Image 01 Image 03

“Wake up, Conservatives: Left is involved in 100% organized class & race warfare & you think you can sit this one out & not fight back?!?!”

“Wake up, Conservatives: Left is involved in 100% organized class & race warfare & you think you can sit this one out & not fight back?!?!”

Remembering Andrew Breitbart 7 years after his death

Every year on March 1, we remember the life and death of Andrew Breitbart.

He was larger than life.

Here’s what I wrote on March 1, 2012, Andrew Breitbart dead:

Very sad news to report, just breaking.  Andrew Breitbart is dead.

Via Big Journalism:

Andrew passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles.

We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.

Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love.

… There are few people who are irreplaceable, but Andrew may have been one of those few.

I wrote A personal note on the death of Andrew Breitbart that day:

I only spoke once with Andrew Breitbart. He reached out to me, and we spoke by phone.  The topic is not important, but I was shocked that he even knew who I was; but as I’ve come to learn, Andrew seemed to know who everyone was in the conservative blogosphere.  He was just that way.

Since my wife called this morning to let me know of Andrew’s death, it has been hard to focus on anything else.  In her words, we don’t have that many bright media lights, and to lose him hurts.

To this day, he is maligned from the left for the video he and Larry O’Connor released about Shirley Sherrod. I have tried to set the record straight, but particularly in this social media age, I’m not sure the truth prevails anymore:

“Apologize, for what?” became most associated with him, and it was phrase he tweeted the day of his death:

If that was the phrase most associated with Andrew, this was his advice which is more true now than ever:

Wake up, Conservatives: Left is involved in 100% organized class & race warfare & you think you can sit this one out & not fight back?!?!

This is still my favorite interview of him, by Prof. Glenn Reynolds and the Instawife:

I just saw this video for the first time, and it is so on point with what is happening now in politics and media.

Those who knew him best remembered him today as well.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


We are so timid in this fight that we allow their nonsense to divide our families and friends. Rarely a day goes by that I don’t tell someone it is creepy that our families and friendships are divided over who they voted for. Why is this even possible? How did we allow outsiders to so wreck our brains that we can’t discuss things within our own inner circle? We’ve ALL been brainwashed and we better wake up before it is too late.

The question still remains: “What can we do?” We can speak out to our “friends”, boycott lefty organizations like Google, CNN, all the lamestream media and Netflix, but so what? As Claire Wolfe wrote 23 years ago:

“America is at that awkward stage; it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

And we’re still dealing with those “conservatives” today. Of course, they call themselves #NeverTrump. Sam Adams would have called them Tories.

    Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | March 1, 2019 at 6:55 pm

    Over half the people cited about have been called stupid, lying names and defiled by T-rump cultists because they won’t join the cult.

    Breitbart himself would be one. He held a very low and correct opinion of Mr. Establishment.

    gonzotx in reply to SDN. | March 1, 2019 at 7:07 pm

    Adams would have called them traitors

      Ragspierre in reply to gonzotx. | March 1, 2019 at 7:14 pm

      Put us some support that Adams would be a cult-follower of a corrupt contributor to the likes of Schumer and Pelosi who has made a career of lying, stealing and cheating.

      I’ll wait…

        Milwaukee in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2019 at 11:15 pm

        Trump has said something like ‘I was a New York business man. This is what I had to do to do business.’

        It does appear that over the years his opinions on subjects have changed. And he is not a social conservative: he was in favor of same-sex marriage, as I recall. Although his call to end criminalization of homosexuality doesn’t need to be an endorsement of the same-sex lifestyle.

        So, I have in the past agreed, that perhaps there is some merit to statements of Mr. Ragspierre about the deficiencies of Mr. Trump’s character. However, we must play the hand we are dealt. Mr. Trump did take the nomination of the party, and win in the Electoral College. He has accomplished somethings.

        Mr. Ragspierre, is there any way Mr. Trump would be able to redeem himself, in your eyes? Yes, all those things you say have merit in them. But that was then, and this is now. Just not believing that a some date we won’t be hugely disappointed in him. His principles seem too malleable.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milwaukee. | March 2, 2019 at 1:05 am

          Actually, since you asked civilly, there would be things that Duh Donald could do that would at least lead me to amend my thinking about him.

          He could start with ceasing to lie like a wet dog. He hasn’t.

          He could also admit to being the vile thug he has been. He hasn’t.

          Milwaukee in reply to Milwaukee. | March 3, 2019 at 1:33 pm

          Rags: Thanks for the clarification.
          May I suggest a vocabulary addition? “unrepentant”

          Redemption is for those who ask for it, acknowledging past crimes and stating a desire to turn away from misdeeds. Since Mr. Trump has not acknowledged his past and indicated mistakes he wishes to correct, and is sorry for having committed, he doesn’t get a pass. Yes, I can see that. So, I humbly suggest, try “unrepentant”.

          As in, maybe, “Trump, the unrepentant liar.”, for example.

        Ben Franklin was a rake; several of the Founders were slavers. So? They knew who was on their side, and who was the enemy, TWANLOC.

          Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | March 2, 2019 at 1:09 am

          Franklin was not a profligate liar, cheat and fraud.

          He didn’t support the Crown right up until he had a campaign conversion.

          So, lots different than your cult leader…

Andrew would have simply LOVED Trump!!!!

    Ragspierre in reply to gonzotx. | March 1, 2019 at 7:11 pm

    But he didn’t.

    Look it up.

      Colonel Travis in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2019 at 8:14 pm

      I looked it up. <– Did you?

      I can find two instances of Andrew Breitbart commenting about Trump. I can't find anything where he said "I don't like or love Donald Trump." In fact, I can find the opposite when it comes to Trump handling the media. Breitbart loved how Trump played the media. Breitbart hated how (R) candidates in the past were clueless when it came to dealing with the media. He was correct and the (R) party, on the whole, still sucks at it.

      1.) Fox News in 2011 when he said Trump wasn't a conservative. He was absolutely correct about that. That is not the same as saying, "I don't like him."

      2.) Joy Behar Show in 2011, when he said, contrary to what you said, that he was enjoying watching Trump manhandle the media and behaved like no other (R) candidate had ever behaved. He said, when asked directly about what he thought of Trump: "I'm sitting back and enjoying it."

      So here I am, giving two concrete examples that do not say what you claim. How come everyone else has to show their work to back up what they say but you don't? I find that kinda funny.

      If Breitbart said what you said, give the evidence. Even if he did say, "I don't like anything about Donald Trump, I think he'd be a terrible president" – he would have been dead four years by the time Trump was president. And assuming you'd know what a dead man would think now is ridiculous. Seven years ago I thought pretty much the same way about Trump that Breitbart did. And I had no problem voting for him in 2016, knowing he wasn't a conservative, but unlike you, I didn't prefer to not do anything to stop Hillary.

        Ragspierre in reply to Colonel Travis. | March 1, 2019 at 8:42 pm

        Cpl. Travesty, I didn’t say anything about what Breitbart said.

        Why are you lying?

          Colonel Travis in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2019 at 8:45 pm

          Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a psychotic.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2019 at 9:30 pm

          “Seven years ago I thought pretty much the same way about Trump that Breitbart did.”

          This is what we in the law call “an admission against interest”.

          Thanks, Cpl. Travesty!

          Colonel Travis in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2019 at 10:46 pm

          Where did you go to law school, again? Oh that’s right, at the I Can’t Argue My Way Out Of A Paper Bag School of Law at Ambulance Chaser University.

          I like how you still can’t prove your stance, which is why you have to go after mine. I’ll address both, starting with the latter. (You have got to be the crappiest lawyer in America.)

          Saying my thoughts pretty much matched Breitbart’s means we both didn’t love Trump? Funny. I don’t recall saying that. I remember saying (like Breitbart) that I didn’t think Trump was a conservative and that I agreed (with Breitbart) about loving Trump punching the media in the face. Otherwise, I said nothing about love or hate or indifference or anything else regarding Trump then. Did you bother to ask me if I loved/hated/liked/didn’t care about Trump in general, or any other aspect about him that I did not specifically mention? Nah. You didn’t ask me. You assumed, because you are an esteemed graduate of the Paper Bag.

          How come you didn’t bother to ask a simple question? You read a lot of stuff into that sentence you quoted that isn’t there. Now, this is what we peons who didn’t graduate from the Paper Bag call “irony.” You say I lie about you (which I didn’t do – you’re either too stupid to understand and/or your ego prevents you from asking for clarification, which I would have given), yet you do the very F-ing thing to me and it’s OK? That is a genuine LOL moment. I laughed out loud. For real.

          PS – I remember playing Trump: The Game 30 years ago at a friend’s house. I’ve always loved Trump…in general. Did you see those last two words? They are important and they are there for a reason. I could explain in detail what “in general” means, but a Paper Bag grad like you should be able to understand. I don’t know where in your class you graduated. Maybe you’re at the bottom of the bag and will not understand.

          Now let’s get back to you. You actually, stupidly, made two claims in one.

          1.) That Breitbart never “loved” Trump, period.
          2.) That Breitbart never would have “loved” him as president.

          The first one is the only one that is conceivably provable. The second one is impossible to prove – seriously, how dumb are you? Rhetorical question. Let’s stick with the first claim. Where is Ragspierre’s evidence for the first claim? Oh yeah – there isn’t any. Have you given any evidence of your claim in subsequent comments to anyone yet?


          (When graduates from the Paper Bag write, their words literally glow with a radiance not even seen from religious prophets. Readers have no other duty but yield to, not mere words, but divine doctrine.)

          We know for a fact (well, you didn’t know) that Breitbart did love Trump skewering the media and contrasted that to the entire (R) party’s history of being lousy in this regard. He also said (R) candidates better be able to handle the media like Trump or else they were never gonna win.

          But saying that Breitbart didn’t love Trump in general and for everyone else to “look it up” means that, according to Ragspierre, Breitbart must have had an on-record position about Trump below the level of “love in general”, correct? It certainly cannot be equal to that or above it. This means that Breitbart merely liked Trump, or tolerated him, or was neutral toward him or disliked him or hated him, etc. – he has to have taken a stance underneath “love in general.” But I’ve told you that “love in general” is possible, while not loving every single aspect about a person.

          Where is your proof?

          *sound of crickets*

          I’m still giving you the benefit of the doubt that it exists. You told us it does. Please go get it. Stop making everyone else do your work.

          Regardless, even if you do find it, GFY.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 2, 2019 at 12:37 am

          So many words…so many lies, Cpl. Travesty.

          As to your last, same at-cha, sideways, frother.

          Remember, you called the tune…

          Colonel Travis in reply to Ragspierre. | March 2, 2019 at 1:12 am

          Another way of saying you cannot prove what you said.
          Thanks for confirming.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 2, 2019 at 1:17 am

          I can’t prove what you lied about me saying.

          Roger that.

          I won’t be able to prove any future lies you tell, either, just to head that crap off at the pass!

          Call it a flaw…

          Colonel Travis in reply to Ragspierre. | March 2, 2019 at 1:43 am

          Another way of saying you didn’t read what I wrote. Seriously.

          Here is the tl;dr version:

          1.) Prove Andrew Breitbart did not love Trump in general. It should be easy.
          2.) Prove Andrew Breitbart would not have loved a president Trump, which is the premise of the comment you responded to. This should also be easy.

          You can’t prove either. This is why you have to ignore the subject in every single comment of yours and attack me as a liar, except you can’t even tell me, specifically, what I lied about.

          Not only are you lazy, I used to think you were going way out of your way to look stupid but I now realize that, nah, you instinctively make a beeline for it.

      Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2019 at 8:45 pm

      You have said Breitbart would not like Trump. But then, you make up doodoo all day long.

      Breitbart would be loving the Trump revolution.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | March 1, 2019 at 9:27 pm

        No, lying nutter. I said that he did not “love T-rump”.

        “And assuming you’d know what a dead man would think now is ridiculous”: Cpl. Travesty.

        All very true.

          Concise in reply to Ragspierre. | March 2, 2019 at 12:47 am

          I’m kind of new here. Is this nickname some sort of play on “Robespierre” or some menses related theme?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 2, 2019 at 12:58 am

          Think, laddy.

          Robes v. Rags…

          Any bells ringing…???

          Concise in reply to Ragspierre. | March 2, 2019 at 11:14 am

          A little of both then? Fair enough. It’s your personal lifestyle choice I guess. So what again is your point? Others seem anxious to engage you here. Can’t really quite understand why.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 2, 2019 at 1:10 pm

          And so another nasty, lying little troll self-identifies.


          Concise in reply to Ragspierre. | March 2, 2019 at 1:51 pm

          That’s it? Not really much there when it comes down to it. But my expectations weren’t really high.

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | March 3, 2019 at 9:19 pm

          This is not the only thread you have ever commented regarding Breitbart and Trump. You have explicitly stated Breitbart would be opposed to Trump.

          Of course you’re wrong. You always are.

Regardless of whether or not Breitbart would have liked Trump, he’d have made a helluva great Press Secretary.

Public radio has nurtured a close association a la New York Times between Breitbart and the far left group “Stormfront”, which is known for its indulgence in diversity or color judgments.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | March 2, 2019 at 12:41 am

This real view/expose of this year’s Oscars goes right along with this. Please share. H/T the last refuge.

caseoftheblues | March 2, 2019 at 5:26 am

Ah Rags…at it again…adding nothing of value and always doing and being exactly what he accuses others of…yet never realizing it…sad really…as always

My favorite Andrew Breitbart quote remains:

“F*ck You…….War”

Leaving the current POTUS out of this, Andrew Breitbart’s true claim to fame was that he shouted the obvious from the parapets.

Class warfare has always been a part of politics. Politicians, be they elected, appointed or hereditary, always pander to the group or class which supports them. Always. It is how they protect their positions and, therefor, their wealth.

Prior to 1965, there was little interest in race, outside of local politics. The African-American voting block was only 12% of the national population. In most locales, it was under 15% with White, Christian populations accounting for the majority of voters. So, nationally, Republicans really did not care about any civil rights movement, except to the extent that backing it would hurt Democrats, which were then solidly the party of white supremacy, because of their dominance in the Deep South. But, things changed, in 1965. The Republicans still thought little of Blacks as a national voting block and expected the African-American voting community to be grateful for their efforts in passing the Civil Rights Act. The Dems knew that they had to gain control of the Black vote or lose the South and most of their traditional dominance in national politics. So, they embarked on the traditional Democrat political course, buying the vote. But, an unexpected wrinkle arose in the scenario, the rise of the African-American dominated civil rights advocacy and racial grievance industry. This industry, predictably, gained significant influence within the Black community. Blacks knew that white politicians did not really care about their interests and they did not trust them to represent their interests. What the Dems did was to buy the leaders of the Civil Rights/racial grievance industry to further the Democrat agenda. Then, largely through the courts, which were then heavily populated with Dem appointees, they set about elevating minority groups to a higher legal status than the White Christian majority.

As time marched on, Dems continued to buy the support of voting groups through government largess. Medicare bought the elderly vote, which could not be held by Social Security payments alone. Welfare did the same thing, for the “impoverished”, as Social Security did for seniors. Medicaid did the same thing for the “impoverished” that Medicare did for the elderly vote.

To continue to add voting blocks to their stable, the Dems embarked upon an increased campaign to create other “victimized” minority groups to “protect”, with the sole purpose of securing the voted of those groups for Dems. To do this, they embarked upon a decades long program, via schools and the media, to indoctrinate the American people in the belief that racial discrimination against minority groups was rampant among the White, Christian majority and only the Dems could protect the minority members of society from these deprivations. The final stratagem was to destroy the domestic economy, forcing even more people to become dependent upon government largess.

All of this was designed to protect the power, position and wealth of members of the Progressive Democrat Party and their supporters.

Republican politicians have the same goals as most Democrat politicians. They want to increase, or maintain, their wealth and status in society. They care little about their constituents, except around election time. The rest of the time they cater to the desires of the power brokers, who are largely Progressives. This is the reason why the differences between the actions of Democrat and Republican politicians are so minuscule. They all serve the same masters, or those with congruent interests.

Now we get to Andrew Breitbart. All of the above was clearly visible to anyone who took even a cursory critical look at American politics and society. But, most Americans, having no real interest in how the political sausage was made, until it gave them a belly ache, relied entirely upon the media, particularly the main Stream Media for their information and insights and the media had a vested interest in supporting the status quo in the country. The MSM was not going to rock the Progressive boat. What Breitbart did was to embrace the coming expansion of alternative media, largely to release the choke hold which the MSM had on the dissemination of information. He used this new media to attempt to curtail the general movement to a totalitarian society largely control by wealthy Progressive interests. Breitbart’s activities allowed for a freer flow of accurate information, to the masses, which largely accounts for what we see happening today. The Dems no longer have the luxury of a hoodwinked electorate. So, they have to do anything and everything to hold onto their dependent base and encourage that base to support them at the polls. This includes fake news and other lies, public violence, and the promises of more free goodies, which the country can not afford.

Another Voice | March 2, 2019 at 11:59 am

Andrew Breitbart vs Arrogant Bastards video:

Given what was covered in this interview and his position on the media, “news” reporters, academia, and socialism, it is as if Andrew were still with us today and could give this as a speech at the at this years CPac and be as relevant today as it was in 2010. Stand Up and Call’em Out!