Category: Andrew Breitbart

A jolly inspirational fellow.

Sen. McCain And Intellectual Integrity: Let His Carcass Caucus With Democrats

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Breitbart has the video of a certain grumpy old man, far past his sell-by date, pretending to lecture others about “intellectual integrity”. Enough. The old duffer has been in office for decades, while the integrity of the American government itself has spiraled down like an A-4 Skyhawk hit by Commies over enemy territory arriving at the Healthcare.gov crash.

And yet this Ryan-Murray budget debacle funds ObamaCare, while backstabbing the veterans that have been the backbone of Republican Party support:

Ahead of the final vote, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., tried unsuccessfully to use a parliamentary tactic to force a vote on the amendment, which he wrote to undo the cuts for military retirees.
A provision in the already House-passed bill would cut retirement benefits for military retirees by $6 billion over 10 years.
Sessions wanted to instead eliminate an estimated $4.2 billion in annual spending by reining in an IRS credit that illegal immigrants have claimed.
He and fellow senators argued the bill unfairly sticks veterans and other military retirees with the cost of new spending.

Precisely whom do you think you’re fooling, Senator McCain? Fox echoes your point on the Senate floor in the Breitbart clip about avoiding another shutdown:

The Republican-led House passed the bill last week in an effort to avoid another stalemate leading to a potential government shutdown, like the one in October that polls showed was largely unpopular with voters.

The unpopularity has very much to do with the perception that Congress, as a whole, is just a pack of liars.

The GOP is supposed to be the adults in the room, John Sidney, but this budget deal increases spending for the next two years. That’s like vowing to quit cheating on your wife in the future, and referring to your new commitment as “fidelity”, while on your way to the strip club. “To really do what we want, we’re going to have to win elections,” said Rep. Paul Ryan.

What would also help the GOP win elections would be to purge the deadwood, e.g. YOU, Senator McCain, to clear the way for some conservative candidates.  An actual reform platform, articulated by fresh, uncompromising faces of integrity: that would have voters saying “Maybe the Republicans aren’t a lying pack of swine, after all.”  The indifferent majority, too disgusted with the spectacle of you selling out time and again (Amnesty? Do we hear amnesty?), might be motivated to show up at the ballot box and return the GOP to power.

So either snuggle up with Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and the boys, or just retire, but please relieve stop torturing the Republican Party with your presence. And take your fatuous daughter with you.

Have You Forgotten?

Posted on Comments

It’s weird how easy it is to forget things. My wife and I just watched the documentary Hating Breitbart together, and the pivotal centerpiece of the movie is the claim by Rep. Andre Carson, Indiana Democrat, that Tea Party activists shouted the n-word at him and other members of the Black Congressional Caucus. Have you forgotten?

That was March 2010. What was the occasion?

Oh, yeah: It was the day of the final congressional vote on ObamaCare, and the Tea Party crowd at the Capitol was shouting, “Kill the bill!”

Andrew Breitbart offered a reward of $10,000 — subsequently raised to $20,000 and then to $100,000 — for anyone who could produce evidence that anyone shouted the n-word that day. Nobody ever collected the reward, because the narrative was a lie.

Breitbart pointed out that there was a “sea of New Media” outside the Capitol that day. Everybody had video cameras or cell-phone cameras going, and if anyone actually had shouted the n-word, certainly someone would have collected that reward.

Nobody ever did. More than three years have gone by. Now ObamaCare is law, and very unpopular, and one of the biggest lies of our time — that the Tea Party’s opposition to ObamaCare was motivated by racism — has been conclusively debunked by the shameful silence of the Democrats who could not produce the proof of their lie.

Oh, but the Democrats never apologized, did they?

The media never apologized, did they?

And what has the passage of ObamaCare meant to America?

“If you’re covered and you like your insurance, you can
keep it,” said Congressman Gary Peters in August 2009.
Gary Peters made that pitch knowing it was false, and
it cost at least 225,000 people in Michigan their
health care. Despite these facts, Gary Peters
has refused to admit his deception or
apologize to the people he hurt.

That’s just one Democrat in Michigan, but is true of all Democrats everywhere. They rammed ObamaCare through Congress on a party-line vote. Not a single Republican voted for the bill. The Democrats and their media allies lied and lied and then lied some more.

And they’re still lying now.

President Obama just brought John Podesta onto the White House staff. Andrew Breitbart despised John Podesta — if you have seen Hating Breitbart, you know how much he hated him. But maybe you’ve forgotten that there ever was a guy named Andrew Breitbart.

You can buy Hating Breitbart now.

It would be a wonderful Christmas gift for your kids.

 

Andrew Breitbart Was Right: @MaxBlumenthal Is Despicable

Posted on Comments

Perhaps you’ve forgotten this epic confrontation between Andrew Breitbart and Max Blumenthal at CPAC 2010:

 

That video came to mind today when I read an article by Rosie Gray of BuzzFeed about how Max’s father Sidney Blumenthal (notorious as a hatchet-man for the Clintons in the 1990s) had mounted a poison-pen campaign against liberal journalist Eric Alterman. Max Blumenthal recently published an anti-Israel book that compares Israelis to fascists and Nazis. Alterman negatively reviewed the book, and then was knifed in the back by his alleged friend:

In a follow-up blog post after the initial review, Alterman wrote that he had become the target of emails sent around by Blumenthal to friends and associates as a result of his review of the book.
“I attribute to these friendly relations the fact that until now, Sid Blumenthal had not seen fit to make me the object of any of the unflattering e-mails he so often sends around to journalists and others — myself included — about individuals of whom he disapproves,” Alterman wrote. “Privately, I worried that by telling the truth about his son’s book, I would soon hear of nasty e-mails about me sent by Sid to our mutual friends and professional acquaintances. Call it ‘bizarre,’ if you will, but sadly, that’s just what happened.”

Read the whole thing, and keep in mind: I despise Eric Alterman, and am not exactly a fan of BuzzFeed. But Max Blumenthal?

 

‘Hating Breitbart’ for Christmas!

 

‘Hating Breitbart’ for Christmas

Posted on Comments

We’re about three weeks away from Black Friday, the official start of the holiday shopping season. You can help support the blog by shopping for specials via our Amazon.com links, and I’d like to encourage you to consider giving an excellent gift, the DVD of Andrew Marcus’s awesome documentary, Hating Breitbart.

 

 

If you haven’t seen this movie yet, you simply must, and if you have seen it, you’ll want to share it. I think Hating Breitbart would be especially instructive for a high school or college student on your Christmas list. There is some strong language (which is cut or bleeped in the PG-13 version), but there is also an inspirational message about how an individual can make a difference in the fight for freedom.

 

The Weapon of Unlimited Victimhood: Pigford and Shirley Sherrod’s Vengeance

Posted on Comments

Heads are still shaking about the unspeakable cruelty of Shirley Sherrod suing Susie Breitbart, a widow with four kids, as a substitute defendant for her late husband, because Sherrod blames Andrew Breitbart for her ouster from the Department of Agriculture.

Tom Vilsack demanded Sherrod’s resignation in July 2010 because Democrat political operatives at the White House panicked after Breitbart released the video of an NAACP audience’s enthusiastic approval of Sherrod’s story about how she denied assistance to a white farmer. The political panic occurred after that video got played in edited form on a Fox News broadcast, but Breitbart was not responsible for how Fox News depicted the story, nor was he responsible for Tom Vilsack acting as a political hatchet-man:

White House officials were in close contact with the Agriculture Department in the hours leading up to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s decision to fire USDA employee Shirley Sherrod in 2010, according to nearly 2,000 pages of internal emails released by the administration.
[T]he White House and Agriculture Department officials were sharing information and advice from the first minutes after the scandal began to emerge until Sherrod submitted a resignation hours later at the request of a senior USDA official.

And here’s the key fact:

Vilsack apologized and asked her to return to the department — an offer she declined. President Barack Obama also offered an apology after her ouster created a racial firestorm.

In other words, Vilsack and Obama admitted they wronged Sherrod.

It wasn’t Andrew Breitbart who did her wrong, it was two Democrats, and she would still be employed at the Department of Agriculture if she wanted a job. Instead, she’s suing Susie Breitbart.

Because getting $13 million in Pigford lawsuit cash isn’t enough:

Georgia Farmer Eddie Slaughter . . . says he knows Mrs. Sherrod well and that she knew all about the Pigford fraud and that the people behind Pigford actually view it as reparations. . . .
The biggest claimant by far in the Pigford Settlement was the $13,000,000 that went to Shirley & Charles Sherrod and their former New Communities farm and land development project in Georgia.
It bears repeating: Shirley and Charles Sherrod and New Communities got thirteen million dollars from the Pigford settlement. That’s about double what the second largest winning Pigford claim was.
And then just days after New Communities won that huge claim, Mrs. Sherrod was offered a job with the USDA.

Yeah, you hit the Federal Tax Money Giveaway Powerball, but becoming an overnight millionaire isn’t enough to satisfy your infinite greed, and once you learn that victimhood can be lucrative, it is your natural instinct to continue playing the victim, even if it means pushing a self-evidently bogus lawsuit against a widow and her orphaned children.

(Unnecessary Legal Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and my estimate of Shirley Sherrod’s tort claim as “bogus” is no more defamatory than my estimate of her character as selfish, cruel and dishonest.)

The Culture of Victimhood encourages people to turn every grievance into a license to inflict harm on others. Flimsy accusations rooted in dishonesty or self-pity (or both) are applauded as “courageous,” and exploitation of the system is hailed as “social justice.” A sex offender turns her crime into a fable about homophobia, a notorious convicted felon claims to be a victim of “malicious prosecution, conspiracy to abuse process, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and stalking,” and we have become so accustomed to this evidence of pervasive moral decadence that we are not even outraged by it.

I’m past the point of being angry at the people who do this stuff.

I’m angry at everybody who is not as angry about it as I am.

Forget about the endless budget kabuki theater in D.C., you idiots.

Stop letting cable TV producers tell you what news is really important.

Shirley Sherrod is suing Andrew Breitbart’s widow.

Let that sink in. Think about what Andrew Breitbart meant. Think about what Andrew Breitbart did. Ask yourself, what Andrew Breitbart would ask his friends to do for his widow and children now?

Is there any story more urgent — is there any story that better illustrates how the leftist worldview has warped our nation’s culture in the Obama Age — than this story? Wake the hell up, people.

Shirley Sherrod’s Malicious Pro-Bono Suit
Against Andrew Breitbart’s Widow

That’s Aaron Walker’s headline on the incredible news that Kirkland & Ellis, the big-money law firm that has now made Susie Breitbart the defendant in Sherrod’s bogus lawsuit, is actually representing her for free — pro bono, as the lawyers say. Aaron is a lawyer, not a reporter, and so he “buries the lead,” as editors say. He also buries the news of a connection between Kirkland & Ellis and George Soros:

You will have to pay to read this entire article, but here is the relevant passage:

“We almost converted the debt into an acquisition finance structure,” says Erik Dahl, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, legal advisers to Soros Capital Partners.

That could be a coincidence. Or perhaps not.

Please read Aaron’s entire article carefully and remind me (once we’re finished “conspiring” to put the sociopathic creep Brett Kimberlin back in prison where he belongs) to talk with Aaron Walker about the “inverted pyramid” lead. Once he’s mastered that, perhaps, Walker will be ready to attempt The Total Gonzo Trip.

“In the context of journalism, here, we are dealing with a new kind of ‘lead’ — the Symbiotic Trapezoid Quote. The Columbia Journalism Review will never sanction it; at least not until the current editor dies of brain syphilis, and probably not even then.
“What?
“Do we have a libel suit on our hands?
“Probably not, I think, because nobody in his right mind would take a thing like that seriously — and especially not that gang of senile hags who run the Columbia Journalism Review, who have gone to great lengths in every issue during the past year or so to stress, very heavily, that nothing I say should be taken seriously.”
— Hunter S. Thompson, “Fear and Loathing in Washington: The Boys in the Bag,” Rolling Stone, July 4, 1974 (collected in The Great Shark Hunt: Strange Tales from a Strange Time)

What the hell? Why did I quote Hunter Thompson’s bitter sarcasm, nearly 900 words into a rant about Shirley Sherrod and the vicious gang of serial killers bad lawyers at Kirkland & Ellis?

Two of the people in that lineup are immoral monsters whose infamous names are forever synonymous with cruelty and evil.

And two of them are serial killers.

 

Pure Evil: Sherrod Sues Susie Breitbart; Wickedness in the Age of Dishonor

Posted on Comments

As if to demonstrate the deliberate cruelty of “lawfare,” former federal official Shirley Sherrod, who filed a meritless lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart, is continuing her vindictive litigation even after his death by suing his widow. J. Christian Adams of the Election Law Center wonders who is paying the steep fees at Kirkland & Ellis:

There are plenty of leftist Sugar Daddies who would relish harassing Andrew Breitbart. Some of them are wicked enough even to harass his widow. . . . If a Sugar Daddy is funding Sherrod’s case, then Sherrod ought to say so. She ought to confess that the lawsuit is a crusade funded by outsiders, and not about justice. . . .
They might take the matter on a contingency fee. When you are finished laughing, consider the other means they can fund the lawsuit. Big Law has become notorious for helping left wing causes for free. They use the money from paying clients, like AOL, Boeing, Walgreens, Avis and others in other matters to subsidize left wing litigation. That’s how the attacks on voter ID are funded. That’s how GITMO terrorists got free representation at Covington and Burling.

Read the whole thing. Last night, while researching my defense against the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., lawsuit — in which a convicted felon is suing me and four others for $1 million — I was studying the recent case in which Patterico was sued by Nadia Naffe, a frivolous lawsuit incited by Brett Kimberlin’s associate Neal Rauhauser that was subsequently dismissed. Who paid the attorney’s fees in that case?

The Left’s entitlement mentality — Shirley Sherrod seems to imagine she had a right to be employed by the federal government, and that Andrew Breitbart unjustly deprived her of that right — is at the root of this trend toward “lawfare” harassment.

Over and over during the past 17 months, while I have been repeatedly harassed and defamed by Brett Kimberlin and his supporters, my friends have often asked me why I never sued or filed criminal charges. It is one part pragmatism and one part principle.

From the pragmatic standpoint, as a journalist, it is very difficult (and certainly inadvisable) to write about a civil case in which one is a plaintiff or a criminal case in which one is a victim. In the latter case, cops will tell you not to discuss an ongoing investigation, and in the former case, no wise lawyer wishes to represent a plaintiff who won’t shut up about his litigation. (See “Nadia Naffe Won’t Shut Up, But She’ll Threaten You To Make You Shut Up,” by Ken White.)

In point of fact, I have been careful in writing about my status as a defendant in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., lawsuit, even though the whole point of Kimberlin’s lawsuit is to silence me, an unrighteous purpose he cannot lawfully achieve, neither by means of his own harassment, nor by proxy through the actions of his supporters, nor by his vindictive (and laughably flawed) pro se litigation.

Even as such evil and deranged personalities as Neal Rauhauser and Bill Schmalfeldt continue lying about me, I must balance my concern for counteracting the deliberate harm they intend to inflict through their falsehoods, and my determination not to be intimidated, with a rational concern for my interests as a defendant.

Yet it is a self-evident truth that Brett Kimberlin falsely accuses me of having done to him what he is now in fact doing to me:

“Defendants . . . have conspired to engage in a pattern
of filing abusive civil suits, peace orders and
criminal charges against Plaintiff. . . . These filings have
been done with malice and without probable cause.”

I never sued Brett Kimberlin. I never filed criminal charges nor have I ever sought a restraining order against Brett Kimberlin. All I have done is to tell the truth about Brett Kimberlin, and there is nothing Brett Kimberlin hates as much as he hates the truth.

The dishonest pro se litigant Brett Kimberlin, whose false assault charge against Aaron Walker was the subject of Walker’s own 28,000-word opus that first attracted my interest as a journalist, has never cared what harm his wickedness causes to others. Nor is Brett Kimberlin guided by any principle of honor, whereas I have  striven to heed the wisdom of Andrew Jackson’s mother:

“Never tell a lie, nor take what is not your own, nor sue anybody for slander, assault and battery. Always settle them cases yourself.”

Brett Kimberlin has covered his own name in dishonor, and the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., lawsuit is part of his ongoing attempt to evade responsibility for his crimes, something that was evident to another of Kimberlin’s targets, progressive blogger Seth Allen:

This whole lawsuit in and of itself was libel. I proved that in court. The only reason Kimberlin received [a $100 judgment] was because of the default judgement.
I believe Kimberlin actually believes a lot of the things he says.
But not all. I think a long time ago he wrote a script in his mind in order to explain away what happened all those years ago in Speedway, Indiana.

So said Seth Allen in December 2011, six months before I had ever even heard the name “Brett Kimberlin” and, while Seth is wrong about many things, but he was certainly correct about that. No one on the Left — not a single liberal blogger of note — would stand up for their fellow progressive Seth Allen’s First Amendment rights, and the Left’s continued silence about Kimberlin’s wickedness is consistent with their tacit support for Shirley Sherrod’s vindictive “lawfare” against Susie Breitbart, the widowed mother of four children.

Shirley Sherrod resigned. She is not suing Tom Vilsack, nor is Shirley Sherrod suing Vilsack’s boss, Barack Obama. Somebody should ask the President what he thinks about this, but there is not one honest reporter in the White House press corps.

We live in an age of wickedness, injustice and dishonor. You can do something genuinely good by mailing a check today:

Breitbart Children’s Trust
149 S. Barrington Ave, #735
Los Angeles, CA 90049.

UPDATE: Linked by my alleged co-conspirator John Hoge — thanks! — and also by Doug at Daley Gator:

Simply awful. Going after the families of those who you disagree with? Really?

Yes, really. Remember when Bill Schmalfeldt threatened my wife? Remember all the evil Schmalfeldt did to Lee Stranahan’s family? And the Lonely Conservative speaks the gospel truth:

More and more I’m beginning to believe that there are very few people on the left who are decent. . . .
I really don’t know these rotten leftists sleep at night. They really are evil.

Amen, sister! Preach it!

 

Virtue by Proxy, and Thoughts About Books That Liberals Have Never Read

Posted on Comments

Republicans “can’t stand the fact that a black man is in the White House!”

That’s what a studid liberal shouted at Joel Pollak, and I could name, off the top of my head, two dozen books that liberal has never read.

Ronald Reagan once said that the problem with liberals is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t true. They are prejudiced, and they have never had their prejudices challenged.

Most liberals, “progressives,” or whatever else they may choose to call themselves, are really just partisan Democrats who hate Republicans.

It’s that simple.

The pretensions of liberalism to being a coherent, rational political philosophy are absurd. The core of the Democrat Party is a collection of interest groups, organized with the aim of assembling a majority coalition by two means (a) promising the sun, the moon and the stars to these interest groups, and (b) demonizing Republicans.

Having been born and raised a Democrat — I never even met a Republican until I went to college — I once shared that mentality.

Dude, I voted for Walter Mondale in 1984.

The same year I voted for Mondale, David Horowitz, a Marxist radical who had been a “red diaper baby” raised by Communist parents, joined his longtime friend Peter Collier in voting for Reagan:

When we tell our old radical friends that we voted for Ronald Reagan last November, the response is usually one of annoyed incredulity. After making sure that we are not putting them on, our old friends make nervous jokes about Jerry Falwell and Phyllis Schlafly, about gods that have failed, about aging yuppies ascending to consumer heaven in their BMWs. We remind them of an old adage: “Anyone under 40 who isn’t a socialist has no heart; anyone over 40 who is a socialist has no brain.”
Inevitably the talk becomes bitter. One old comrade, after a tirade in which she had denounced us as reactionaries and crypto-fascists, finally sputtered, “And the worst thing is that you’ve turned your back on the Sixties!” That was exactly right: casting our ballots for Ronald Reagan was indeed a way of finally saying goodbye to all that — to the self-aggrandizing romance with corrupt Third Worldism; to the casual indulgence of Soviet totalitarianism; to the hypocritical and self-dramatizing anti-Americanism which is the New Left’s bequest to mainstream politics. . . .

You should read the whole thing. My point is that if a guy as far left as David Horowitz could change his mind, no one else has an excuse. Collier and Horowitz, who had been editors of the radical journal Ramparts, subsequently published a book no liberal has ever read, Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties.

When I say no liberal has read that book, I mean it is powerful enough that, if you were a liberal when you started reading it, you wouldn’t be when you were finished with it. And I think the same could be said of Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy.

A Ph.D. economist, Sowell describes the moral narcissism at the root of the liberal worldview — they support bad policies because doing so makes them feel good about themselves. Do these policies actually help the people they’re supposed to help? It doesn’t matter, Sowell explains in Chapter 4, “The Irrelevance of Evidence.”

What matters to liberals is the sense of virtue by proxy they derive by espousing the cause of helpless victims allegedly oppressed by evil greedy Republicans. What matters to liberals is their feeling that they’re “doing something” to advance their own good intentions.

Of course, there is really nothing good about their good intentions.

That is to say, if the only reason you want to help people — those poor downtrodden “masses” — is to flatter your sense of yourself as a generous, tolerant bien-pensant, your motives aren’t truly philanthropic. And this is especially true when, (a) your allegedly charitable activity involves spending other people’s money; (b) you don’t bother to examine whether anyone is actually helped; and/or (c) the only effort required of you is to spew liberal platitudes and vote for Democrats.

Wrecking the country and ruining people’s lives just so you can think of yourself as enlightened? No, those are not “good intentions.”

Once you wake up to the reality of what wretched messes liberals create through their supposedly “progressive” policies, you will be far less indulgent of their pretenses of enlightened tolerance. Perhaps no book I’ve ever read makes this point more clearly than Fred Seigel’s The Future Once Happened Here: New York, D.C., L.A., and the Fate of America’s Big Cities. Where else have Democrat politicians and liberal policies been given more opportunity to succeed than in our nation’s major cities? And yet where else have liberal Democrats created more poverty, misery, crime and corruption?

If liberalism worked, Detroit would be a booming hub of prosperity and Texas would be mired in hopeless poverty.

Instead, Detroit is bankrupt and Texas is booming.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Is Latin racist? Are facts “hate”? Is basic logic unfair?

Should we permit liberal Democrats to wallow in their own ignorance while they impose policies that are harmful to the country? Or should we inform them that their ignorance could be remedied and their errors corrected by these books they’ve never read?

As I said, I could name two dozen such books, but have here named only three, and I can guarantee that the stupid liberal who shouted at Joel Pollak hasn’t read any of them. If Joel Pollak were to send that liberal this 900-word column, he wouldn’t read it, either.

Because liberals refuse to spend the time, energy or effort necessary to remediate their own ignorance, it is usually best to be brief in your replies to them. In fact, you can summarize it in three words.

“Fuck you. #War.”

 

 

Is Neal Rauhauser Trying to Scheme His Way Back Into Political Consulting?

Posted on Comments

Three years ago, in August 2010, Democrat political consultant Neal Rauhauser published two articles under his “Stranded Wind” alias:

Claiming that there was a “centrally initiated effort” to harass him and other progressives on Twitter, Rauhauser described a plan for “hauling [a stalker] into court is a gateway to identifying the source of the strategy,” to “get up inside their network and collect actionable information.” Rauhauser solicited assistance in his plan of attack against conservatives online, to “force them into expensive, long distance, lengthy, discovery laden litigation” in order “to make a very visible example of at least one of them.”

The result of that plan, apparently, was the debacle known as “TwitterGate.” in which Rauhauser was accused of having “organized a group of E-Thugs meant to harass, threaten, provoke, disparage, intimidate, verbally assault, berate & employ hate-speech.”

Now, it seems, Rauhauser wants to get back into the politics game and has posted a weird conspiracy theory that involves me:

Nine months ago I swore off domestic politics and started paying attention to foreign policy issues. A large part of my disgust stemmed from the hate groups that have hijacked the GOP, in particular a drunken hillbilly named Robert Stacy McCain, who provided a forum for a paranoid, delusional mall cop in New Jersey to ruin my reputation with her obsessive promotion of a conspiracy theory known as Twittergate.
Groundswell: A Secret Tape Reveals How It Lobbied Boehner & Issa on Benghazi was both a delight and something of a shock. I was forced to take back all the bad things I had said about playing gotcha with wire taps earlier in 2013, and I was surprised to find that the same people who fabricate all sorts of ‘news’ about me are also directly connected to this group . . .
Other happenings in Maryland include an assault outside a courtroom, threats to judges and prosecutors, a courthouse cleared with a bomb threat, and some other things which are not public, but which all add up to a textbook definition of hate group tactics. Law enforcement has cause to act at the state level in Maryland and I strongly suspect there is already something in the federal pipeline. The smear machine behind this derpy ‘war’ on the Obama administration is under fire from GOP strategist Karl Rove and it’s literally one indictment short of tearing itself to pieces.
Nothing is going to stop that flow of Groundswell articles. The leak was handled correctly, given to an investigative journalism outlet with enough reach to make something of it rather than being spammed across the whole internet with bittorrent. I expect Akbar, McCain, and their toadies are all going to get swatted like the annoying little insects that they are — if the Maryland Democratic machine doesn’t do that job the Republican national machine certainly will.

When somebody told me last week that Rauhauser had posted this, my immediate reaction was, “Neal’s trolling for clients,” probably hoping he can get hired by the Maryland Democrat Party.

Neal is nuts. His assertion that “Groundswell” has anything to do with him is, so far as I know, based entirely on someone forwarding an e-mail from Ali Akbar to a Google group. Also, while we’re at it, “TwitterGate” was not a conspiracy theory, I’m not a drunken hillbilly, I don’t live in Maryland, and I don’t have any “toadies.”

Basically, everything Neal Rauhauser says is the exact opposite of truth, and by the way, he’s taking credit for killing Andrew Breitbart:

This undated tweet from @AndrewBreitbart is from either right before the 2010 election or shortly thereafter. The attention from he and his toadies chased me off LinkedIn, but it sent me on a two year mission which included him dropping dead in the midst of a battle of words with me and two anonymous Twitter commenters.

I checked. The date of that Breitbart tweet (at the top of this post) was Oct. 7, 2010. It’s true that on the day Andrew died, he was in a Twitter battle with Neal and some of Neal’s friends.

In the days immediately following Andrew’s death, Neal was actually bragging that his harassment had caused Breitbart’s heart attack, but he deleted that. Neal deletes a lot of his crap, once he gets called out on it. This was why he now thinks he can get away with dismissing TwitterGate as a “conspiracy theory,” because when he got caught by Tea Party activists, he deleted a lot of stuff — including his “WingNutWatch” Twitter account that was central to that fiasco — and got his “beandog” buddies to tell Adrian Chen that it was all a silly prank.

Bullshit, Neal. You can try to play that off as the imaginings of “a paranoid, delusional mall cop in New Jersey” (and oh, how you’ve been obsessed with “Zapem” for three years), but there were plenty of witnesses, and anybody can go read Patrick Read’s account complete with numerous screenshots showing communications between your “Stranded Wind” account and the “beandogs” who participated in the harassment of Tea Party activists.

You were guilty as hell and you know it and, to repeat, you provided the game plan for that little escapade in advance:

See, Neal, we not only know what you did in 2010, we know why you did it. You failed. You got caught. And your long campaign of revenge — your blame-shifting “Accuse the Accusers” tactics, to smear and demonize your enemies — has similarly failed.

Now, if the historical pattern holds true, Neal Rauhauser will go delete some more of his lies, pretend he never wrote it, claim victimhood, and accuse me of cyberstalking him.

And, oh yeah, Andrew was totally right about you, Neal.

UPDATE: Just in case you’ve never seen it before, this is part of the Twitter conversation between Neal Rauhauser and Andrew Breitbart on Feb. 29, 2012, just before Andrew’s death:

You see him taunting Breitbart, calling him a coward, suggesting that “my lawyers” were going to sue Breitbart. What I believe they were talking about was charges filed against Neal by Mike Stack who, you see, Neal accuses of “stalking” Anthony Weiner. Of course, as everybody now knows, there was never any stalking or hacking or “conspiracy” against Anthony Weiner — he was guilty as hell.

Just another busted lie from Neal Rauhauser . . .