Conservatives talking about Pigford made Lefty Progressives see it as merely a 'Conservative issue' and this prevented them from taking their own close look at what was happening with all that Treasury Dept. money with the Pigford settlements.

In point of fact Breitbart  and other right-leaning media practically end up having their stories PICKED FOR THEM due to 'progressive jounalists' deciding to deep-six stories that make Progressives & Democrats look bad.

A point I made in the comments at The Atlantic:

Click image to view at full size is also floating the justification for ignoring Benghazi: because it was a 'Fox News story' so if it DOES turn out to be something & nothing happens, this is Fox New's fault.  Or something.  See if you can make sense of this:
While we won’t know exactly what the three will say until they testify Wednesday, some pieces have leaked. Thompson, according to Fox News, is alleging that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to cut out his counterterrorism bureau from the department’s decision-making in responding to the attack. This, Thompson will reportedly allege, was part of the administration’s attempt to downplay the terror connection to the attack. [...]
If the three new witnesses don’t get the attention they deserve, Fox News and its ilk deserve much of the blame.
Yes, this is the defense the Lefty Media is going to mount for 'missing' these important stories. Because of their ideology, they refuse to cover something, the Right does, so now this gives the Left a reason to discount the story because it's only "Right-wing people talking about it.". 

And once the story grows to the point the Lefty Media HAS to cover it, they blame the New Media for 'doing it wrong' and forcing them to stay away.  

I've had it with this stupidity. 

Thursday, May 2, 2013

While The Left Still Waits With 
Bated Breath For The First
Tea Party Rally To Devolve Into
A Riot.......

Let's All Enjoy The Usual Round Of Excuses They'll Make For THESE May Day Protesters As They: 

  • Assault Cops
  • Engage In Massive Amounts of Vandalism
  • Say Stupid Stuff

Only in the minds of Leftist goons can police not letting them move in on a glass storefront so they can vandalize it be worthy of assaulting cops:

I asked this over a year ago, and the challenge still stands: Find me one example from a Tea Party rally where people assaulted cops or engaged in vandalism like this.  If one cannot be supplied, then can we FINALLY bury this stupid Leftist meme that the Tea Party is 'violent'? 
At Seattle's May Day protests last year, Asst. Police Chief Mike Sanford made an ill-advised
attempt to effect an arrest after he witnessed an act of vandalism - and had to be rescued by his
own police force after being surrounded by black bloc protesters, several of whom were armed
with clubs and pipes. 

Here's a website making the usual BS argument Lefty's use to excuse the always-present violence during these protests:

Yes, anarchists always 'hijack' the peaceful march.  Nothing they can do about it really, even though this happens EVERY time. I don't know, maybe I'm unrealistic, but if EVERY YEAR or every WTO meeting you have a march that turns violent, how many times  can you float this idea that your side isn't really doing anything violent, this is anarchists 'hijacking' your protests?  

Somehow I get the idea if Skinheads or violent wackos on the Right ever did start 'piggybacking' Tea Party rallies, Tea Party organizers/marchers would NOT get off the hook by simply claiming their peaceful rally got 'hijacked'.  And even IF some people would buy that, how many years in a row would they take that excuse before reconsidering? 

While cities like Seattle lose millions of dollars every year to the vandalism that inevitably occurs during these protests, it's worth noting this kinda stuff never happens in red states.  Because when they tried to vandalize a store, some of these rioters would get shot.  

UPDATE:  John Ekdahl & Ace both put up posts on this at the Ace of Spades blog that are both well worth a look:

Yet Again, Anarchists Highjack Peaceful Left Wing Protest

Mostly Peaceful Riot in Seattle Leaves Eight Cops Mostly Peacefully Injured after Having Been Mostly Peacefully Pelted with Mostly Peaceful Rocks and Mostly Peaceful Bottles

Stunner: Mostly Peaceful May Day March Turns Violent in Seattle, Eight Cops Injured

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

It was a long time ago! You don't NEED to hear from 
eyewitnesses of this terrorist attack! Can we just all move on already?


The administration's attempts to stonewall on Benghazi also reached comical proportions today.  For over 6 months we were told 'the investigation is ongoing, can't talk about it'.  Now all of a sudden, watch Jay Carney suddenly pull the 'Benghazi was a long time ago, let's move on, OK?' card:

Gee, what could possibly have happened to cause the switch from "Sorry can't talk about it" to "This was a long time ago, why are we still talking about it?" 

Oh. Hey. Maybe the fact actual EYEWITNESSES in Benghazi that night have finally decided to come forward despite threats & give their testimony to Congress:

Eventually, some of these people were going to talk.  The only question was, how long could this thuggish administration cow them into anonymous silence?  Turns out the answer was about seven months.  

If the Bush administration had tried to keep eyewitnesses of a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 that killed Americans from telling their stories, do you need ME to tell you how our DNC shill mainstream media would be covering it? 
Andrew Breitbart & Lee Stranahan
Vindicated On Pigford Scandal

The New York Times 'revealed' to it's readers a few days ago what everyone who followed Andrew Breitbart and Lee Stranhan's expose of Pigford knew over 3 years ago: 

After starting out for a legitimate purpose to rectify real grievances, the Pigford program was turned by Democrats into a huge vote-buying scam using taxpayer money right out of the Treasury.

For exposing the corruption and lies of Pigford, and how it has devolved into a huge cash cow for Democrats fronting bogus discrimination complaints in order to steal taxpayer's money, Andrew Breitbart and Lee Stranahan were mercilessly lampooned, mocked, ridiculed and attacked by the Left for over 3 long years.  

But that didn't stop them from telling the truth about Pigford and how it was dishonestly being used to defraud American taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars: 

Eric Bohelert made countering every single revelation about Pigford by Breitbart & Stranahan with mockery and ridicule his own personal quest from his post at Media Matters For America:
Since the NYT's broke this front page expose of the huge extent of Pigford corruption on April 25th, Boehlert hasn't tweeted or posted one word about it.  Anyone care to guess why? 

To me, this was the biggest revelation of the entire NYT's story: 

Er, what?! You mean Attorney General Eric Holder has had for 5 years 'broad discretion' to settle Pigford cases all by his lonesome without any messy Congressional or Court oversight and we're only just NOW finding out about it?  

Here's intrepid Attorney General Eric Holder trying to decide
how much Treasury money to hand out to some guy who never
owned a farm but who WILL be very generous with future 
Democratic votes and donations. 

So how many MILLIONS of the taxpayers money has he directly funneled out of the Treasury in the past 5 years?  And who got all this money? Was anybody keeping count? Does any one know? 

Congress needs to look into this just as soon as it's done with it's Benghazi and Boston Marathon bombing investigations.