I’m a digger, always have been… I dig until I uncover the facts, the truth is the only thing that stops me. Yesterday, I was doing what I love – uncovering the Progressives within The Sunlight Foundation, when I had an epiphany that rocked me.
As all researchers will tell you, deep research is like putting together a puzzle, one piece at a time. Sometimes those pieces fall into place all at once, showing a picture of what you are dealing with as a whole and you are never the same. That’s what happened to me yesterday and it took my breath away.
It turns out that many of the sources I use for research are connected to George Soros‘ money. Here are a few I dug up and there are many more that are not listed here:
Soros has spread his money far and wide. He has created a myriad of Internet sources that actually are the polar opposite of what their titles indicate. He has masterfully placed Marxists on the boards of these companies – I see some of the same names over and over again. He now has people everywhere that are following a set Progressive/Marxist agenda. It’s like the mob – once you take his money and his people, the only way out is a toe tag either for the business or you.
I have been at this long enough that I can ferret out facts found on these sites and still glean info from them. But sometimes, they fool even me. This is a warning to my fellow researchers out there – Soros basically owns the majority of information sources on the web. Even if the company claims they are neutral, by taking his funds funneled through various layers of foundations, they have opened themselves up to the potential of influence and corruption. They are tainted.
· Proteus Media Democracy Fund The Media Consortium: “a network of the country’s leading, progressive, independent media outlets.” Tracy Van Slyke, Director
· Center for Investigative Reporting Media Partners: ABC News, CNN, Frontline, Los Angeles Times, Salon.com, the Washington Post, American Radio Works
· Link TV – “Television Without Borders” – Danny Glover, Board Member Channel 9410 DISH Channel 375 DirecTV Distributes Al-Jazeera and “Weather Underground” film
· Free Speech TV – “Anti-Fox network” – Don Rojas, Director, worked for Maurice Bishop of Grenada DISH Network (channel 9415) DirecTV (channel 348) and part-time on 200 cable affiliates in 39 states. Seeks OSI funding. Distributes Al-Jazeera
· Inter Press Services “is the world’s leading provider of information on global issues, backed by a network of journalists in more than 100 countries…”
· Sundance Institute / PBS
· National Public Radio $1.8 million from Open Society Foundations in 2010. 10.6% from CPB. 900 stations.
· Pacifica Stations CPB funding: 2009-2010 KPFA, Berkeley $451,000, $299,958 KPFK, LA $382,035, $350,464 WPFW, DC $238,381, $282083 KPFT, Houston $160,529, $156,474 WBAI, NY $359,915, $319,525
· Project Syndicate: distributes commentaries from George Soros and Joseph Stiglitz to 474 leading newspapers in 151 countries.
As you can see from the list above, Soros has his fingers in everybody’s pie. The old spider is crafty and evil as hell and won’t quit until he collapses the US and he is doing a fine job so far. Notice the deceit in the names – black is white here and transparency does not exist in reality. They claim to be transparent and non-partisan, but they are anything but that.
Tread carefully on the web. Vet your information thoroughly, check every detail. It’s like dancing with the devil who is promising you heaven and earth. You can’t believe anything you see or read at first blush. Don’t get snared in the Soros web.
Credit card fraud is a serious problem. But race-card fraud is an even bigger problem.
Playing the race card takes many forms. Judge Charles Pickering, a federal judge in Mississippi who defended the civil rights of blacks for years and defied the Ku Klux Klan back when that was dangerous, was depicted as a racist when he was nominated for a federal appellate judgeship.
No one even mistakenly thought he was a racist. The point was simply to discredit him for political reasons- and it worked.
This year's target is the Tea Party. When leading Democrats, led by a smirking Nancy Pelosi, made their triumphant walk on Capitol Hill, celebrating their passage of a bill in defiance of public opinion, Tea Party members on the scene protested.
All this was captured on camera and the scene was played on television. What was not captured on any of the cameras and other recording devices on the scene was anybody using racist language, as has been charged by those playing the race card.
When you realize how many media people were there, and how many ordinary citizens carry around recording devices of one sort or another, it is remarkable- indeed, unbelievable- that racist remarks were made and yet were not captured by anybody.
The latest attack on the Tea Party movement, by Ben Jealous of the NAACP, has once again played the race card. Like the proverbial lawyer who knows his case is weak, he shouts louder.
This is not the first time that an organization with an honorable and historic mission has eventually degenerated into a tawdry racket. But that an organization like the NAACP, after years of fighting against genuine racism, should now be playing the game of race-card fraud is especially painful to see.
Some critics of the Tea Party have seized upon banners carried at one of its rallies that compared Obama with Hitler and Stalin. Extreme? Yes. But there was nothing racist about it, since extreme comparisons have been made about politicians of every race, color, creed, nationality, ideology and sexual preference.
Some Obama supporters have long regarded any criticism of him as racism. But that they should have to resort to such a banner to bolster their case shows how desperate they are for any evidence.
Among people who voted for President Barack Obama in 2008, those who are likely to be most disappointed are those who thought that they were voting for a new post-racial era. There was absolutely nothing in Obama's past to lead to any such expectation, and much to suggest the exact opposite. But the man's rhetoric and demeanor during the election campaign enabled this and many other illusions to flourish.
Still, it was an honest mistake of the kind that decent people have often made when dealing with people whose agendas are not constrained by decency, but only by what they think they can get away with.
On race, as on other issues, different people have radically different views of Obama, depending on whether they judge him by what he says or by what he does.
As Obama's own books point out, he has for years cultivated a talent for saying things that people will find congenial.
You want bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington? He will say that he wants bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington. Then he will shut Republicans out of the decision-making process and respond to their suggestions by reminding them that he won the election. A famous writer- Ring Lardner, I believe- once wrote: "'Shut up,' he explained."
You want a government that is open instead of secretive? He will say that. He will promise to post proposed legislation on the Internet long enough for everyone to read it and know what is in it before there is a vote.
In practice, however, he has rushed massive bills through Congress too fast for anybody- even the members of Congress- to know what was in those bills.
Racial issues are more of the same. You want a government where all citizens are treated alike, regardless of race or ethnicity? Obama will say that.
Then he will advocate appointing judges with "empathy" for particular segments of the population, such as racial minorities. "Empathy" is just a pretty word for the ugly reality of bias.
Obama's first nomination of a Supreme Court justice was a classic example of someone with "empathy" for some racial groups, but not others. As a Circuit Court judge, Sonia Sotomayor voted to dismiss a case involving white firefighters who had been denied the promotions for which they qualified, because not enough blacks or Hispanics passed the same test that they did.
A fellow Hispanic judge protested the way the white firefighters' case was dismissed, rather than adjudicated. Moreover, the Supreme Court not only took the case, it ruled in favor of the firefighters.
Obama's injecting himself into a local police matter in Massachusetts, despite admitting that he didn't know the facts, to say that a white policeman was in the wrong in arresting a black professor who was a friend of Obama, was more of the same. So is Obama's Justice Department overlooking blatant voter intimidation by thugs who happen to be black.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before.
Hopefully, he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can't judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future. Voters may even wise up to race card fraud.
Examiner Columnist Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, one of the most respected voices or our time and is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate, Author of The Housing Boom and Bust
Many American, if only subconsciously, voted for Barack Hussein Obama in the hope that his election would finally put an end to the racial tensions in America. Instead racial tensions have not been higher in decades than they are now with Obama at the helm. And the reason for that is Obama and the Progressive left’s consistent use of the race card since he had been in office. Obama and his minions are the ones who have been divisive and derisive… not white main street America, not the tea party and not republicans. Here is just another example:
Sheila Jackson Lee’s question and insane if you use any logic and facts at all and her insinuations are race driven. Nancy Pelosi’s support of Lee’s statements and ideologically driven, for she is one of the most ideologically left politicians on the Hill. The left is obsessed with race and using it as a tool to control and divide people for their purposes and they are rewriting history to serve their purposes. The race card, divide and conquer, multiculturalism and political correctness are all tools of the division and of the left!
The reason Obama’s and buddy Geithner’s latest debt ceiling increase request was such a fight has nothing to do with the fact that Obama is half black, but rather that he has doubled our national debt in 18 months and is bankrupting our country with his spending and ideology.
Star Parker, a black author, former GOP Congressional candidate, and political activist, radio personality and speaker, who used to be a welfare recipient, will tell you (and often does) that the whole divide and conquer philosophy and keeping minorities on the government dole is part of the progressive left’s plan and ideology and we all bought into it…. blacks and whites!
‘A SLAVE HOLDER NAMED THOMAS JEFFERSON’: IS SMITHSONIAN‘S NEW ’RACE’ EXHIBIT - FAIR TO FOUNDING FATHER? HARDLY!!!
Which major government-funded U.S. museum currently features an exhibit that classifies Thomas Jefferson as simply “a slave holder”?
The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History currently features an exhibit titled "Race: Are We So Different?"
That would be the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, located in the heart of nation’s capital.
Developed by the American Anthropological Association, “Race: Are We So Different” offers “an unprecedented look at race and racism in the United States,” according to the Smithsonian’s website.
The Blaze visited the exhibit and found a couple of things that might surprise you.
A five-minute video at the front of the hall sets up the visitor’s experience, which in addition to describing Christopher Columbus as someone who only “colonized and conquered” the natives he encountered, refers to Jefferson merely as a “slave holder”:
“Race,” the narrator says, “is a powerful idea that was invented by society.”
“Many of the ideas we now associate with race originated during the European era of exploration. Europeans like Christopher Columbus traveled overseas and encountered and then colonized and conquered peoples in Africa, Asia and the Americas who looked, talked and acted much differently from them.
“In the American colonies, the first laborers were European indentured servants. When African laborers were forcibly brought to Virginia beginning in 1619, status was defined by wealth and religion, not by physical characteristics such as skin color. But this would change.
“By 1776 when “All men are created equal” was written into the Declaration of Independence by a slave holder named Thomas Jefferson, a democratic nation was born with a major contradiction about race at its core. As our new nation asserted its independence from European tyranny, blacks and American Indians were viewed as less than human and not deserving of the same liberties as whites.”
A display in another part of the exhibit features a historical timeline of slavery. The entry for the year 1784 states: “Thomas Jefferson, future U.S. president and likely the father of at least one of the slaves he owned, publishes ‘Notes on the State of Virginia.’” It quotes Jefferson’s writing, where he posits whether blacks are a distinct, inferior race from whites and if that would be an obstacle to their emancipation.
Jefferson did of course own slaves — hundreds throughout his lifetime. But his feelings on slavery were also much more complex than the exhibit suggests — in other writings he called it “an abominable crime” and “moral depravity.” He drafted Virginia’s 1778 law banning the importation of enslaved Africans and separately proposed slavery be outlawed in the new Northwest territories.
But “Race: Are We So Different?” does not cover any of that. None of the exhibit’s written displays examines these nuances; the only other details offered are on a looped video with a historian who says Jefferson knew it was “a massive contradiction” to both own slaves while professing the “lofty ideals” of America — a brief distinction that is easy to miss.
When contacted by The Blaze, Kelly Carnes of the Natural History Museum‘s press office said she could not speak to the exhibit’s content because it was not created by the Smithsonian. Damon Dozier of the American Anthropological Association did not respond to requests for comment.
At the end of the day, a casual Smithsonian visitor is likely to come away from one of the nation’s preeminent museums thinking that one of the Founding Fathers was truly nothing more than a racist slave owner — and remember, since it’s a government-funded museum, you as a taxpayer are paying for it.
Other features of note:
A display titled “Racism’s effects on health“ says ”numerous studies have linked the stress of racism on African Americans to high blood pressure, adding evidence to the claims that racism contributes to the high rates of hypertension among them.“ It adds that racism may also affect health through ”limited access to nutritious food and safe environments for exercise; increased exposure to environmental toxins; reduced quality of health care.”
A display about the history of affirmative action in the U.S. declares, “The legacy of white privilege still runs far ahead of efforts to compensate for it.” It features a note about two 2003 Supreme Court affirmative action rulings, which it says upheld “the limited use of race as a factor in reviewing student [university] applications.” While Grutter v. Bollinger did uphold the use of race for admissions, the ruling in the second case, Gratz v. Bollinger, actually held that the use of simply assigning “points” to someone based on their race was unconstitutional. Beside the display’s text is a photograph of the 2003 court, including Clarence Thomas, the sole African American justice. Thomas has long maintained his views opposing affirmative action, something nowhere to be found on the display.
You can take a virtual tour of the exhibit here. “Race: Are We So Different?” will be on display at the Smithsonian through Jan. 2. 2012
They Who Live by the Race Card Die by the Race Card
Due to Obama's declining poll numbers, Democrat tongues loosened by cocktails at parties are quietly suggesting,"Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could primary Obama out with Hillary? Darn it, we can't because Obama is black!"
I say, "Hallelujah -- a perfect example of divine justice." They who live by the race card die by the race card.
Almost three years ago, the Democrats offered their equivalent of a Trojan Horse to America in the form of a shiny, new, extremely well-crafted, beautiful black man. Its mega-internal speakers broadcast a hypnotic message, heavily reverbed to create a godlike effect and looped 24/7, promising "Hope and Change."
A "perfect storm" of circumstances led to America's enthusiastic embrace of the Democrats' ebony idol Trojan Horse: white guilt, black racism, and perhaps even the popularity of the American Idol TV show. Obama was the first "rock star" American Ebony Idol presidential candidate.
Democrats were elated by their good fortune.
Obama would be the key to implementing all of their liberal-academia, utopia-producing theories, his black skin insulating him from any and all opposition. Oppose Obama? You're racist!
The Democrats keep their R-for-racist branding iron red-hot and ready to apply swift retribution to any feisty, uppity conservative or Republican who dares challenge Obama.
Basking in their tactical genius, Democrats thought, "We did it! We pulled off the perfect exploitation of race to implement our socialistic agenda; a liberal black man in the White House." Someone at the DNC even broke out their old Commodores record as they partied: "Ce-le-brate good times, C'MON!"
As America slept, one night under the cover of darkness, a hidden door in the ebony idol opened; out rushed an army of vicious liberal minions, freedom-killing mandates, and socialistic policies. Their mission: destroy our capitalist system and massacre America as we know it.
Totally unexpected and to the horror of the Democrats, We The People rose up. Patriots, via divine inspiration, formed the Tea Party. Patriot freedom-fighters began winning skirmishes around the country -- governorships in New Jersey, Virginia, and Florida -- and defeating the tyrannous teachers' union in Wisconsin, to name a few. We took the House. We will take the Senate and are predicted to take the White House in 2012.
The Democrats' ebony idol, their so-called gift to America, has been exposed for the fraud it truly is -- a hollow, soulless shell of empty liberal ideology, its internal recorded message malfunctioning and distorted, stuck repeating the phrase, "I blame...I blame...I blame..."
Seeing the handwriting on the wall via polling, the Dems wish they could abandon their disastrous ebony race card for Hillary, their gender card.
But alas, they cannot. After spending the last three years, assisted by their media minions, convincing Americans that any and all criticism of or opposition to Obama is racist, Democrats find themselves victims of their own trap. Fearing the repercussions, Dems do not dare display the slightest abandonment of Obama. I love it! They who live by the race card die by the race card.
Despite the media's relentless attempts to brand us otherwise, the Tea Party has never been about race. Our focus and sole desire have been to uphold the Constitution and restore our freedom, liberty, and culture. The Tea Party's goals are much higher than the Democrats' bottom-feeding agenda of exploiting race for political gain. This is why it is so sweet that they are stuck with their loser black candidate.
You leftists, do not try to spin my comment as being racist. I, along with millions of my white Tea Party brothers and sisters, would gladly cast a presidential vote for blacks such as Herman Cain and Col. Allen West in a heartbeat. So don't even go there.
Ironically, the Democrats who claim ownership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shamefully dishonor his dream. The Tea Party, vilified by the Democrats, fully embraces MLK's dream by judging and selecting their candidates by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Thus, the Tea Party, much-hated by Democrats, is the realization of MLK's dream. And for the record, MLK was a Republican.
Photo: Sarah Palin and Dr. Alveda King, both speakers at GB’s Restore Honor Event on 8.28.10, on the Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s… instead of walking with opportunist Al Sharpton
The Democrats played the ultimate race card -- an incompetent affirmative-action president, and now they are stuck with him. The faux finish on their once-shiny ebony idol is rapidly deteriorating, peeling off daily. Come 2012, Obama is a sure loser. "Ce-le-brate good times, C'MON!"
This article and Cover are from June’s Townhall Magazine
Hollywood A-list actress and longtime “Law & Order” star Angie Harmon caused a bit of a stir recently when she made the following comments about our new president: “If I have anything to say against Obama, it’s not because I’m a racist, it’s because I don’t like what he’s doing as president, and anybody should be able to feel that way. But what I find now is that if you say anything against him, you’re called a racist.”
But Harmon’s brazen outburst of political incorrectness was just getting started. Here’s what she had to say about Barack Obama becoming the first sitting U.S. president to appear as a guest on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno”: “I do think McCain would have done a better job, only because I think he has more experience. I also think if W. or John McCain or Reagan would have gone and done a talk show, the backlash would have been so huge and in his face, and ‘What is our president doing? How unclassy!’ But Obama does it, and no one says anything.”
Want more? Here’s Harmon on the subject of Sarah Palin: “I admire any kind of woman like her. My whole motto is to know what I stand for and know what I don’t stand for and have the courage to live my life accordingly, and she does exactly that.”
WILLING TO TAKE A RISK
Yes, the rumors are true. After decades of cowering in the deep-blue (as in Blue State) shadows, Hollywood conservatives are beginning to openly express their political beliefs despite the price they’ve paid—both socially and professionally—for doing so in the past. Some are calling this newfound courage the Breitbart Effect, named for the affable New Media titan who exposed the amoral Superfund toxic waste site of Tinsel Town by subjecting it to the standards of traditional, conservative (read: normal) American values.
Recently asked if Angie Harmon’s remarks were an example of the Breitbart Effect, the man in question’s response was as characteristically modest as it was uncharacteristically brief: “Never heard of it.”
Call it what you like—the Breitbart Effect, the Having-Just-Grown-A-Pair Effect, the Other Great Enlightenment—a little candor on the part of show business conservatives would be a refreshing change from the days when being “outed” in Hollywood had more to do with what one did in the privacy of the voting booth than in the bedroom (or, this being Hollywood, in the hot tub).
WHAT’S A ‘BREITBART’?
So who is this man who, by some accounts, may have helped jump-start this right-wing Renaissance?
Andrew Breitbart grew up in the part of Los Angeles known as Brentwood (“O.J. country,” he calls it), surrounded by entertainment industry families and regular working folks like his father, a restaurateur, and his mother, who worked in the trust department at Bank of America. Andrew’s Wonder Bread years were spent playing baseball, watching his beloved Dodgers and absorbing the pop culture references that would help form the foundation of his life’s work.
Unlike many of his trust-funded peers, Andrew also worked during these early days, first lying about his age at 15 to get a job at All-American Burger, later graduating to delivering pizzas and washing cars. But young Mr. Breitbart wasn’t just putting video gaming coin in pocket; he was also internalizing the value system that defined his parents’ lives: hard work plus common sense as a formula for success. “I trusted my parents’ methodology and approach to life more than I did that of any college professor I ever encountered,” he now admits.
When it was time for college, Breitbart sought to expand his horizons by enrolling at Tulane University where he spent four years earning gentlemanly C’s, adding to his encyclopedic knowledge of classic TV and ’80s music, and waiting for his life’s purpose to reveal itself. Naturally, he was also absorbing a bellyfull of the post-modernist bilge undergrads have shoveled into them, which, like the dormitory food being dispensed, he found filling yet unsatisfying. Back in Brentwood after graduation, Andrew realized that, while the Hegelian dialectic he’d been subjected to in college was clearly not going to help him find a job, a return to the traditional values his parents had taught by example (but never preached) just might.
Breitbart’s nascent conservatism blossomed as he watched gavel-to- gavel coverage of the Clarence Thomas hearings on C-Span in 1991. “Going in, I wanted us to take down this serial sexual harasser,” he says now of that experience. “By the end of the hearings, I was screaming at my TV, ‘How can you do this to this man?’ What made Ted Kennedy feel confident enough to grill Clarence Thomas about his private videotape collection and insinuate that this man was a sexual predator? How ironic that it was Ted Kennedy at the forefront. Throw in Joe Biden, and suddenly I saw the matrix that would define my perspective from there on in.”
In a flash of insight, Breitbart realized that the media were the Democratic Party, that the NAACP was the Democratic Party, that NOW was the Democratic Party and that the false notion that the media and the various rights groups were acting in the best interests of America independent of ideological bias seemed less laughable than criminal to him. That lesson learned, Andrew Breitbart had the work ethic, the political convictions and the knowledge base he needed to fulfill his destiny. All he needed now was to somehow randomly stumble upon that which he was born to do, which is about when the Internet happened.
A PROVIDENTIAL CONFLUENCE
From the first time he logged on to Al Gore’s magical new Information Superhighway, Andrew knew that his interests in politics, popular culture and the media could constitute a powerful vehicle for change—and that he might get to do some of the steering. “This is my absolute passion,” Breitbart says today of his media presence. “When I didn’t have [a passion], I wished for one—and I got it. Now I have no choice in the matter. I would be doing this whether they paid me to or not.”
His mission now clear, Breitbart began by establishing an editorial relationship with the Drudge Report, which began in 1996 as an on-line gossip site run out of Matt Drudge’s tiny Hollywood apartment and grew into a $10-a-year, subscriber-supported e-mail newsletter before finally assuming its present form: a virtual town square of news and commentary specializing in posting the story online before the Old Media has a chance to print or broadcast it. The Drudge Report put itself on the map in 1996 by being the first to report that Bob Dole had selected Jack Kemp as his running mate. Two years later, Drudge revealed that Newsweek magazine was sitting on a story about an inappropriate relationship between President Bill Clinton and a White House intern—the rest is history.
In 2005, Breitbart entered into a similar editorial relationship with the fledgling Huffington Post, a left-leaning news aggregation blog promising to distinguish itself from Drudge with frequent posts written by the likes of Warren Beatty and Tim Robbins. The Huffington Post quickly blossomed into an imposing media power in its own right. “So [Arianna Huffington] would become the queen of the left- wing blogosphere, and the right-wing blogosphere and talk-radio world would have enough material to last them until the end of time,” says Breitbart, adding, “Well, that was the idea, anyway.”
In 2004, Breitbart (with co-author Mark Ebner) published “Hollywood Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon—The Case Against Celebrity,” a powerful and enjoyable indictment of entertainment industry excess. Breitbart calls “Hollywood Interrupted” his entree from being behind the keyboard to speaking out directly on the nexus between politics and popular culture.
Next came the creation of Breitbart.com and Breitbart.TV, two wildly popular online sources of news and imagery from around the globe. After years of keeping his quick wit and camera-friendly manner a secret, Breitbart eventually agreed to start making (increasingly frequent) guest appearances on TV shows such as “The Dennis Miller Show,” “Real Time With Bill Maher” and Fox News Channel’s late-night comedy round-up “Red Eye.” Breitbart also began filling in for talk-radio hosts Dennis Miller and Michael Savage, and a weekly Washington Times opinion column called “Big Hollywood” recently morphed into what may be Breitbart’s most ambitious undertaking yet.
Launched earlier this year, Big Hollywood is a group blog that allows members of the Hollywood community to editorialize on entertainment-related subjects. “I started Big Hollywood to show Hollywood from different angles, to prove that this town is not a left-wing monolith,” says Breitbart. But that’s hardly the only reason behind the launch.
Getting into the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown is relatively simple: You have to either hit 600 home runs or win 300 games as a pitcher.
Admission to the as-yet imaginary Conservative Hall of Fame will be somewhat more selective: You have to have been mocked on “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart,” a feat Breitbart achieved just recently. During a segment on “anti-Obama hysteria,” Stewart showed a clip of Breitbart saying that at his son’s school in Brentwood the kids were required to call St. Patrick’s Day “Potato Day.” This elicited the usual guffaws from Stewart’s audience of trained seals only after their beloved host suggested (falsely) that Breitbart believed the school had done so at Obama’s behest. Andrew explains, “I was talking about all the p.c. euphemisms Obama has introduced, like ‘man-made disasters’ instead of ‘terrorist attack,’ and how that this was creating an atmosphere in which misleading euphemisms are damaging the language, and the last example I gave was Potato Day.” Which, naturally, was the only example the “Daily Show” audience saw.
Breitbart, who was also not warmly received by Bill Maher’s audience on HBO’s “Real Time,” adds, “When you walk on stage for ‘Real Time’ or the ‘Daily Show’ or even a debate and the booing starts before you speak—and people are shouting out ‘Racist!’—something is obviously, drastically wrong. The United States was founded on the free exchange of ideas. Democracy can’t survive where people can’t express ideas openly. Perhaps that’s the point. Until the Right realizes that we’re in a propaganda war and we’re losing, we’ll be on the losing end of this debate."
Breitbart has some interesting ideas about why there are so many liberals in Hollywood: “Many of them came here to sleep with starlets, live in gated estates and rub elbows with the best and the brightest. But Hollywood leftists have a deep contempt for an American middle class, which has encroached upon their real estate for 40 years.”
Uh, say what?
“The average middle-class American can now have a house similar to the one Susan Sarandon lives in,” he points out. “They can go to many of the same resorts she’s visited. The sight of a Mercedes-Benz has become as common in the suburbs as it once was in Bel-Air. There are only two tangible things the Hollywood Left has to keep them up in the ether, high above the hoi polloi they escaped from after high school.”
And those two things are? “Private jets and an exclusive ZIP code. Plus, simply by being a liberal, they have a virtual 10-foot ideological wall separating them from the Great Unwashed.”
What about the Hollywood conservatives he knows? “They’re the exact opposite. It’s eerie. When they meet one another, they’re like people who have just emerged from the desert and they haven’t had anything to drink yet—they’re so thirsty to meet like-minded people. They’re the same way when they meet the military—conservatives revere them so much. Hollywood conservatives love to interact with G.I.s.”
Does anything else (beside their ideologies) strike him about the difference between Hollywood liberals and Hollywood conservatives? “Yeah, Hollywood conservatives are a much happier lot, even though they’re manifestly oppressed. The best analogy I can think of is that Hollywood right- wingers are like an impoverished Third World child who happily plays with a stick, and Hollywood left-wingers are like a spoiled rich kid surrounded by expensive toys who’s so bored he’s throwing a tantrum.”
The Breitbart Effect aside, are conservatives in Hollywood sometimes deprived of jobs because of their politics? “Yes, it does happen. I know that complaining smacks of victimhood, but there are real victims of this. And when someone hits you in the head with a pipe, you needn’t apologize for bleeding.” Does Breitbart personally know of Hollywood conservatives who are still too afraid to “come out” as right-wingers? “Yes, some of them are major talents, and it really ticks me off. I can’t even tell my wife some of their names, they’re so scared of damaging their careers. Once you realize how many there are and how eerily similar the description of what they’ve gone through is from example to example, the case against liberal Hollywood in this regard is open and shut.”
JUST WANTS AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD
With the challenge of sustenance largely taken care of, Breitbart can afford to be reflective about the life he’s built for himself and his family. Andrew Breitbart clearly relishes life, an attitude that’s highly contagious in his presence. You get the feeling that he could have a really good time at a party whether he knew anyone there or not. But beneath the sunny exterior, behind the eyes some might actually call merry, Breitbart is a man unceasingly obsessed with politics and the daily battlefield reports from a culture war he’s convinced we must not lose.
“I can’t turn it off,” he admits.
Speaking of his wife, Susie, he says, “She didn’t sign up for this. She’s like a military wife whose husband is frequently gone on mental deployments.”
So given all that, what does Breitbart want from the perennial debate? “All I want is a fair game,” he insists. “I’m positive our ideas beat their ideas when the game isn’t rigged. That’s why I helped get the Huffington Post off the ground: I want everyone to hear what the Left has to say. Also, I want those of us on the Right to tell people what we believe—not to have those on the Left to do it for us.”
Anything else?
“Yes. The American people need to know that there are thousands of people in Hollywood—people who are liked, admired, people who are hot!—who are also conservative. They’d be surprised to see a group picture of all the conservatives in Hollywood.”
By: Ned Rice - is a Los Angeles-based television writer whose credits include “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” “Politically Incorrect,” “Real Time with Bill Maher,” “The Late Late Show,” “Jimmy Kimmel Live” and “The Half Hour News Hour.”
In the entire history of our country, I'm not sure there has ever been a presidential honeymoon period as tender and loving as the one that Barack Obama is experiencing today.
In Perry County, Alabama they have already voted to create a paid holiday called "Barack Obama Day." That's an honor not bestowed on "lesser Presidents" like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Teddy Roosevelt -- whose accomplishments, though great, surely will not eclipse those of "President Government" after his time in office. But, that's just a county holiday. Topeka activist Sonny Scroggins, with the support of the NAACP, is actually working on a national holiday for Obama.
Given the way that our mainstream media is fawning over Barack Obama, we shouldn't expect much resistance to the idea of creating a holiday to honor a man whose only real accomplishment so far is winning elections.
For example, MSNBC anchor Alex Witt was so taken with Obama that she was shocked that the mere fact that he was elected didn't end terrorism worldwide,
..."There are many who suggested that with the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration there would be something of a lull in terrorism attacks. There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought -- at least hoped -- would be dampered down."
Then there's Chris Matthews who said it is his "job" to make "this new presidency work," a sentiment that seems to be widely shared in the media, even if most of them aren't foolish enough to share that view of their "job description" with their audience.
That's part of the reason why Obama's hard core supporters, which would include most members of the mainstream media, haven't had much to say about the fact that he has already started rapidly backing off his campaign promises on everything from the windfall profits tax to the Bush tax cuts, to a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. Of course, many of Obama's supporters were so ignorant of what he stands for that they probably have no idea he's breaking his promises in the first place.
Heck, the Presidential honeymoon has gotten so gushy that even a lot of conservatives have been writing mash notes to Obama of late because some of his cabinet picks aren't to the left of Michael Moore. Of course, the real question about his cabinet at this point is what's Dennis Kucinich doing these days? After all, since Obama seems to be trying to bring everybody who ran against him into his administration, he might as well create a Department of Peace for Kucinich to run, put Chris Dodd in charge of HUD, and hire John Edwards to be Bill Clinton's wingman at sorority parties. Speaking of the Clintons, with all the Clinton staffers Obama is hiring, you have to wonder how many of these people will ultimately be loyal to Hopey McChange and how many of them will secretly support Slick Willie and the Wicked Witch of New York? The first time something goes wrong overseas and either the Secretary of State or the President has to take the blame, the leaks will tell you where the staffers' loyalties really lie.
But, that brings us back to the crux of the matter: Barack Obama hasn't actually started governing yet. We have a rookie senator who's never made a tough decision in his adult life getting ready to enter the White House in what may be the toughest time to lead the country since Jimmy Carter was wrapping the country around a telephone poll.
The economy is now officially in the toilet and is likely to remain so for at least a year or two -- and the bailouts? They've just started and they're already unpopular. How is that corporate welfare on steroids going to look as more and more companies come to Congress with their begging bowls? How about when we're running trillion dollar deficits? What happens after the unemployment rate cracks 8%, large numbers of Americans are really worried about paying their bills, and they're reading about the latest round of hand-outs to companies? How can Obama possibly fulfill his campaign promises, many of which are staggeringly expensive, when the country is in a recession and the government is running record deficits? It's not a pretty picture.
We're also still in the midst of a global war on terror. In Iraq we're winning, but Obama has to finish the job or be "the President who lost the war." In Afghanistan, things aren't going as well, but Obama has promised to get us back on the right track. Plus, we can't forget that Al-Qaeda is looking to hit the homeland, Iran getting perilously close to a nuclear weapon, our ongoing negotiations to disarm North Korea -- and Obama's squawking, bratty liberal base that will demand we forego necessary security measures, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP, and oppose military action against foes of the United States -- while demanding we send the troops to places where no American interests are at stake.
Speaking of Obama's base, they may be quiet now, but they certainly will not remain so. They're looking at the size of the Democratic majority in Congress and expecting Obama to dramatically tilt the country to the left. Woe be unto him if he doesn't meet those expectations. Meanwhile, the Democrats who have to run in red states or districts will urge Obama to remain in the center, lest the party take a beating in 2010. Then there are the competing Democratic interest groups and the people who projected their own hopes and dreams onto Obama and now expect him to pay up. Remember the Obama supporter who famously said she was backing him because,
"I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, If I help him, he's gonna help me."
That's the problem with promising to be all things to all people in order to get elected: if you actually win that way, they expect you to pay up.
On January 20, 2009 -- Barack Obama is going to face an extraordinarily difficult situation that would test the most capable of Presidents. It's not quite a "I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy" spot, but it's going to be tougher than a Waffle House steak, particularly so for Obama because you can't vote "present" in the White House.
So, before we carve Barack Obama's face right there on Mt. Rushmore beside of Abe Lincoln, perhaps we should wait to see if he's as good at tackling this country's very real problems as he is at raising money, reading speeches off a teleprompter, and chucking his former friends and allies under the bus.
It appears that we are putting the cart before the Obama Horse Runs!
