Image 01 Image 03

“Why not give Andy a country worth dying for”

“Why not give Andy a country worth dying for”

In addition to the line quoted in the title, listen to what Breitbart told him the core of the problem was:  The media.

Nothing proves how right Breitbart was as the last few days of complete and utter absurdity regarding Sandra Fluke.  Her testimony should have been taken apart by any self respecting journalist, but instead we get weepy sob stories and a complete disregard of the religious liberty side of the story.

Via Instapundit:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



DINORightMarie | March 4, 2012 at 8:49 am

Nothing proves how right Breitbart was as the last few days of complete and utter absurdity regarding Sandra Fluke. Her testimony should have been taken apart by any self respecting journalist, but instead we get weepy sob stories and a complete disregard of the religious liberty side of the story.

Amen. The MSM – both left and right leaning – should be dedicated to tearing that vacuous, deceitful testimony to shreds while exposing who she really is – and her hidden agenda, too. (Ms. Fluke is a 30 year old “women’s rights” activist – a Cornell undergrad – who chose to enroll at Georgetown to force them to change their policy on contraception)

As I’ve often lamented here – how do you hold the media (i.e. “the press”) accountable for such blatant media malpractice, bias, distortion of facts and truth? “Freedom of the press” has to have a boundary, a limit, a consequence…..doesn’t it?

Our 1st Amendment free speech is being limited these says, along with free expression of our religion – why is the press off limits? Especially when they report lies as facts and truth, apply double standards that they themselves laugh over because it’s so blatant, and use their 24/7/365 to *shape* and *create* the news – not report it?

I shudder as I type this. I fully understand what I am saying. It is wrong to limit our 1st Amendment rights – but it is happening. Two wrongs (or more) don’t make it right to commit another wrong…….but how do you reign in such a malicious, out-of-control MSM?

    Follow the ever-expansive “circle of friends” principle. Presumably, friends have greater credibility with each other, especially when their arguments are backed with evidence.

DINO, you fight bad information with good information. You are more influential with your family, friends, co-workers, etc. than somebody in a magic box…especially if you work at it.

    DINORightMarie in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2012 at 9:30 am

    I hear you – and I do what I can. But I don’t have the megawattage these broadcasters have. If only.

    If some industrious individual in the MSM ranks were to leak memos, emails, etc. revealing coordination between the White House and/or the leftist minions (CAP, MMfA, etc.) – and it was made public – would that do it?

    I wonder if Watergate could even happen today…..oh, yeah, that was the leftie press destroying a Republican (guilty or not – that was their mission).

    There must be a way to take out the Death Star that is the MSM-leftist-Obama cabal. Any points of failure? Single point of failure?

    Breitbarts of the world, unite!

      Ragspierre in reply to DINORightMarie. | March 4, 2012 at 9:35 am

      DINO, to paraphrase the little guy in Serenity, “…it’s out there…you can’t stop the information”.

      You have to be your own aggregator, your own skillful message-meister.

        NewtCerto in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2012 at 10:17 am

        It was Mr. Universe “you can’t stop the signal.”

        There is a way to route a whole new network – if we could only invest in creating it & then ask other Americans to join – we cam leave the lib media talking to itself. There is always a way – one person @ a time.

          Hope Change in reply to NewtCerto. | March 4, 2012 at 4:48 pm

          Hi NewtCerto — I think it’s happening. That’s what this blog is. That’s what NEwt’s campaign is, using Facebook, newt’s network, et cetera.

          I think the control paradigm that has worked for the Left when they could control the flow of information through MSM is falling apart.

          It’s like the Bakken oil field in North Dakota being on private land, and so federal government wasn’t able to stop it. The oil is flowing and the good consequences are there for all to see. So the statists have lost control of the narrative on that.

          Just like that, the internet grew up organically, out of the Army of Davids principle (Glenn Reynolds, InstaPundit) and it existed and started creating change before the statists realized how dangerous it is to their grip on everyone. They now want to control it, stamp it out, regulate it.

          Now they’re desperate to get SOPA or something in place.

          This is the communications network of the Rebel Alliance, so to speak.

          What do you think? Isn’t this the beginning?

      Aggie95 in reply to DINORightMarie. | March 4, 2012 at 10:10 am

      we can’t whip up a flood like the main stream media can but we can kill them with 1000 cuts or drown them with 1 million drips of water and if you look at the comments section of local papers …blogs ….any media outlet the message is out there the people know and understand the media is in the lefts hip pocket

    Regrettably, I have a couple of friends and some family who refuse to listen. The Kool-Ade [main stream media] is poison.

    raven in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    It’s not good enough anymore to fight bad information with good information. The days of hoping virtue will triumph are gone.

    Breitbart had it right. It’s war. You fight bad information by taking the fuc*ers down. James o’Keefe and Hannah Giles were 20-something nobodies who took down Obama’s billion-dollar centerpiece operation of voter fraud with a cheap camera and a $1500 budget.

    We can’t all do this. But we have to internalize the warrior ethos and strategies in whatever way we can. Fight smartly but don’t hesitate to fight dirty.

      Hope Change in reply to raven. | March 4, 2012 at 4:58 pm

      raven, I love your resolve.

      To me, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles are like the hero and heroine of great story. Tolkien. Ayn Rand. You know? Love James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles. It’s a glorious adventure, fighting crime, fraud, liars.

      I think we can win this by fighting smart and honest. Like Reagan. Like Newt. Deeply prepared. Deeply committed. Anchored in truth.

      I LOVE your resolve.

DINORightMarie | March 4, 2012 at 8:58 am

BTW-I loved that Bill Whittle video…… I linked to it on my Facebook site. He is sublimely brilliant! 😀

Have a great day! Hope your weather there is as lovely as it is here in the Shenandoah Valley.

    Hope Change in reply to DINORightMarie. | March 4, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    Hi DINORightMarie — I love the name Shenandoah Valley. We sang a song about the Shenandoah River when I was in school. So beautiful! So poignant.

    It’s coldish and overcast here, but next week it’s going to start to feel like Spring.

    I send you my very best patriotic, happy it’s Spring greetings, DINORightMarie. My very best wishes for all that’s good in life for all.

    It means so much to me to participate in this community and conversation.

    Andrew Breitbart is like a bright, shiny reminder that I can do better. Greetings to all.

Just a minor pick, Prof… This isn’t just a religious freedom issue. Many of us have ethical views that don’t come from a particular religion. They deserve the same dignity.

    retire05 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2012 at 10:46 am

    “You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virture, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations.”

    Benjamine Franklin in a letter to Thomas Paine

    Rags, you cannot deny that American virtues were build on Judeo-Christian standards, and that consequently, your own ethical views/virtues are rooted in those religious standards.

    The debate at issue is most certainly one of religious freedom, not just simple ethics. It is an issue of requiring certain Christian religions to bend to the will of an unelected official (Kathleen Sabilius) in spite of the beliefs of the faithful of those particular religions.

    But more than that, it seems to be an attack on a particular sect of Christianity as the government requirements are quite ridgid for them, although have been relaxed for those of the Amish faith. Once again, the federal government, and this administration, is picking losers and winners through selection.

    The debate is no different that the federal government deciding that it is healthier for citizens to eat pork, in place of beef, and that is beneficial to the state due to medical costs arriving from the consumption of red meat and then requiring certain religions to be forced to serve pork to all their employees, all in the name of the common good.

    Is pork better for you than red meat? Undoubtedly. Does the government have the right to require certain religions to go against their belief that pork is a unhealthy meat and force that religion to make it soley available to all those who work in some capacity for that religion?

    The administration would never assume to require someone to work for a particular employer, that would totally remove your freedom of choice. But it does assume that certain faiths must adhere to their philosophy of “reproductive justice” by requiring those faiths to go against the very tenets of those faiths. While the administration allows the employee freedom of choice (in where to work) it removed that very freedom from certain Christian faiths.

    Ms. Fluke is a clear example of the double standard, by admitting that she specifically chose Georgetown Law for no other reason than Georgetown Law’s particular student health care plan that denies coverage of contraceptives. She exercised her freedom of choice in choosing a university, yet wants to deny the university the same right.

    This is the same mindset that is a cancer on the Second Amendment. Those who would never own a firearm, under any circumstances, which is a personal choice, would deny others the ownership of a firearm, again, a personal choice, even if one was required to guarantee personal safety. And like the haters of religion, the anti-gun advocates think they have the right to force their personal opinions on others, while they will solidly reject the personal opinions of gun owners or the faithful.

    Little by little, inch by inch, our Constitutionally guaranteed rights are being eroded. The right of worship in our chosen faith, the right of a firearm, the right to travel without being viewed as a “potential” criminal, the right of the citizens of a state to create laws that pertain to only them and are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

    This is not a battle that the faithful have chosen. It is a battle that was foisted on us, and the outcome of this battle with have ramifications for all citizens. When one guaranteed right is eroded, and abolished, it is a simply matter to erode, and abolish all other rights.

    No matter what faith you subscribe to, perhaps none at all, this is a hill upon which you must stand, side by side, with American Catholics, knowing that sooner or later, it is your ox that will be gored.

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2012 at 11:00 am

    Yeah. Where did I say differently?

      retire05 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2012 at 11:27 am

      “Many of us have ethical views that don’t come from a particular religion.”

      I was pointing out that those views, in fact, do come from a particular religious tenet as we are a nation based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and you cannot distance your view of morality or virtue from the very root of those views. Your ethical standards have a foundation derived from Judeo-Christian tenets.

      If you believe that it is wrong to commit murder, you cannot remove that belief from “Thou shalt not kill.”

        Ragspierre in reply to retire05. | March 4, 2012 at 11:40 am

        But “Judeo-Christian” is not a religion. My point being that people other than Catholics hold the same or very similar views on issues. It is a mistake to allow anyone to limit conscience to a particular dogma, as in “We’ll make an exception for Catholics”. See???

          In “Fiddler on the Roof”, a couple of men were discussing a point in the Bible. They each had a different interpretation. They decided to let the rabbi settle their differences. The first man told the rabbi his interpretation. The rabbi said, “You are right.” “Hold on a second,” said the second man, “you haven’t heard my interpretation yet.” The second man then told the rabbi his interpretation, to which the rabbi replied, “You are right.” “Wait a minute,” said a third man, “they both can’t be right”. The rabbi said, “ You are right, too.”

          retire05 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm

          No, Judeo-Christian is not a particular sect of religiousity. But it is, in fact, a belief system that most particular religious sects based their tenets on.

          This HHS requirement has been couched in a claim that it attacks only the Catholic faith. That is wrong. The HHS requirement attacks all faiths that do not subscribe to the willfull slaughter of the unborn, be they Catholic, Methodist, Baptist or Jewish. It is an attack on the very basis for which this nation was founded, religious freedom for its citizens.

          I simply pointed out that you cannot remove your ethical standards from those that are derived from religions within the Judeo-Christian framework.

I can’t believe what this has come to. Rush playing into the hands of the “left” and the GOP cowering as well?

After what Rush said in the aftermath of Breitbart’s passing that we should “have thousands of Breitbarts” and he caves? It just doesn’t ring true to me.

Our freedoms are under assault and we just stand by?

Sarah Palin, where are you?? We need you to lead the movement.

    Hope Change in reply to Scorpio51. | March 4, 2012 at 5:15 pm


    IMHO, and not to take anything at all away from Sarah Palin, whom I love love love —

    Newt is prepared to do everything Sarah would do. And he actually is better prepared at this very moment.

    Sarah is young and will (I hope!) be with us for a long time. Sarah Palin is a brilliant force of nature voice for America. I love her. I believe Sarah will continue to be a strong force, maturing and getting better and better with time, and helping to guide our nation in many different capacities as time goes on.

    But IMO Newt is ready now and in a strong position to actually get it done.

    Watch the weeks after Super Tuesday. WE may be about to see something remarkable in the coming weeks and months, from the American People.

Just had a minor epiphany…THIS little incident could be the thing that fires off the next expression of TEA Party activism.

I’m up for it. Who’s with me?

Donald Douglas | March 4, 2012 at 9:32 am

William, great minds think alike! I hit on the same theme earlier this morning: ‘Sandra Fluke is Media’s Martyr, Just as Andrew Breitbart Would Have Predicted’

I’m updating that entry with your post. Thanks.

The total absence of savvy and imagination in our responses to this nonsense — the final pious caving — points to the void Andrew left. (Santorum’s response was the most pathetic.) Watch the Left pick up the pace, aggression and variety of their attacks now that Breitbart is gone. They know our weakness. We don’t know theirs. And we don’t seem to learn.

    Rosalie in reply to raven. | March 4, 2012 at 10:53 am

    Santorum didn’t throw Limbaugh under the bus, thankfully, as others did. I can’t stand the sight of Boehner anymore. Why couldn’t Brown, Boehner, etc. denounce what Limbaugh said then mention that the woman lied in the next sentence?

      Because Boehner, McConnell and the so called Republican “leadership” are in this for one reason: to stay in power. They are afraid to stand on principle because the leftist/progressive media will say bad things about them and that will hurt their chances to stay in power.

      raven in reply to Rosalie. | March 4, 2012 at 11:03 am

      Or maybe they could have mentioned that far worse misogynist slander and vulgarity and general viciousness goes on in the Leftist world every day and why aren’t the democrats apologizing for and distancing themselves from that?

“Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices,” Holder said. “The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin. … When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”

Now, did you hear that on the national news? On your radio?

That is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, second to the POTUS, saying that the day of sanctioned racial discrimination has only begun.

New media; use it, support it, become part of it.

As an example of Andrew’s legacy, a small Catholic woman confronts 3 young black hipsters who crashed a CA Tea Party conference yesterday. They did so to harass Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, who is fighting the victicrat mentality and racism taught in the inner city. She asks who they are and why they are there, and gets some illuminating answers and pictures.

I hope someone clears up the whole “Andy” thing soon. I always got the impression that Andrew Breitbart hated being called Andy. I saw an interview once where he got visibly angry about it.

The media is the great defender of the great nanny state since they are its favored ward. Since the media outcry for Ms. Fluke seems to come at the behest of the fatherly Obama, why doesn’t the media cry out for children to remain on their parents insurance policy through age 30, or until a child finishes law school? C’mon media, time to howl and wail.

And keep on the front burner that Obama called that trollop Fluke to apologize, but didn’t call the family of slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry who was murdered as a direct result of his “Fast and Furious” failed gun running program.
Obama claims he wants to be like President Truman. Truman said, “The buck stops here.” Put that on your desk in the Oval Office for the few remaining months that you will be its occupant.

The information spin tilts the game big time. It seems that the right needs to be ever-vigilant, ever-balanced and ever-flawless in its discourse — and still ready themselves to be hammered for statements taken out of context or just falsified.

I am wondering if the long ball strategy for this game is to withdraw the federal office candidates and thereby remove all the false straw men and all the false enemies that the Left so desperately need to deceive society into empowering them. Let them run Washington without opposition and without anyone to blame but themselves. The Left runs Washington now, and the opposition from the Right just gives them bogeymen to blame for their failures.

I guess I am pondering a John Galt enclave in which the Right retreats to state and local governments, and we just withdraw from federal participation. A federal implosion is looming anyway — it’s the states that need to be buttoned up to deal with it in the coming decades. One should expect that a growing coalition of states will display greater and greater disregard for the edicts out of Washington.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mark30339. | March 4, 2012 at 11:44 am

    Two things, Mark…

    Look for new and increased calls for re-imposition of some “Fairness Doctrine”.

    I’ve read authors on nation-states that say the U.S. is a fluke (OK, that WAS a pun), and will break up. Has to do with size and complexity.

      Hope Change in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2012 at 5:27 pm

      Hi Ragspierre — my fierce interlocutor & virtual (yes, pun intended) friend —

      But — isn’t it vrai that we may be on the verge of the most exciting political renaissance of freedom in our country since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980?

      Super Tuesday is the day after tomorrow.

      Let’s give it some time….?


        Mark30339 in reply to Hope Change. | March 5, 2012 at 12:14 pm

        Suppose a State passes a law mandating that all employees be deemed leased to the state’s employers through the State government. Then all the wage withholdings are gathered in one powerful place — and maybe the State lets some of the money out to the feds and maybe they back charge for unfunded mandates and the like.

Breitbart makes the case against the media and leftists’ hold on popular culture in Righteous Indignation. I think he’s right (and you’re right). What’s happened to our country isn’t just political (remember the femisogynists’ favorite catch phrase is “the personal is political”), it’s in everything from our courts to our universities (and of course, sadly, K-12) to Hollywood, television, and the media. To combat that, we need to stake out ground on all fronts. Breitbart’s Big sites were doing that (apparently he had plans for a whole slew more, too).

Midwest Rhino | March 4, 2012 at 12:10 pm

If Obama has lost Alfred E., has he lost America?

Even Alfred is worried.

Perhaps then “worry free, government will take care of me” America will wake up too.

[…] Slut, But Not A Prostitute Posted on March 4, 2012 9:30 am by Bill Quick » “Why not give Andy a country worth dying for” – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion Nothing proves how right Breitbart was as the last few days of complete and utter absurdity […]

I left a comment in the Tip Line regarding a GQ interview with Andrew Breitbart from a year ago. Breitbart pointed out that the fight against progressive liberalism must be taken to the media, and that’s what Breitbart was doing.

“…Because given the status quo that we exist in, in which the media’s dominated by people that disagree with American exceptionalism, the academic Marxist crowd’s worldview, somebody needed to start taking it on directly. And the thing is, the Right has focused its energy and its monies on the political process, thinking that that alone is enough. It just kind of shrugged off culture. But culture is everything and media is everything, and once you get down to the political level in this country, you’ve already lost the battle.”

Read More

LukeHandCool | March 4, 2012 at 1:52 pm

Mr. Whittle is right. You don’t do yourself, your family, your friends, or the cause any good if you don’t take care of your health.

My back has had me in agony the last few days. It may be a blessing in disguise. For months I’ve been saying I need to start swimming again. This episode should kick me in the pants … I’m not as invinceable as I like to think and I’m not getting any younger.

So, stay healthy … and have lots of conservative kids!! Let’s beat ’em demographically, too!!!

LukeHandCool | March 4, 2012 at 5:24 pm

Mickey Kaus and a friend show it wasn’t Breitbart’s combative style that’s causing hateful outpouring from the left … they compare the reaction to the death of Tony Snow … whose personality was completely non-combative.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | March 4, 2012 at 8:39 pm

I said this before, and I will say it again-

Andrew Breitbart was a fearless American Patriot, a combination of Patrick Henry and Paul Revere, whose likes cannot be replaced, as Andrew Breitbart went where wise men dare not go, into the liberal lions den of corruption, lies, propaganda, deceit, and utter hatred and contempt for The People, Individual Freedom, Liberty, and the U.S. Constitution, and he fought them fearlessly, and won !

He was truly a once in a lifetime patriotic American conservative General among Generals, who lead by example, of which he always did first. In other words, when Andrew saw an unjust, biased, corrupt firestorm, he didn’t runaway from it, he ran straight into it, confronted it and fought them directly one on one, or one against the mob, never veering away even once, nor did he even hesitate for a second, and never backed off his fight for Truth in what he called his “Self-Righteous Indignation” to expose them all for what they really were.. and for all America to see what was Good and Right and the Truth. This he did in and of everything he stood for- his values and principles for which he displayed tremendous courage of conviction in the face of evil. And the weapons he used were only the truth, freedom, liberty, his courage, passion, computer, and the internet.

I can only do my absolute best hope that I, and all the other Tea Party Reagan Conservatives, keep the Andrew Breitbart fight against injustice and media bias for the rest of our lives, as Andrew would have done with the same continued devoted passion.