Left Celebrates ‘Hating Breitbart’ Opening by Acting Like the A–holes They Are

Tonight my co-blogger Smitty is going to see the new Andrew Marcus documentary Hating Breitbart for the first time. I’ve seen it twice — at the world premiere at the Republican convention in Tampa and at the D.C. preview showing Oct. 8.

Last night at the first commercial showing of the film in D.C., a fanatical Breitbart-hater named Ryan Clayton was reportedly ejected from the theater for disruptive behavior.

The bozo actually appears in the film. He’s a familiar type on the Left, the posturing “activist” who plays hero by Standing Up to Right-Wing Evil:  “Admire my courageous truth-telling!”

Such people don’t realize what tedious stereotypes they are. If Ryan Clayton had a line of trademark fragrances, it would be called “Sanctimony.”

‘All Is Proceeding as I Have Foreseen’

So says Vodkapundit, observing that “RCP moved MI and PA into the tossups this morning,” which I hadn’t noticed, but it’s one of the necessary preconditions for a full-blown liberal freakout.

Disaster is now coming at Democrats from multiple unexpected directions. Yesterday, Bob Belvedere observed that “James O’Keefe and his Mission: Impossible crew have done it again,” and what they did is what I call impact reporting: News that results in action, in this case the firing of DNC official Stephanie Caballero:

The Democratic National Committee has terminated the employment of Houston, Texas, Organizing For America Regional Field Director Stephanie Caballero after she was caught on camera calling voter fraud “cool” and “so funny” while advising a presumably-liberal voter how to vote twice.
In a comment to the liberal Talking Points Memo, DNC spokeswoman Melanie Roussell accused James O’Keefe and Project Veritas of selectively editing their videos – but admitted that what Caballero did on his tape was wrong and she’s now been fired.
“There is obviously a history here of making selective use of taped material, and we will certainly not vouch for the completeness of what was released,” Roussell said. “However, what we saw was enough for us to take the action that we did.”

Once again, as with the ACORN sting, O’Keefe is accused of “selectively editing” video, without anyone expecting Democrats to produce evidence to support the accusation: What did O’Keefe allegedly edit out? Never mind — the DNC simply makes the accusation to provide an ironclad excuse for any reporter at a mainstream news organization who wants to ignore the story: “Oh, this isn’t really news because, selective editing!”

Hey, Scoop: If this is all a ginned-up nothingburger — if the unsubstantiated charge of “selective editing” automatically disqualifies it as newsworthy — why did Caballero get fired?

Unanswered (and usually, unasked) questions like that were what used to annoy the hell out of Andrew Breitbart, and rightly so. Leave aside entirely the question of a professional journalist’s obligations. Just normal human curiosity would make ordinary people ask questions: What’s going on with Democrats and voter registration? Is it true that many hundreds of people have been documented as voting illegally in two states during the same election year? What, if anything, are Democrats doing to prevent this? Or is it all just a bunch of ginned-up phony outrage? Like I say, this is the kind of stuff that ordinary people find interesting, and which you might think an editor at the Washington Post or the New York Times or CBS News would therefore find worthy of further reporting: “Hey, this is kind of weird and it might make for an interesting story, let’s assign somebody to poke around and see what they can dig up.”

But . . . no.

It’s frustrating, because you have the sneaking suspicion that if the mainstream media ever devoted serious effort to such stories, the result would be a lot more interesting than the dreck they usually produce. And it used to make Andrew Breitbart very angry:

Toward the end of the new movie Hating Breitbart, there is a scene that captures the essence of what the late New Media entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart did — and how he did it. The camera follows Breitbart as he makes his way up Capitol Hill, past the crowd at a 2010 Tea Party rally where the founder of Breitbart.com was about to give a speech. “Hey, Andrew, remember me?” says a man amid the throng on the opposite side of the crowd-control barricade. “I’m the one who sent you that video … the nine-second clip.”
Breitbart knew exactly which clip the man was talking about, and remembered the online moniker of the amateur cameraman who sent it: “Marooned in Marin, right?”
The significance of that moment isn’t explained in the movie, as director Andrew Marcus is content to let viewers connect the dots for themselves when Breitbart takes the stage to give one of his many impassioned speeches. While he was at times credited with singlehandedly destroying the mainstream media’s suffocating liberal stranglehold on news, Breitbart always understood that his work depended on people like Marooned in Marin who sent him e-mail tips, including videos and photos, that exposed the untold truths that too many professional journalists were willing to ignore. And so when he stood on the stage in front of the Capitol that September afternoon in 2010, Breitbart pointed to the audience and told them, “You are the army!”
Marcus’s camera then captures Breitbart’s reaction, after he leaves the stage to cheers and applause, telling a friend that he didn’t have any idea what he was going to say until he started talking. That’s how it was with Breitbart — a master of improvisation, an impulsive personality who learned to turn his attention deficit disorder into an asset. The astute viewer of Hating Breitbart recognizes that the chance encounter with Marooned in Marin (whose name Breitbart had stored in his amazing memory) triggered the thought that led to the inspirational words he spoke on stage that day at the Tea Party rally. And every new day brings fresh reminders of how the inspiration has outlived the man who died in March at age 43. . . .

Please read the rest at The American Spectator. You’re sure as hell never going to read anything like it in the New York Times.

 

Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World!

Movie Rated ‘R’ for Scene in Which Breitbart Rapes the Media Narrative

Tonight is the DC premiere of Andrew Marcus’s excellent new documentary, Hating Breitbart, which gets some unexpected free publicity:

Producers of the biographical documentary “Hating Breitbart” got news last week that their film received an “R” rating from the Motion Picture Association of America. And with that move official Hollywood, long the preserve of liberal culture warriors, has had what appears to be the last laugh on the late Andrew Breitbart. . . .
Breitbart was never at a loss for words. And some of those words were decidedly profane. Andrew Marcus, the director of “Hating Breitbart,” which was scheduled for release on Oct. 12, told The Daily Caller on Sunday that the film’s nationwide unveiling has been pushed back one week while he and his team approach the MPAA with a request for a re-hearing.

Raping the narrative? Hey, the narrative was beggin’ for it.

UPDATE: Trailer for the movie:

Learn more at the Official HATING BREITBART Web site.

 

‘Someone Trying to Breathe Life into a Three-Year Old Dead Horse’

Thus does John Fund dismiss an attempt by Nadia Naffe to create controversy around James O’Keefe III over a planned “sting” video that never happened, as embarrassing as the details may be.

O’Keefe, as you certainly know, is the young activist who became famous for his collaboration with Hannah Giles in the 2009 undercover videos that destroyed ACORN, and which sparked the successful launch of Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website. Naffe is a former Republican operative who worked with O’Keefe until, in March of this year, she accused O’Keefe of sexual harassment and worse.

Naffe had been “terminated” by the Florida GOP in 2004, which led to a lawsuit that, if O’Keefe knew about it before he hired her, should have given him pause. Who would knowingly hire anyone whose former employment resulted in litigation? And this is especially true of someone whose work would require a high degree of confidentiality.

So now Naffe has made herself a weapon with which O’Keefe’s enemies seek to destroy him. She has made league with Neal Rauhauser — assisting Rauhauser in an attempt, on behalf of Brett Kimberlin, to get access to e-mails that Naffe wrongfully obtained from O’Keefe — and is now apparently ready to file a lawsuit against Patrick “Patterico” Frey:

Rauhauser has been obsessed with Patterico for more than a year, going back to the 2011 WeinerGate scandal, when Rauhauser (under his “Stranded Wind” alias) published a series of posts at Daily Kos accusing Patterico of all manner of wrongdoing:

It was in the aftermath of the WeinerGate scandal that Rauhauser evidently joined forces with Brett Kimberlin and Kimberlin’s tax-exempt 501(c)4 group Velvet Revolution. Kimberlin had his own grievance against Patterico dating back to October 2010, when Kimberlin threatened a lawsuit against Patterico.

Similarly, both Rauhauser and Kimberlin had been striving for some time to destroy Andrew Breitbart and James O’Keefe, which is how Nadia Naffe’s complaints against O’Keefe brought this together with their grievances against Patterico. When Naffe made her accusations against O’Keefe in March, Patterico raised questions about Naffe’s story and subsequently discovered the public-record documents relating to her 2004 lawsuit against the Republican Party.

Patterico’s criticism of Naffe and his publication of those documents is, so far as I can tell, the only grounds for complaint Naffe has against him and I can’t imagine any court finding Patterico guilty of anything, but this lawsuit is just another typical product of the Kimberlin-Rauhauser “accuse the accusers” strategy. Once they target someone, the accusations proliferate endlessly as part of an orchestrated effort to discredit anyone who might accuse them of wrongdoing. (See my June 17 article, “‘Scrubbed’ Writings Show Kimberlin Associate Neal Rauhauser’s Obsessions,” for some relevant examples.)

Remember that Rauhauser solicited the same California attorney, Jay Leiderman, in an attempt to get SWATting target Mike Stack to file a nuisance suit against Patterico.

It is most unfortunate that Rosie Gray of Buzzfeed has assisted O’Keefe’s enemies in what is, in fact, nothing more than the latest manifestation of a bizarre personal vendetta. “Dead horse” though the story may be, innocent people still suffer real harm from these deliberate attacks. Assisting sadists in the satisfaction of their depraved appetites is not properly the business of a journalist.

UPDATE: Linked by Jackie Wellfonder and Bill Hoge — thanks! — and thanks likewise to the commenter who points out that Jay Leiderman is also the attorney who represents imprisoned former “Anonymous” spokesman Barrett Brown.

Brown’s involvement with Rauhauser became public last month when Barrett threatened me, then published a series of private online chats he had with Patterico, evidently in an effort to defame Patterico as being party to a (wholly imaginary) conspiracy.

Brown’s motives in that incident are impossible to determine, nor do we know what (if anything) connects that failed smear with Barrett’s subsequent public meltdown that led to his arrest. Absent such knowledge we can only observe that, in general, bad things happen to people who actively ally themselves with evil.

 

Exit, Lying: Smear Site Quits After Being Named Walker v. Kimberlin Defendant

Readers who have been following The Kimberlin Files these past four months may recall that, as soon as I began reporting on convicted terrorist bomber Brett Kimberlin’s “lawfare” harassment of blogger Aaron Walker, I came under attack by the Twitter sockpuppet troll account (a “synthetic presence,” you might say) known as “Breitbart Unmasked.”

This Twitter account was/is linked to a Web page, created in February, that originally targeted Andrew Breitbart but which, since Andrew’s March 1 death, has become increasingly obsessed with attacking (a) enemies of Brett Kimberlin, (b) enemies of Neal Rauhauser, and (c) people who had something to do with exposing the 2011 Anthony Weiner cybersex scandal.

I took alarm when I saw — and this was May 17 or 18, I forget — that “Breitbart Unmasked” had been trying to “dox” Ace of Spades.

Oh, hell, no you won’t.

A couple days ago, William J. Hoge reported that the person or persons behind “Breitbart Unmasked” had been named as a John Doe co-defendant in Aaron Walker’s federal lawsuit against Brett Kimberlin (not to be confused with the Virginia Walker v. Kimberlin case going forward separately in Prince William County, Virginia). So today, as also reported by Hoge, “Breitbart Unmasked” posted a dishonest and self-serving farewell entitled, “Breitbart Unmasked Closes: The Free Speech Debate.”

That farewell is not linked because (a) Rauhauser has a hacker-ish habit of infesting Web sites with all sorts of nefarious viruses, and (b) we don’t feed the trolls, so if you want to read it, you’ll have to go look for it yourself, but I warn you to use an anonymizer.

Is it possible to deconstruct in detail all the lies “Breitbart Unmasked” tells? Yes, but I’m trying to get ready for a trip to Ohio, and nobody else wants to waste that much time when it’s much simpler to say, as Mary McCarthy once said of Lillian Hellman, “Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’ ”

Buried amid all the dishonest noise, however, the stupid troll’s farewell post includes one telling (and stupidly accidental) admission:

That was what excited us at BU, the challenge of debating Andrew Breitbart on any topic he chose to be interested in. So when he died it threw BU into a conundrum. We went round and round over what to focus on and what the site could be about with him gone. . . .
Those stories have been very interesting because they are about a topic that many like to debate about, which is free speech. And since Andrew was debating with BU about free speech the night he died we decided to run with it; and the rest is history as they say.

Except, unfortunately for you, fool, we know exactly who was “debating” (actually, harassing) Andrew Breitbart on Twitter the night he died — and you can go see for yourself, Neal Rauhauser.

No “Breitbart Unmasked” in Breitbart’s timeline, see?

Rauhauser seems to have deleted the account with which he was harassing Andrew the night of Feb. 29/March 1. Neal created several such Twitter accounts (along with various “Occupy” and “Anonymous”-themed accounts) in 2011, and has since deleted most of the ones that got “outed” as his creations. 

As was his habit, Breitbart had re-Tweeted the most venomous of the Tweets with which Rauhauser was attacking him on the night of Feb. 29, and Breitbart also re-Tweeted a message by one of his conservative friends who called out Rauhauser by name:

Neal Rauhauser has told so many lies he can’t keep track of his lies, and he’s deleted more Web content than most people will ever create. He’s done this over and over, and every time you catch him in a lie — once his malevolent deceits have been exposed — Rauhauser always does two things:

  1. Deletes the exposed lie;
  2. Claims victimhood; and
  3. Begins plotting vengeance against those who exposed him for the vicious dishonest coward he is.

Yeah, good luck with your predictable modus operandi this time, Neal.

Everything has been screencapped and the caches have been saved, and if you think that Aaron Walker’s lawyers are stupid, you’ve got another think coming. And I haven’t even begun to explain the accidental revelations you made in your idiotic bragging posts last weekend, before you “unpublished” those.

Yeah. Saved ’em all. Every single one.

 

 

 

 

THE KIMBERLIN FILES:

 


Tamara Holder: Should Malkin Get Laid In The Marital, Or Amb. Stevens Sense?

by Smitty

The Lefties just keep it classy, but we should press for elaboration: does Tamara Holder think that Michelle Malkin’s spouse is inattentive, or, alternatively, does Holder mean ‘laid in a grave’?

Video below the fold for auto-play reasons.
Continue reading Tamara Holder: Should Malkin Get Laid In The Marital, Or Amb. Stevens Sense? →

Breitbart in February: ‘You Want a Unity Speech? I’ll Give You a Unity Speech.’

FLORENCE, South Carolina
Back in February at CPAC, Andrew Breitbart gave a speech in which he called for unifying conservatives to defeat the Left:

Anyone that’s willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive left, I will be in that bunker, and if you’re not in that bunker ’cause you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you — you’re on the other side!

Breitbart also forecast the tactics the media would use:

We’re watching you to play the race card MSNBC. We saw how you cynically placed the Reverend Sharpton in a position of absurdist power. This is Dadaism, I learned that in college, that they would allow for this guy to have a show. This is Dadaism. It’s freaky. It’s Andy Kaufman. It doesn’t make sense unless you understand what they’re doing.
This is going to be the dog whistle election cycle. They tested them in 2011, so he and his pal Toure and that punk Tim Jacob Wise and Ed and Maddow can sit there and call everyone who’s Caucasian racist. “I heard it. He used ‘is’ instead of ‘are.’ He’s a racist. That’s a dog whistle.’”
Ignore it when Congressman [Carson] does it against Allen West. No more. We’re going to go after you. I bought a dog whistle. I bought a dog whistle factory, and I’m giving you dog whistles. And we’re going to listen to every word that comes out of your mouth, and we’re going to hold you to the same standard that you hold us which is an impossible one, and you’re going to have a hell of a time in 2012 because America’s finally woken to your Saul Alinsky bullshit tactics, and we’re coming to get you.

Watch the video:

 

@DavidChalian Got Breitbarted
UPDATE: Video Interview With ‘Hating Breitbart’ Director Andrew Marcus

TAMPA, Florida
This morning while I was on my way to the Media Filing Center here at the Republican National Convention, the story went viral that David Chalian, Washington bureau chief of Yahoo News, had been caught on an open microphone saying — in regard to the coincidence of the GOP convention and Hurricane Isaac — “They aren’t concerned at all . . . They are happy to have a party with black people drowning.”

There was no time for me to blog about that, because I had to rush to the world premiere screening of Hating Breitbart, the new documentary film directed by Andrew Marcus. And while I was watching that movie, Yahoo News fired David Chalian.

Adios, douchebag.

This is strictly a coincidence, of course, just as it is strictly a coincidence that the guy who exposed Chalian is Newsbusters founder Matthew Sheffield, who is featured prominently in Hating Breitbart.

An awful lot of coincidences happened in Andrew Breitbart’s life.

I mean, if you believe in “coincidences,” which I don’t.

UPDATE: My video interview with Hating Breitbart director Andrew Marcus: