Posts Tagged ‘Andrew Breitbart’

Why Conservatives Must Challenge the Lies and Narratives of the Left

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

Why We Must Stand

I am frequently asked why it is that I bother debunking the arguments of obvious leftist shills, or establishment hacks.  The reasoning of those who ask me this question is approximately: “The people who fall for it aren’t inclined to support conservatives or conservatism anyway, so why bother?”  I think this is a serious mistake, and it has a companion that asks: “Why would we stoop to responding to these vile people?”  As a conservative, my answer for these questions is simplicity itself: I believe in the truth, and doing what is right, and I don’t think that permitting lies to propagate is a proposition that serves my interests, the interests of my family,  friends, or neighbors, and indeed, the country.  Call me old-fashioned, but I think that the truth is demonstrable, and that it is incumbent upon we who value it to fight on its behalf.

Propagandists of the left expect us not to challenge them, and theirs is a shrill reaction when conservatives begin to question them.  They’re not accustomed to being challenged, and most conservatives aren’t accustomed to the rough-and-tumble of the engagement.  We conservatives need to harden-up a bit, and be a bit less flexible in our resolve to expose the lies.  It’s important because when the next generation comes along, the propagandists of the left have been working on them since early childhood in many cases, so that by the time they are exposed to a conservative thought, it’s frequently so foreign, and has been so thoroughly denounced throughout their early education that if we don’t set the record straight, nobody will, and over time, we will have lost the country.

There’s another way conservatives should view this, and it’s something I taught my own daughter: Permitting a lie to go unchallenged is widely seen as an endorsement of sorts.  If nobody ever challenges a lie, it becomes the perceived truth, because it’s been permitted to go unchallenged.  Some will counter that to react in defense is seen as a denial, but that’s not necessarily the case.  One can point to far too many examples in which a lie was confronted not with a mere denial, but with the actual truth.  This is something conservatives must begin to do on behalf of capitalism.  Too often, capitalism is smeared with the sins of statism, and far too often, conservatives are willing to let it go.  I’m not.  When another leftist launches a screed against capitalism, I am willing and anxious to point it out, because I know that capitalism is the only system in which free people can function.  I am not inclined to yield the means of my existence so easily.

When it comes to politicians, like many, I have a hard time defending any of them.  Over my lifetime, I’ve seen politicians betray their supporters in so many ways and with such frequency that it’s almost to be considered “normal.”  The notion is ever that “all politicians are corrupt,” but this isn’t so, and it’s simply not proper to paint with so broad a brush.  More than this, however, is the very focused attacks aimed at particular politicians.  When it’s done by the left, what you come to realize is that it has but a single aim and that is to tarnish the conservative in question without reference to facts, history, intentions, or truth.  This is how the left functions, and what it offers you is a window into what they see as a threat.

This morning, I pointed out the vacuous attacks of Stanley Crouch on Sarah Palin.  Nowhere in his entire piece did he offer even bare substantiation of his claims, but that wasn’t his aim.  His aim was to add one more column to the growing pile that all seem to confirm what every other one has said in some form: “Sarah Palin is no good.”  None of them really offer readers an explanation.  They don’t bother with explaining it, and it’s always offered in the form of a confirmation of previous stories, all of which are no better in terms of their actual journalistic merit.  They pile them up, referencing one another, but none of them really explaining the reasons behind their claims.  The truth is that which I explained:  They oppose conservatives, and anything they say or write about them is permissible on this basis alone.

It’s why I’ve defended every Republican who has been part of this primary campaign at some point or other, because along the way from then until now, each of them has faced these sorts of attacks.  The most egregious of the attacks are those spawned by their fellow competitors for the nomination, and it is for alleged conservatives who employ such tactics that I reserve special contempt.  It’s why Mitt Romney doesn’t get my support:  His entire campaign is a load of out-of-context attacks against his rivals, designed to smear by impression rather than confront with facts.  This isn’t to say that the others have been perfect in this respect, but it is to admit that Romney has the distinction of being the worst of the lot by a wide margin with respect to this sort of campaigning.

The reason all of this matters, and the reason one should not permit lies to stand without challenge is that it will always come back around to haunt you, one way or another, in due course.  If you can’t grasp that simply doing what is right should be sufficient motivation, remind yourself that in the end, if you don’t stand up for the truth now, when it is easier, you’re going to have a hard time later when the lies have been established as truth, and you now find yourself confronting the products of the lies.

A practical example of this is evident in the health-care debate, and I want it stated bluntly whether people wish to read it or not:  When you accept the lie that the only institution that can provide for healthcare for the aged, the disabled, and the poor is the Federal government, and you don’t challenge it out front and immediately, what you permit is the notion to creep in that this is the proper role of government.  Once established as “the truth,” why is anybody surprised when this later manifests in a complete government takeover of all health-care?  You permitted the lie to remain in place, but now that it affects you directly, now, and only now do you raise your voice in opposition to the lie?  It’s a little late to try to debunk what you permitted to be accepted as the operative truth so long ago.

This can be extended into other matters.  Consider how Newt Gingrich was treated in the press in 1995-96.  Many in the conservative movement abandoned Newt Gingrich, because they didn’t want to accompany him on a magazine cover, portrayed as the Grinch, so they permitted the lies about Gingrich to fester and to build, and whatever else you may say about him, it was a damnable lie to suggest Newt Gingrich didn’t care about people then, or now.  Now you are surprised when Democrats run ads depicting Paul Ryan pushing granny in a wheelchair over a cliff?  The moral cowardice implied by the lack of a defense of Gingrich in 1995-96 has now come home to visit us, all based on the false proposition that he was a mean guy back then because he thought it wrong to permit one American to rob another with government as the stick-up man.

In 2008, or since, you may not have defended Sarah Palin when she was accused of spending wildly on wardrobe for she and her family though she had nothing to do with it, but now you enjoy the Obama family’s wild-eyed spending on vacations.  Still, the lie prevails in media, but the truth is that we’ve never had a first family who made use of the public treasure for their personal amusement like the Obamas, while Sarah Palin actually objected to the hefty price-tags on some of the clothing, to the extent that campaign staffers actually got rid of tags and concealed the costs from her at the time.   When conservatives permit these lies to be told, re-told, repeated and widely propagated without substantial challenge, what happens is that the less attentive populace perceives their silence as agreement or at least acknowledgement.   This is the premise that Andrew Breitbart lived to overwhelm: We conservatives, if we love our country and our way of life so much as we claim, must be willing to defend the truth about it, and to do so loudly and often.  We must do so in every context and venue as consistently and fearlessly as the left propagates its lies continuously and remorselessly.

Nothing we claim to value is served by permitting the left’s propaganda machine to spew lies without challenge.  Some times, it will require of us that we get down into the gutter with them, at least long enough to kick their asses and let the truth be known.  There’s only so much we should be willing to tolerate, and it should be a good deal less than has been our practice.  Refuting the left isn’t merely a matter of politics, but is instead a pressing necessity in preserving our republic.   Lies mustn’t be permitted to flourish, and the lament of of Sir Edmund Burke should echo in our minds as we respond:

“All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing.”

It shouldn’t surprise us when we do little or nothing to combat the left’s lies that they prevail in the long run.  Their perpetually dishonest narrative is merely subsidized by our unwillingness to combat them.  If you want to save the country, start here, and challenge everything they say or write.  Chances are, there’s good cause for your challenge if only you are willing to run the truth to ground.  A funny thing happens when you debunk the left:  They quickly change the subject lest too many observers gather the impression that this may not have been their only lie.  Most people understand that dishonesty is habitual, and once they see a few instances of the left’s lies, they simply walk away and the lies have no more effect.

When I’m asked why we conservatives should bother to debunk dishonesty of the sort that Stanley Crouch purveys, I’m inclined to remind my readers that to let the lies remain without stern refutation is to assent to their narratives by silence, but as Andrew Breitbart spent the last years of his life reminding us, conservatives should remain silent no longer.  To save this country, we’ll need to be as vocal as the left, but when we do our homework, we’ll have unassailable truth on our side.  It’s the difference from which the left should never be permitted to hide.



Governor Palin via Breitbart Is Here

Friday, March 16th, 2012 has published a piece by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin about Andrew Breitbart, but it’s more than a mere eulogy or a tribute.  It’s a battle-cry.  Bearing witness to all that Andrew Breitbart has meant to so many conservatives, and indeed to this nation, Gov. Palin laid out the case for conservatives to engage fearlessly and take on the job of fully combating the left.  She points out the essential nature of the resistance we must wage against the left’s relentless media establishment, and it is a heartening message for all who loved Andrew Breitbart’s fighting spirit.  I’m not going to re-state anything she’s said in this article, because to do so would be to tarnish perfection.  I strongly encourage every reader here to make the click and read the article in full, because it’s a wonderful reminder of why we fight, and how we can gain inspiration from a true fighter for our liberty.

Actually, two of them…

Click here to read the article on



Fierce Conservative Andrew Breitbart Dead at 43

Thursday, March 1st, 2012

Fierce Conservative

It’s hard to believe the blogging giant is dead.  At just 43 years of age, I cannot fathom what a loss this must be for his family.  The articles I have read list only “natural causes,” but it’s still hard to imagine.  The conservative firebrand, and vigorous fighter of statism will be thoroughly missed.  Breitbart exemplified the indomitable spirit of conservatism, and he was a great warrior in media.  This is a tragic loss.  My sincerest condolences to his family.  This is crushing news for conservatism, and for America.  A true warrior in life, may he rest in peace.

It’s a human tendency to lose track of how valuable somebody may be to one’s life until they are gone.  Andrew Breitbart’s ceaseless efforts on behalf of conservatism and America placed him high up the list of patriots in media.  In the last few years, I cannot think of a single conservative in media who has made a greater concerted effort to advance the cause of liberty, by revealing it to those who would see it.  More, he exposed the enemies of liberty, and the Republic, and he showed through his websites how thoroughly the liberal media establishment has undermined our nation.  It’s not that Andrew Breitbart did something so stunning in a technical sense, but that the fact that he would pursue media as he did was stunning to an establishment accustomed to sweeping their own dirt under the rug.

Breitbart took all of them on.  He defended the Tea Party.  He exposed government lies.  He did so much to advance conservatism, but more, the cause of our constitutional republic.  To lose this fantastic fighter is a terrible loss for America.  Like so many this morning, I am stunned. May all our thoughts and prayers be with the Breitbart family.


Andrew Breitbart 1969-2012

Let us remember him and honor him by carrying on his fight!

The Media War On Sarah Palin Runs Into Reality

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011

Confronting Media Lies

If you thought the disgusting bilge being pushed in the media about Sarah Palin wasn’t awful enough, more astonishing is what Andrew Breitbart discovered when he came into possession of an email from Joe McGinniss that reveals something about the character of all those involved in writing, publishing, and marketing this trash:  They appear to be morally bankrupt people who will chase dollars over truth at the expense of anyone and anything.   In particular, Breitbart exposes how Random House published McGinniss’ book allegedly already knowing that virtually all of the salacious charges he wrote were substantially false and unproven.  It is a scathing indictment of the mindset of those who constitute much of the establishment media.

We’ve seen how media can create false narratives designed to damage and smear, but few politicians in memory have been subjected to the level of pure slander that has been aimed at Sarah Palin.   It’s not unusual for politicians to do or say things that come back to haunt them, but when people are reduced to fabricating stories and salacious details, there’s something that has gone wrong, not merely with the media, but also those who consume the news.  It’s a deeply disturbing cultural trend that one can get away with saying or writing virtually anything about others without any evidence, or any proof of one’s allegations.  To see the media do this suggests that we have a serious problem in journalistic ethics, but to see that it has begun to happen in the wider culture, particularly through the publication of Internet-based smears says something about the moral base of the country.

Much like the caricature Tina Fey created of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live, the problem with so much in media is that most of it simply isn’t true, but that seems to pose no moral  obstacles to those who are intent upon a campaign of personal destruction against Palin.  From McGinniss’ own email to Jesse Griffin, who Breitbart describes as a publisher of a “low-rent and now-defunct anti-Palin blog,” as provided by Breitbard, it’s clear there’s something wrong when an author seems to have known his allegations were lies.  Let’s cover a few of them, from Breitbart’s piece, in McGinniss’ own words:

“No one has ever provided factual evidence that:

  • a) Todd had sex with a hooker, or with anyone else outside his marriage.
  • b) Sarah had an affair with Brad Hanson, or anyone else.
  • c) Track was a druggie who enlisted in the army to avoid a jail term. Or that he vandalized Wasilla school buses.
  • d) Willow was involved in the vandalism of the empty house in Meadow Lakes. Or that Sarah rushed back from Hawaii to put the lid on that.
  • e) Trig is not Sarah’s natural born child.
  • f) Bristol was promiscuous as a high schooler and drank and used drugs, or became pregnant again after Tripp’s birth.”

Consider all of this in light of the salacious garbage that’s been floating around in media for weeks about this.  If McGinniss knew all of this, how is it that he or his publisher could go forward with the book?  What’s worse is that knowing this, there are any number of little gossip-mongers and muck-rakers still pushing this garbage all over the internet.  People speak of hate in politics, but what sort of hatred could be more virulent than the sort that permits people to run with such stories they know to be untrue?

I haven’t the capacity to describe the infamy of such thinking.  Imagine the mind of the ordinary person who propagates such complete trash?  What sort of hate must burden and consume them that to convey such information presents no apparent ethical difficulty?  One can’t help but wonder if these sorts weren’t the too-infrequently exposed note-passers who sprouted to spread rumors in the classrooms of our youth, fertilized and tended by an obsessively obnoxious culture to become blossoming toxic weeds in adulthood.

There should be no controversy in the suggestion that any who become purveyors of such vile filth are awful.  To realize there are people who do so, despite knowing it had been a falsehood, should provide us every justification on earth to cast them aside as pariahs. It makes no sense to argue with this kind of vile hatred.  There isn’t a cure.  They have no shame.  It’s up to us to recognize their handiwork and call it out.  Andrew Breitbart has done what the big media won’t: He’s exposed the lies and the liars who spread them.  In the McGinniss email, there is mentioned a “Patrick” in association with Jesse Griffin.  I think I’ve identified their new on-line hang-out and have forwarded that information to Breitbart through one of his people, although I suspect he’s already aware of their current disposition.  My small blog is neither equipped nor staffed to further research the matter, but I believe exposure of these haters is long overdue.  They propagate wild conspiracy theories of the sort described in McGinniss’ email.  They have even been to this blog to look for new fodder for defamation, but finding none, they returned to their happy little site to cast aspersions on this author.   Mr. Breitbart has a demonstrated ability and determination to handle them properly, and if he didn’t know where they landed before now, he soon will.

Let me state it clearly: They are filth.