Stupid Liberals Doing 

Stupidly: 

NY Gov. Cuomo's New 'SAFE' Law

Ensnares It's First 'Criminal': 

An Iraqi War Hero Who Sold

A 10 Rd Magazine In An AR-15

Liberals refuse to solve the real gun crime problem, so they'll write stupid laws like this SAFE Act to criminalize ordinary gun owners/sellers and then prosecute them.  To show they 'care' and are 'doing something' about guns.  Beyond pathetic.  

I'm a moron, folks. I'm now calling for the repeal of a main provision

in a law I pushed the legislature to pass in a hurry just a month ago.

http://buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130320/CITYANDREGION/130329919/1010

Nobody makes a freaking 7 round magazine, something that Andrew Cuomo finally got around to realizing just a few days ago.  

http://washingtonexaminer.com/cuomo-new-law-banning-magazines-over-seven-rounds-should-be-repealed/article/2524994

“There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine. That doesn’t exist. So you really have no practical option,” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo admitted yesterday at a news conference, explaining why his tough ban on ammunition magazines over seven rounds should be repealed. 

The bill must be repealed if New Yorkers ever want to purchase an ammunition magazine for their firearm.

Cuomo explained yesterday, however, that the new law will only allow citizens to put seven bullets in the magazines, unless they are at a shooting range.

Smart people tried to tell the liberals up there in NY this BEFORE they passed the SAFE Act that nobody makes a 7 round magazine, but anyone who spoke up trying to stop the law's passage or pointing out how unworkable it was, hey they must be right wing extremists and who pays attention to THOSE people?  

They wrote this thing & passed it so fast it didn't even occur to them to exempt police from it.  

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/18/goofball-new-york-legislators-forget-to-exempt-the-police-from-tough-new-gun-laws/

And note that if you get caught with a gun in NY state that has eight rounds in it instead of just seven, you've committed a felony.  Yes, you're reading that correctly.  Cuomo wants the law amended to read the act of putting an eighth round in a 10 round magazine is a felony worth up to seven years in prison.  

So - 7 bullets you're a law abiding citizen.  8 bullets in the gun? You're a dangerous menace to society and a criminal.  Thank God there's a court system to protect the rest of us from people like  you.  

Did I already say this was beyond pathetic?  I did?  Not one criminal with a gun in NY State will turn in a single magazine.  But you'll see a whole slew of honest people like Benjamin Wassell get dragged to court, maybe even get prison time, so stupid Liberals like Cuomo can smugly pretend they're 'fixing the gun problem'.  

It's Been Six Months Since The 

Benghazi Terrorist Attack -

And This Administration 

Continues To Stonewall 

Congress & Avoid Any 

Responsibility Over It

How bad is it?  The Congress can't even get this White House, State Dept. or CIA to simply TELL them who ANY of the Benghazi survivors are.  There are around 30.  Despite explicitly asking repeatedly for these survivors testimony about what happened that fateful night, not one name has been forthcoming. 

The White House keeps turning over heavily redacted information then claiming they've 'complied'with Congresses' requests. 

Imagine getting boxes full of papers that looked like this one & then 

having the prick that sent it to you claiming he's 'complied' with 

your request for information. Welcome to Darrell Issa's world.

CBS New's Sharyl Attkisson continues to be the ONLY major news network reporter demanding to know why this information hasn't been released to Congress yet: 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57573613/six-months-later-where-are-the-benghazi-survivors/

Today marks six months since the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Some watchdog groups, members of the media and Republican members of Congress are asking: Where are the more than two dozen U.S. personnel who survived the attack but haven't been seen nor heard from in public since? There were also an undisclosed number of witnesses at the U.S. compounds in Tripoli but they also have not spoken publicly.

In a recent press report, Secretary of State John Kerry said he visited one survivor at "Bethesda hospital," and referred to him a "remarkably courageous person who is doing very, very well." Kerry added, "I've called his wife and talked to her." But the identities, condition and testimony of the survivors and witnesses have been closely held from the public.

Over 100 guys with automatic weapons, mortars and 

techinicals with 50. cal. guns on the back =

'spontaneous demonstration' according to this White House

One reason the administration doesn't want to see the Benghazi survivors testify about the events of the night of September 11, 2012, is that their  testimony before Congress will likely diverge from the administration's story as to what happened. 

The administration has claimed repeatedly no requests for help from Tyrone Woods or Glenn Doherty were denied.  Woods, Doherty & others were in constant radio contact with both the State Dept. and the CIA that night.   The White House, State Dept. and the CIA all had members that testified under oath and assured various media reporters that no requests for aid were turned down during the seven hour attack.  

The White House also embarked on a two week attempt to sell a false narrative to the country about the Benghazi attack being the result of a 'spontaneous demonstration' due to an inflammatory YouTube video.  Members of Congress have thus far been unable to get the White House to put forth ANY evidence they had that pointed to any kind of protest or demonstration in Benghazi that day or night of September 11.   The Benghazi survivors will no doubt be asked about this.  Especially in light of the fact the administration has already admitted they WATCHED the attack via overhead drone cameras.  How could they end up selling the video narrative when they knew from the first night how organized and heavily armed the attackers were? 

Another sign of a cover-up is that the administration claimed several people had been 'fired' over Benghazi who actually weren't fired at all, an obvious attempt to give some kind of fake accountability and then quickly move on that backfired when the truth came out: 

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/benghazi_penalties_are_bogus_ncP7RZx5uTIgDPbTp5WtoN

"So we really didn't fire them like we said we did. 

What difference, at this point, does it make??!!!"

Hillary Clinton then had to 'explain' during her testimony before Congress why it was 'erroneously reported' that these four State. Dept. officials had been fired when in actual fact all had been placed on 'administrative leave' and were keeping their jobs: 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/23/clinton-finally-explains-why-the-four-state-dept-employees-blasted-for-leadership-failures-in-benghazi-report-have-not-been-fired/#

Did the White House EVER have any evidence of the attack being as a result of a protest over a video?  Evidence has certainly mounted that from the time the attack was *STILL UNFOLDING* it was an organized terrorist attack, and yet for two weeks afterwards the White House attempted to sell the video idea.  

If 9-11-12 was a planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9-11-01, and if the administration had been stripping security from one of the most dangerous diplomatic postings in the world, then this administration had a lot to answer for.  Which is why it looks like they desperately attempted to sell a false narrative to the public for several weeks.  It was just another example of how this administration will never accept responsibility for it's own policy decisions and instead will simply lie.  

This very well could have been a full scale massacre with over two dozen dead Americans.  It was only the quick thinking, actions, and self-sacrificing bravery of two former Navy SEALs that the Benghazi survivors managed to escape. 

The American people deserve to know the truth about what happened that night.  I don't see the White House's attempts to stonewall lasting much longer.  

I did not write this poem. It's making away around the 'net. Kudos to the original author. 

It Begins To Dawn On Most

Democrats Just What A 

Huge Freaking

Boondoggle ObamaCare

Is Gonna Be...

So naturally some of them are already wondering if there's something they can do to foist the responsibility for this huge turd onto the Republicans.  

Sorry, Democrats. You own this sh*t sandwich.  You're gonna have to eat it.  You know who else is gonna have to eat it?  Tax payers and voters.  Think about that for a minute.  

No, this is *NOT* the ObamaCare Law that nobody read before passing. 

See, this is just *SOME* of the NEW job destroying, small business killing

 REGULATIONS of the ObamaCare Law. Rest easy, Citizen! 

The American Heritage Foundation in it's '12 Days Of ObamaCare' article spelled out the fact that while ObamaCare's costs keep skyrocketing, the actual NUMBER of new people who'll get health insurance coverage keeps declining:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/18/12-days-of-obamacare-surprises-uninsured-americans/

One of Obamacare’s primary goals was to dramatically reduce the number of uninsured. To achieve this, Obamacare depends on a Medicaid expansion, new government subsidies funneled through exchanges, and an individual mandate to get people covered. 

In 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that Obamacare would insure 32 million non-elderly people by 2019, leaving 23 million non-elderly Americans uninsured. 

In 2012, the CBO updated its projection to show that Obamacare would provide coverage for 36 million people through Medicaid and subsidized coverage in the government-run exchanges, leaving 30 million Americans uninsured in 2022. 

Surprise: That’s a projected increase of 7 million additional Americans who will remain uninsured despite Obamacare’s costly efforts to expand coverage.

Or another way to put it: 

Well when you remember this is the same administration that created 355 permanent 'green jobs' by spending $10 billion taxpayer dollars, it shouldn't really surprise you.  

http://drawandstrike.blogspot.com/2012/06/obama-white-house-spends-10-billion-tax.html

As Obama and others with the 'vision of the anointed' have always admitted when they felt like being candid, ObamaCare is just a incremental step in getting the country ready for a single payer health care system.  To get the public ready for such a single payer system, they first need to 'prove' to the citizenry just how broken and insufficient the private health insurance and health care industries are without total government control over them.  

In other words, Obama & Democrats want to sell the public on the idea that the FREE MARKET is the problem because greedy capitalists are running it, so once the switch is made to having benevolent gov't bureaucrats running those industries from a central planning HQ, the prices will drop and the quality of the services will increase.  

But the one flaw in this plan is that you have to keep people from noticing it's GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE in that supposedly 'free market' that keeps prices climbing and the quality of service declining IN THE FIRST PLACE. 

As Ann Coulter has pointed out incessantly in columns like this one, we don't really have a 'free market' in this country when it comes to health insurance.   Gov't interference in the market keeps driving the costs up, and so the same people keep proffering MORE gov't interference as the way to 'fix' the problem.  

Government Bureaucrat: What's that? After we passed a crapload of new 

restrictions/regulations on the health insurance industry, 

your premiums went up again?  DAMN THAT FREE MARKET! 

When are you gonna let us do right by you, O Citizen, and just put us

 in charge of the whole thing?  

They're likely to try the whole 'Oh hey, we're just as surprised as YOU are at the rising costs, but hey it's the law, too late now!'  If  you listen real close, you can hear them whisper '...suckers!' at the end of that sentence.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE! With some help on Twitter, I got the bright idea of crunching the CBO's latest update on ObamaCare.  We're going to spend $2.6 trillion taxpayer dollars in the next decade to....drop the # of uninsured people from 36,000,000 to 30,000,000. 

In other words, we're going through this ObamaCare hell to insure just 36 million people and when we're done there'll still be 30 million with no health insurance.  

You want to see how really stupid this is?  

Here's what we COULD be doing with that $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years: we could just directly GIVE it to each of the 36,000,000  uninsured and let them buy their own health insurance with it.  

How much money could each uninsured person in that 36,000,000 get out of that $2.6 trillion over 10 years? 

How about...$72,222.00.  Over 10 years that's $7,222 a year.  

Got that? We'd better off getting this 36 million uninsured people health insurance if the freaking government just GAVE THEM $7,222 a year.  

We'd spend the same $2.6 trillion we're slated to spent on ObamaCare, but instead of insuring just 6 million, we'd insure the entire 36 million.

Instead, according to the CBO, we're embarking on a 10 year, $2.6 trillion program, that is only gonna benefit 6 million uninsured people.  

Obama's Latest Buck-Passing Lie

Doesn't Work Out So Swell

Ever since he entered office President Obama has shown an unusual affinity for passing the buck every time a bad policy decision comes back to try to bite him on the ass.  

Let's take a trip down memory lane: 

1. WHITE HOUSE GETS CAUGHT RED HANDED CHANGING IT'S PANELS REPORT ON SIX-MONTH OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING MORATORIUM: 

When asked who came up with the completely unnecessary six month moratorium on offshore drilling following the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the Obama White House told everyone that expert panel they had convened to study the issue came up with it.  

It probably never dawned on the White House that the panel would speak up and tell the truth.  When it did, the Inspector General for the Interior investigated and discovered the White House had indeed changed the language of the panel's report to make it look as if the panel had recommended a six month drilling ban. 

From the New York Times: 

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/11/10/10greenwire-white-house-changed-report-implying-experts-su-96097.html

The White House tampered with language in a controversial Interior Department report on its deepwater drilling moratorium, implying a group of independent scientists supported language recommending the ban, according to the agency's watchdog.

Interior's inspector general said edits made by the White House to the Interior report "led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed by the experts."

At issue is the May 27 report on oil and gas drilling safety that was compiled at President Obama's request after the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, sparking the nation's worst oil spill. The report made several recommendations for safety improvements at offshore drilling rigs and called for the six-month ban on deepwater drilling and permitting.

To escape any political blowback from it's own policy decisions, Obama & Co. decided to try to foist it's decision onto the panel it convened.  They would repeat this pattern constantly over the next several years.

2. WHITE HOUSE LIES ABOUT IT'S ROLE IN DECIDING TO STRIP AUTO WORKERS OF THEIR PENSIONS AND OTHER BENEFITS BY CLAIMING THE COMPANY MANAGING THE GM BANKRUPTCY MADE THAT DECISION

The first necessary step of any attempt to avoid bankruptcy is to shed debt.  Which the White House did with GM by shedding debt owed to thousands of auto workers in the form of their pensions and benefits accumulated over the years of their labor.  Strangely enough, many noticed that those workers for GM who were unionized were moved to the head of the line and got to keep all their pensions & bennies, and those who were not unionized ended up losing everything.  

When questioned about who's idea it was to engage in such blatant favoritism, the White House claimed the company handling the auto bailout plan made that decision on it's own.  Timothy Geithner, US Treasury Secretary and other Treasury officials testified as much under oath before Congress. 

And then the truth came out: 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/07/emails-geithner-treasury-drove-cutoff-of-non-union-delphi-workers-pensions/

Emails obtained by The Daily Caller show that the U.S. Treasury Department, led by Timothy Geithner, was the driving force behind terminating the pensions of 20,000 salaried retirees at the Delphi auto parts manufacturing company.

The move, made in 2009 while the Obama administration implemented its auto bailout plan, appears to have been made solely because those retirees were not members of labor unions.
The internal government emails contradict sworn testimony, in federal court and before Congress, given by several Obama administration figures. They also indicate that the administration misled lawmakers and the courts about the sequence of events surrounding the termination of those nonunion pensions, and that administration figures violated federal law.
Delphi, a 13-year old company that is independent of General Motors, is one of the world’s largest automotive parts manufacturers. Twenty thousand of its workers lost nearly their entire pensions when the government bailed out GM. At the same time, Delphi employees who were members of the United Auto Workers union saw their pensions topped off and made whole.
The White House and Treasury Department have consistently maintained that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) independently made the decision to terminate the 20,000 nonunion Delphi workers’ pension plan. The PBGC is a federal government agency that handles private-sector pension benefits issues. Its charter calls for independent representation of pension beneficiaries’ interests. 

Former Treasury official Matthew Feldman and former White House auto czar Ron Bloom, both key members of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry during the GM bailout, have testified under oath that the PBGC, not the administration, led the effort to terminate the nonunion Delphi workers’ pension plan. 

“As a result of the Delphi Corporation bankruptcy, for example, Delphi and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation were forced to terminate Delphi’s pension plans, which means there are Delphi retirees who unfortunately will collect less than their full pension benefits,” Feldman testified on July 11, 2012. 

The emails TheDC has obtained show that the Treasury Department, not the independent PBGC, was running the show.

Once again the pattern is seen: they make a decision and then run from it, trying to point the finger of blame at someone else.  They pretend to be bystanders and say "Oh hey, PBGC, really?"

3.  AFTER WASTING $20 BILLION OF THE TAXPAYERS MONEY TRYING TO PROP UP FAILING GREEN TECH COMPANIES LIKE SOLYNDRA, THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE CLAIMS THEY ARE SIMPLY CONTINUING GEORGE W. BUSH'S LOAN POLICY. 

The list of failed green tech companies is now so long it would be tedious to list them all.  In a stupid attempt to dictate to the market where it should go, Obama threw away billions of taxpayer cash in risky loans to struggling - and in some cases bankrupt - green energy companies.  

When the sheer number of green tech companies going under - and the amount of wasted tax dollars - became an issue, the White House tried to claim many of the loans they had made to these failing companies had actually been started under the previous President, George W. Bush.  

In fact, the Bush administration had REFUSED to loan Solyndra and many of these other failing companies any money under it's green tech investment program after an analysis showed they would be bad investments. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/16/solyndra-pestered-bush-administration-over-delays-in-approving-federal-loan/

David Ploffe & other Obama political operatives attempted to spin it as if the real question was who STARTED the green tech loan program.  Watch how Poltifact tries to make when the loan program started the issue, not which administration decided to hand out a loan to failing companies the other guys backed away from: 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/17/david-plouffe/solyndra-loan-george-w-bush-david-plouffe/

Having wasted billions of tax payer dollars in risky investments in failing green tech companies the Bush White House had backed away from, the Obama White House then tried to pass the buck and claim this was all Bush's fault.  Again, the pattern emerges: make bad decisions, the fallout shows up, claim you're just some bystander trapped by the Evil Bush.  

4.  WHEN THE DISASTROUS FAST & FURIOUS GUN RUNNING PROGRAM WAS REVEALED TO HAVE LET THOUSANDS OF HIGH POWERED WEAPONS WALK INTO MEXICO INTO THE HANDS OF VIOLENT DRUG CARTELS & USED IN OVER 300 MURDERS, THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE CLAIMED F&F WAS ACTUALLY BUSH'S OLD 'WIDE RECEIVER' PROGRAM WITH A NEW COAT OF PAINT ON IT. 

Yes. They actually claimed this.  

Here's Jake Tapper of ABC News on Obama's stunning and appalling lie: 

 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/president-obama-falsely-claims-fast-and-furious-program-begun-under-the-previous-administration/

Asked about the Fast and Furious program at the Univision forum on Thursday, President Obama falsely claimed that the program began under President George W. Bush.

“I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration,” the president said. “When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it. We assigned a inspector general to do a thorough report that was just issued, confirming that in fact Eric Holder did not know about this, that he took prompt action and the people who did initiate this were held accountable.” 

In actuality, the Fast and Furious program was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency. 

Previous programs involving ATF agents allowing guns to “walk” across the border so as to trace them were run during the Bush presidency, but not this particular “field-initiated program.”

In Operation Fast & Furious, there WAS no attempt to track the guns after they crossed the border. We know this because it was their being ORDERED not to track the weapons that led to the five ATF whistle blowers coming forward in the first place. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-20039031.html

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ATF_Report.pdf

After Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot to death in Arizona by a F&F gun, the ATF Agent's fears had become reality & they could no longer be silent about the program in which they had been ORDERED by their superiors to watch thousands of high powered weapons enter Mexico. 

Facing a backlash for the program it had launched that didn't try to track any weapons it let into Mexico, the White House and the Holder Dept. of Justice attempted to claim F&F was the 'continuation' of a program that had started -and ended - under Bush: Operation Wide Receiver.  

The problem with this claim - as I discussed at length in a blog post last year: 

http://drawandstrike.blogspot.com/2012/06/stupid-new-liberal-talking-point-obamas.html

is that Operation Wide Receiver was ended soon after it started after it was clear the attempt to track the guns with GPS devices in concert with Mexican authorities was not working.  

5.  AFTER OUR CONSULATE IN BENGHAZI CAME UNDER ATTACK DUE TO POOR SECURITY THE WHITE HOUSE TRIED TO CHANGE IT'S STORY AND CLAIM OUR PEOPLE THERE WERE VIRTUALLY DEFENSELESS DUE TO BUDGET CUTS MADE BY CONGRESS.

Now, the White House lying about Benghazi being a terrorist attack and spending over two weeks trying to sell the idea to the country it was a 'spontaneous demonstration due to a inflammatory YouTube video' gets most of the attention on this issue, and deservedly so.  You lie about a terrorist attack that killed four Americans and could have easily turned into a wholesale massacre, that's what you get.  

They tried to sell an alternative narrative to reality that would let them off the hook and allow them to escape real accountability for their incompetence and almost criminal negligence.  To this day the White House & State Dept. can't put forth one shred of evidence that they claim supposedly led them to go down the 'YouTube' rabbit hole for that 2 week+ period.  

But another bald faced lie escaped most people's notice. Right after the Benghazi attack, State Dept. spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked repeatedly if the consulate had been stripped of much of it's security due to budgetary concerns.  She repeatedly denied this was the case.  

Then when Hillary Clinton testified under oath before Congress, all of a sudden the administration was blaming lack of security for the Consulate on funding cuts. 

The only problem with this is that after those funding cuts were made, the State. Dept. under Hillary Clinton apparently DID have enough $$$ to buy over $16 million worth of Kindle book readers at the outrageously inflated price of $6,600 each.  Oh, and to spend $4.5 million on art to decorate offices.  Because like Ambassador Stevens, when you have to run for the safe room, you want a tastefully decorated office to run through.  

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/state-department-had-no-for-benghazi-security-here-is-what-it-did-have-for/

Even if we BUY this lame excuse proffered by this administration, what told them to spend $20 million+ on frivolities while stripping security from one of the most dangerous postings in the world?  It was KNOWN at the time our consulate was sharing Benghazi with a Al Qaeda terrorist training camp.  Yes, really.  

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/exclusive-us-memo-warned-libya-consulate-couldnt-withstand-coordinated-attack/

Now we come to the latest example: 

6.  HAVING COME UP WITH THE SEQUESTER HIMSELF, THREATENED CONGRESS WITH A VETO IF THEY DIDN'T SEND IT TO HIM & SIGNING IT INTO LAW, OBAMA THEN LIED AND CLAIMED THE SEQUESTER WAS THE REPUBLICANS IDEA AND THEY SOMEHOW FORCED IT ON HIM.

Obama traveled the country the past 2 weeks selling the sequester as a financial Armageddon and claiming it was the Republicans idea.  Not only that, Obama went on to claim that after the Republicans had FORCED him to go along with the sequester and sign it into law, they then RENEGED on the tax hikes that were part of the deal. 

Bob Woodward, who was there during these negotiations two years ago, promptly called BS.  Not only did he remind the rest of the MSM that seemed to have lost it's voice the previous two weeks that the sequester was Obama's idea all along, he pointed out tax hikes WEREN'T part of the deal Obama had made.  

Naturally, Obama and all his cheerleaders didn't take these facts well.  Tough sh*t.  

So here we are, the pattern being followed again.  Make a policy decision, then attempt to avoid any responsibility for it by foisting it off on someone else and demonizing them to attempt to score political capital.  

People who keep wondering when Obama's gonna 'stop campaigning' are clueless.  Obama's running like a mofo already for 2014 hoping he can get the House flipped and hold onto the Senate.  He wants the same blank check from 2014-2016 that he mostly got from Congress from 2008-2010.  

If you don't like what he's been doing lately, just wait until you see what he's like with no Congress in his way.  

You can fully expect to see Obama pull his passing-the-buck shenanigans the next 2 years as he tries to position the Democrats for total control of Washington.  

The question is: is he running out of time as more people start to call him out on his continual abdication of responsibility for everything he does?  

One Year Ago Today

Today is the 1 year anniversary of the death of Andrew Breitbart.  In commemoration, here's the tribute I wrote to him within hours of hearing that he had collapsed and died on a Brentwood sidewalk: 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Breitbart vs. The Old Media

I'm old enough to remember where all there was were 3 broadcast channels, one big UHF channel, some big newspapers, Time, Newsweek and a few other magazInes, and that was it. Those were the days of the Old Media. 

Early on in my watching and reading of the Old Media, one of the first things that struck me was how UNIFORM they were in their presentation of current events, political issues, and cultural issues. 

In my high school days, one of my teachers in my senior year (1983) had us spend an entire hour reading that week's news magazines on Fridays. I spent 4 hours a month for an entire school year poring over Newsweek, Time, US News & World Report, one right after another. 

What struck me strongly from my reading was that no matter how diverse or controversial the topics being discussed in these newsweeklies, the authors of the articles would discuss them all from the SAME perspective. Many of them would actually make the same statements almost word for word in their commenting on the events. 

TV News was no different from the weekly news mags. Watching ABC News with Peter Jennings, or CBS with Dan Rather, or NBC with Tom Brokaw, I also noticed it didn't really seem to matter which one you watched, they all pretty much covered the same events in the same way. They were practically interchangeable. 

This uneasy feeling was fed around 1984 or so when I first stumbled upon William F. Buckley's Firing Line show on PBS. I wasn't even a Conservative at the time, but it was immediatly apparent this gentleman was talking about politics and the culture from a distinctly different perspective than one saw on CBS News, ABC News, NBC, Time Magazine, the New York Times and so on. 

What attracted me to Firing Line was the novelty of watching the ominpresent Liberal point of view actually being vigorously debated by someone presenting a radically different point of view, something that was never seen elsewhere in the Old Media. 
The second event in my crossing over from Liberal to Conservative was reading Alan Bloom's 'The Closing Of The American Mind'. 

http://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-Mind-Allan-Bloom/dp/0671657151
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Closing_of_the_American_Mind

Third was reading 'Cultural Literacy by E. D. Hirsch, Jr.


http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Literacy-Every-American-Needs/dp/0394758439/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330989285&sr=1-2

At the time of it's publishing the book created quite a stir by demonstrating just how cut off from their American heritage most of the young generation actually was. There was the usual pop quiz answers in which 60% of the high school students polled didn't know Japan wasn't on the side of the Allies in WWII, and so on. The amazing thing was time and time again over 50% of graduating high school students were demonstrated not to have even a basic grasp of American history or the country's cultural foundations. They could not list any of their inalienable rights found in the Constitution, for example. If you don't know what your rights and liberties are, you have no idea when they are being taken from you by the State. 

Realizing there was much of America's early history that I was ignorant of, I set about studying the period from 1400-1860, since much of my American history in High School centered about 75% of it's time on the period between the Civil War and the 1960's. 


Progressives have to attack the entire concept of American Exceptionalism because the very idea of a Constitutional Republic and it's uniqueness in preserving and protecting the rights and liberties of the individual citizen against the powers of the State is an anathema to Progressive Utopian aims. 

The Old Media presented themselves as watchdogs who would protect ordinary Americans from those in power by uncovering corruption and revealing attacks on the rights and freedoms of all Americans by those in government. 

Here was the problem, which Breitbart could see more clearly than most: the Old Media not only long ago abandoned it's role as a watchdog, it CO-OPTED THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA. 

No longer neutral and giving all voices a say in the public square, the Old Media deliberately set about ensuring culture, news and politics was covered only from the Left point of view. 

The nature of the Old Media came to be that of affirming, establishing, defending the point of view they agreed with, while attacking, misrepresenting and omitting points of view they disagreed with. 

What made this doubly infuriating is that the entire time they were doing it - well before the 1940's all the way to the present day - the Old Media insisted on the pretense of being neutral and objective in it's coverage. 

And if you pointed out their obvious bias they merely patted you condescendingly on the head and chortled, "Why, my dear boy, you must be imagining that!"

They pissed down the back of the people of this country for decades and told them it was just raining. Triply infuriating? There wasn't much at all that could be done about it. They knew you really didn't have anywhere else to get information. 

Had the Old Media been what it proclaimed itself to be, there would have been no need for a New Media.

Now, for a committed Utopian Leftist Progressive in the Old Media, slanting their coverage to fit a point of view they already agree with is as easy and natural as breathing. It only makes perfect sense, after all, to look at things the 'correct' way, and the Left way IS the only 'correct' way. 

"I'm covering the news, current events, politics and the culture the way it 'should' be covered - from the Left. I mean, you seriously think I'm going to spend any time trying to objectively present the viewpoint of the racists, sexists, idiots, nuts and flakes on the Right? Why would I do that?"

They went from watchdogs to lap dogs. From guardians of the little guy to mouthpieces for their friends in Washington. They picked sides and they weren't even good at hiding it. 

All pretense of being neutral went out the window in 2008. After the long involved love affair between Barack Obama and the Old Media, any claims to objectivity between cultural and political views are absurd. They picked sides and they made it evident. 


Breitbart's message was: If the Old Media won't do it's professed job, and protect the individual citizen and his or her rights and liberties from the overweening power of the Utopians in the Progressive movement who are threatening those rights from Washington and elsewhere, then we need a New Media. 

Of course, Progressivism is represented in the New Media as well as the Old. There are plenty of blogs and websites devoted to the Progressive point of view on popular culture, current events and politics. If CNN and MSNBC and ABC News and the NYT's, et. al. just aren't giving you enough leftward-slanted stuff to float your boat, you can always hop on the internet and peruse The Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, HuffPo, ThinkProgress, Media Matters, Talking Points Memo and dozens of others. 

But here's the thing that drives Progressives NUTS: there's no way to screen out or silence Conservatives like they could with the Old Media. 

Now they have to contend with talk radio, Fox News, and dozens upon dozens of influential and popular Conservative websites. Instead of one smothering viewpoint coming nonstop, people actually have alternative viewpoints to choose from.

Of course, the Old Media and it's New Media allies do their level best to engage in the same kind of ridicule, mocking, distorting and misrepresentation of the Conservative viewpoint that the Old Media used to do alone. 

The difference now is that Conservatives can use the New Media to talk back. And Progressives don't like this one bit. 

Breitbart was fearless about informing them that they'll just have to get used to it. The Old Media monopoly is over, and over for good. 

Now that there is a Progressive Utopian in the White House, we need the New Media more than ever to sound the alarm. Even before he assumed the powerful office of the Presidency, Barack Obama openly complained about the 'severe' limitations placed on Federal power by the US Constitution. As if that wasn't the whole point of having the Constitution to start with. 

Progressive Utopians believe that America was founded 'wrong' and they need to therefore 'transform' the national foundations from a Constitutional Republic into something like what is seen in Europe, with their top-down socialist and Marixst governmental systems. 

Utopians on the Left have always understood amongst themselves that the only way to achieve their plans is to remove certain Constitutional protections that guard the individual American citizen's rights and liberties. They understand full well the entire Constitutional Republic was deliberately set up to thwart any attempt at the very Utopian central planning they want for the country. The group must ALWAYS come before the individual. Where some new mandate or policy runs up against a Constitutional protection of individual liberty, the Constitutional protection MUST lose. There is simply no other way for Progress to be made. 

To get the country where they want it to go, to 'transform' it adequately to meet their aims, individual rights must be subsumed to the interests of the State. It's the only way. Once they clear that hurdle, the rest is easy. 

But here comes the snag. Many Americans don't want to give up their Constitutional rights and liberties to satisfy some insane Progressive vision of Utopia. 

And any responsible media would be siding with the citizens against a State that wants to take away their rights and liberties. 

And as Breitbart ceaselessly pointed out: THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE OLD MEDIA REFUSED TO DO. The not only picked sides, they picked the wrong one. 

Far from sounding the alarm and alerting and warning the citizenry of attempts to undermine their precious liberties and freedoms, instead what we had got was a Old Media that had jumped into bed with the Progressive Utopians. Far from doing their job, they instead became attack dogs for their friends in the State, going after anyone who did try to sound the alarm. 

Breitbart and others were not going to stand for this. Not only were they going to speak out, they were going to create a New Media that would do the job the Old Media could and would no longer do. 

That's why Breitbart was my hero. He was controversial, combative, and confrontational when facing the Old Media horde and the mobs that support it. Conversely in private conversation with individuals he was charming, friendly and always up for a friendly debate, if it was possible. The very night he died he spent several hours in a bar having a friendly debate with people who disagreed with him. 

From his early days in setting up and helping to run The Drudge Report, to co-founding The Huffington Post with Arianna Huffington, to launching out on his own with his 'Big' websites he had one clear goal: American citizens need a watchdog against the State to protect what makes this country great and exceptional. And if the Old Media wouldn't do that job, he'd help build and inspire others to build a New one, brick by brick, line of code by line of code. 

Because he cared. He was passionate about freedom and liberty. While those who want to tear America down to the foundations and start it over based on their Utopian fantasies always seemed to be yelling the loudest and most passionately, I remember a man who was just as passionate and yelled back just as loudly. 

And he's gone now. Far too soon. But it's OK in the end because I think most of his work was done. 

The New Media is up and running. It has found it's voice. No longer will a captive populace be spoon-fed the narratives and memes prepared for it by a Utopian Progressive intelligentsia using their media puppets.

Now they'll have to fight for it, debate for it, persuade for it. The very thing they are most ill-prepared to do because their leaders fully realize they cannot honestly and openly declare what they want and what their real agenda is, because it would force them tell the American people what rights and liberties they would have to surrender to achieve the proposed Utopia they are offering. 

Knowing this, their anger at the New Media knows no bounds, and neither does their rage at those who built it, sustain it, and are causing it to grow. 

Breitbart hurt them deeply and hugely, and they know it. He's put their entire decades-long enterprise in jeopardy. He might have caused enough Americans to wake up to the danger. 

I myself have pledged to carry on Breitbart's work. Anyone who wants to shill for a Progressive Utopia in America that can be had if only certain inalienable rights and freedoms are meekly surrendered is just as much my enemy as they were Breitbart's.

And they're going to know it. This I swear. 

I AM ANDREW BREITBART. The real revolution lives on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDENDUM: 

I think Andrew is smiling down as he watches the developments of the last few days.  President Pass-The-Buck was right in the middle of doing his usual buck-passing schtick, traveling around the country claiming the Republicans had come up with the sequester and then somehow forced him to accept & sign it. 

Then Bob Woodward showed up out of nowhere and committed an act of journalism, confronting the White House with two incontrovertible facts: 

1. The sequester was Obama's idea and 
2. The deal Obama had signed off on 2 years ago did not contain any tax hikes. 

Since this was not helpful to the narrative Obama was selling, plenty of people in Obama's Palace Guard - i.e., what's often referred to as the 'Mainstream Media' or 'The Old Media' immediately spoke truth to power and stood with Woodward.............

Oh wait, that's not what happened.  

Instead the Old Media circled the wagons around Obama and castigated Woodward for...............wait for it................................................








no really, wait for it..........................



















TELLING THE TRUTH.  


Yes folks, this is how far the Old Media has fallen.  It was obvious to everyone by 2 days ago that Obama was lying about who came up with the sequester.  His Great Sequester Traveling Road Scare-Mongering Show ran smack into an honest journalist.  

And once Woodward spoke up when the Old media had to decide whether to admit if Woodward was right OR defend their guy.  And not surprisingly, they chose to defend their guy by attacking Woodward.  

See if Woodward was telling the TRUTH and Obama was lying about the sequester and the deal he made 2 years ago, and most inside-the-beltway journalists KNOW this, that brings up a very pertinent question: 

Why the hell did it take WOODWARD SPEAKING UP BY HIMSELF to make this an issue? 

Remember what I wrote up there in my tribute to Andrew about an Old Media that not only picked sides, but picked *THE WRONG ONE*?

They had either been silent or were actively helping Obama sell his fictions.  They were complicit in the selling of falsehoods to the public by either silence or stenography. 

And it took a real journalist showing up and showing what really happened to stir them to action.  Not to 'speak the truth to power' but instead to circle the wagons around that power and demand Woodward suffer a penalty to his reputation for daring to speak up.  

In other words, in a stark dramatization carried out as the entire country watched on the news, the Old Media just demonstrated yet again by the way they treated Woodward as an apostate that everything Breitbart ever said about them was 100% true.  

Breitbart is still here, and his work is still going on holding the Old Media accountable, building the New Media, and standing for the truth. 

A year's gone by and it hurts a little less about losing him.  He'd want us to focus on the fight and get ready for 2014.  Obama wants to flip the House and the Senate so he can get back to having Washington under complete Democratic control for his final 2 years in office.  

It's a long #WAR for the future of this country.  As I've said many times on Twitter and elsewhere, if people thought turning back 40+ years of Progressive advances was going to be fast, easy and always fun, this fight wasn't for you to begin with.  We've got over a year and a half to get ready for 2014 and ensuring Obama doesn't get a blank check from Congress from 2014-2016. 

Let's get busy.  It's what Andrew would want.