From the film’s website:

“Hating Breitbart” tells the story of how one man with a website upended the traditional press and repeatedly found himself the target of a media feeding frenzy.

The filmmakers have been following Andrew Breitbart since the birth of the Tea Party movement in 2009, and they’ve got behind-the-scenes access to many of the media controversies in which Breitbart was a key player–from the ACORN takedown to Congressman Anthony Weiner’s crotch-shot Twitter scandal.

Follow @HatingBreitbart on Twitter.

More information here.

Obama’s #Occupy army threatened to disrupt and physically assault conservative speakers at the CPAC convention this week in Washington DC. Andrew Breitbart and Newt Gingrich are two conservatives who they will be targeting at the event.

Lachlan Markay at The Foundry reported:

The “Occupy DC” protest group is planning to disrupt the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference using a range of potentially illegal tactics that could even include violence against participants, Scribe has learned.

The planned disruptions at CPAC come only days after U.S. Park Police raided Occupiers’ tent cities at McPherson Square and Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., confiscating a number of tents, and prohibiting Occupiers from camping out there any longer.

During a Thursday meeting at McPherson Square, until Saturday the epicenter of the protests, Occupiers brainstormed tactics for shutting down or disrupting the conference, according to a source who was present at the meeting.

The protesters suggested pulling fire alarms in the hotel where the conference will take place, screaming “fire” during conference activities, “glitter-bombing” participants, cutting electrical power, and barricading entrances to the hotel, according to the source, who requested anonymity.

“Speakers will be physically assaulted, not just verbally confronted,” the source told Scribe in an email. Two Occupiers, who the source also identified as members of the New Black Panther Party, “said they would be disappointed if they didn’t get arrested and planned to ‘make it count.’”

The source quoted another protester as saying, “Mitt [Romney] has Secret Service now, but [Newt] Gingrich and [Andrew] Breitbart don’t,” seemingly suggesting that the latter two would not be as heavily guarded.

Protesters planned to conduct most of these activities on Saturday, the last day of the conference, so as not to overlap with the recently announced protests by labor groups on Thursday and Friday.

It’s not yet clear how beating conservatives is supposed to help the #occupy cause. But since when did leftists ever include logic in their decision-making process?

It’s official.  Former Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who resigned in disgrace over a bizarre sexting scandal this past June, was NOT hacked.

Today, eight months after the congressman first claimed he was the victim of a hacking or a prank, the NY Daily News has broken the story that Anthony Weiner spent more than $13,000 in campaign funds to hire private investigators to track down a hacker that never existed.

Weiner paid T&M, a Manhattan-based firm, $13,290 for “legal services” in the fourth quarter of 2011, financial statements filed Tuesday with the Federal Election Commission reveal.

Sources told the Daily News, however, that Weiner hired T&M — a firm loaded with former NYPD sleuths — when he was in full spin mode over the controversy that eventually led to his resignation from the House.

[...]

Two sources familiar with Weiner’s downfall said the Queens pol told investigators the same story. T&M investigated — and learned Weiner had sent them on a fool’s errand.

“They did their job, and then it was time to sit down with lawyers,” another source said. “Self-denial, it dies a slow death.”

Surprised? No, neither were we.

The married congressman from Queens, NY initially told the public his Twitter and Facebook accounts had been hacked, after a tweet sent to a female college student in Washington state appeared in his public Twitter timeline, complete with a photo of a man’s bulging underpants.

The tweet triggered the unraveling of a series of sexually explicit online messages and additional photos Weiner had shared with numerous women. More than two weeks would pass before Weiner finally came clean about his extracurricular activities.  But not before embarking upon a media blitz to embellish his imaginary tale of hackers and pranksters and other political scapegoats:

“You know, I can’t say with certitude. My system was hacked. Pictures can be manipulated, pictures can be dropped in and inserted,” reported HotAir.

“At a time when the GOP is playing games with the debt limit, a member of the Supreme Court is refusing to recuse himself from matters he has a financial interest in, and middle class incomes are stagnant, many want to change the subject,” Weiner said in a statement emailed to POLITICO by his office. “I don’t. This was a prank, and a silly one. I’m focused on my work.”

Anthony Weiner indicated at the time that he’d asked a firm to look into whether his photos “could have been taken or manipulated,” followed shortly thereafter with the announcement that he’d hired an attorney to explore “civil or criminal actions” in response to the “prank.”  Now we learn that he used campaign funds to try and cover his hide.  And The Hill is reporting that Weiner continued to spend more than $130,000 in campaign cash even after his resignation.

This may be a good time for some to reflect on the unwarranted over-zealous scrutiny that fell upon Andrew Breitbart and other writers associated with these very websites who were accused of targeting, setting up, and/or hacking Congressman Weiner (or other ludicrous conspiracy theories), accusations that are often still repeated today, months after Weiner’s admission and resignation.  And one of the whistleblowers who stuck through the story has since had his life turned upside down, largely as a result of Weiner’s dishonesty (I won’t link to the horrid posts).

Might I remind these same critics that BigGovernment, which first broke the Weinergate scandal, reported the facts and did so responsibly, despite numerous claims to the contrary.  The dishonest party in this story is the one who no longer holds a seat in Congress.  And that’s a fact.

Tim Wise (R) on CNN, accusing Tea Party of racism (2009)

Left-wing online talk show host and Huffington Post contributor Sam Seder recently interviewed self-proclaimed “anti-racist” Tim Wise on his program, Majority Report.

Wise and Seder have a shared dislike (to put it mildly) of Andrew Breitbart, and Seder used his YouTube interview with Wise as an attempt to settle old scores.

After declaring that the “driving force in [Breitbart’s] life” is his “feelings of being rejected from Hollywood,” Seder invited Wise to discuss Breitbart’s alleged racism.

Sam Seder on CNN, criticizing David Letterman for apologizing to Sarah Palin for a sexual joke about her teenage daughter (2009)

Seder compared Breitbart to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (which would be a great surprise to the many Ron Paul supporters whom Breitbart routinely debates). Noting that Paul had been prepared to make money from newsletters with racist content, Seder asked Wise to consider the loaded question: “Is Breitbart really any different from that?”

Wise admitted that he did not actually know, but that “every single thing [Breitbart] does sort of smacks of that.”

He went on to tell the following story, prefacing it by noting that “Andrew’s threatened, in the past, to sue me—but he can’t, because it’s true”:

When we were at Tulane, I know that he certainly wasn’t too bothered by racism. Our senior year—actually, my senior year, his junior year—there was a cross-burning that took place on the lawn of his fraternity, the Delta Tau Delta house at Tulane. And I’m not—and Andrew didn’t do it, I joked about that several months ago by just sarcastically saying that, well, you know, given the evidence that Breitbart uses for other people, we should just accuse him of it and be done with it. I was obviously being sarcastic.

What Wise is referring to as a “joke” is the following comment, posted on Wise’s Facebook page on May 31, 2010:

Tim Wise wonders if Andrew Breitbart was involved in the cross-burning at Tulane in 1989, in the front yard of HIS fraternity. I know one thing: the official position of his frat was that the event “might not be racial,” and they went to great lengths to cover up what happened. I think, based on his own standard of evidence that we should just declare him guilty now and be done with it…I want that bastard destroyed. Now.

Wise tried to cover himself shortly thereafter, in later comments, adding that “I have no reason to think he did it” but that Breitbart “said nothing publicly to condemn the act,” and “so as far as I’m concerned he’s as guilty as whoever burned it.”

Clearly, Wise was not “joking,” even if the point he sought to make was a rhetorical one.

Breitbart responded via Twitter on June 4, 2010, noting that Wise had wished harm on him and his family, and hinting at a lawsuit to follow: “R U worried Tim Wise that lawsuit born of your libelous ‘cross burning’ tale will show I was SOLE SPONSOR of black rushee at my frat?!”

The facts of the incident, as documented by A.R. Ward at Big Government, are precisely as Breitbart presented them:

The cross burning was believed to be in response to a black pledge being sponsored to join the fraternity. Guess who the sponsor was?

Andrew Breitbart.

In fact, Breitbart was the sole sponsor of the black pledge. No one was ever caught for the cross burning, but authorities believed that it was actually targeted at Breitbart and the black pledge.

In other words, Tim Wise managed to say the exact opposite of reality.

Evidently, Wise is indeed fearful of being sued for defamation, because he has backed away from speculating that Breitbart was involved in the cross-burning itself–even indirectly.

Now Wise only claims that Breitbart “assisted a cross burning cover up”–a rather fanciful interpretation of events. According to Wise’s repeated speculations, the fact that Breitbart made no public statement at the time, and did not leave the fraternity when it allegedly “covered up” its investigation, is enough to prove him guilty of that alleged “cover up.”

Wise has accompanied that false speculation with other ridiculous claims, such as the repeated (and also false) allegation that Breitbart is a racist and “a perpetual drunk.”

In relating the story to Seder, Wise dropped his original, recklessly untrue and libelous accusation that Breitbart was actually involved in perpetrating the cross-burning, but repeated his false claims that Breitbart was guilty of a “cover up,” along with other fantasiess:

He didn’t do it. And it was actually a cross burned because his fraternity had offered a bid to a black student for the first time. And someone—probably an alum of that fraternity or something—didn’t like it and burned a cross. And at the time, you know, those of us who were anti-racism and civil rights activists on the campus, we called a press conference, we made a big deal out of the fact that both the fraternity and the school covered up the incident. For two weeks, no one knew anything about it.  The fraternity—the head of the fraternity, who was a friend of Andrew’s, said, you know, “This wasn’t a campus issue, it wasn’t a racial issue, we didn’t think, and so we just kept it quiet.” And Andrew Breitbart himself never went public, didn’t talk to security, even though he claims now that the black kid against whom the cross-burning was intended was actually a friend of his who he tried to get into the fraternity. He says he was the guy pushing for this young man to be in the fraternity.  And maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t.

Note that Wise admits he does not know the truth—“maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t.” He could have found out, but has not. Yet earlier, he asserted that Breitbart would not dare sue him for telling his story, “because it’s true.” He deliberately confuses fact and speculation in order to paint himself as the brave truth-teller whom Breitbart dare not challenge.

Wise continues:

In the wake of this happening, Andrew Breitbart did not quit the fraternity in protest of their cover up, which the head of security at Tulane at the time said they had engaged in and that it hampered the investigation.

Note that Wise has not actually quoted the Tulane security official directly stating that there had been a “cover up.” His speculation is based solely on the complaint by the official that there had been a “delay”—i.e. that the fraternity failed to report the cross-burning sooner. Not that it had withheld information, or destroyed evidence, or tampered with witnesses—but that there had been a delay that had made the crime harder to investigate. From that “delay,” Wise extrapolates—falsely, and without further evidence—that there was a “cover-up.”

He didn’t quit the fraternity, he made no public statement, he didn’t come to the press conference to offer his support for his quote-unquote friend or the larger black community at Tulane. And I think that says a lot about this guy’s character and his feelings around this issue. He had a chance to come forward, not only to make a statement about broader social truth, but to defend this guy who he says was a friend. And he didn’t do it. And he stayed in that fraternity for the rest of his college career because I guess going out to the bars in New Orleans and getting drunk was perhaps more important to him than standing in solidarity with his friend. I think that’s sort of really all you need to know about this guy.

What Wise deliberately ignores is the fact that Breitbart and his friend were the apparent intended victims of the cross-burning. There are good reasons for victims of crimes on campus, or in any community, not to want to “come forward”—particularly when political activists who do not know them, and who have their own particular interests and agendas at stake, want to make a public spectacle of their experiences.

Because Breitbart and the young man in question did not play the political role Wise had assigned to them, Wise deduces, as he has before (and, again, falsely), that Breitbart is both a racist and an alcoholic. He does so in deliberately speculative language, with carefully placed qualifiers such as “I think” and “perhaps,” designed to dodge legal responsibility even as Wise puts up a faux-macho façade of fearlessness in the face of a defamation lawsuit.

Seder, nodding and affirming Wise’s false tale throughout, concludes by offering to be sued by Breitbart as well, on the (dubious) legal basis that he would be equally liable for having broadcast his interview with Wise: “Sign me up as a co-defendant.”

The reality is that Wise has backed down from his statement that Andrew Breitbart was “involved in the cross-burning at Tulane.” He has also backed down from stating that Breitbart was indirectly guilty. He is afraid of the defamation suit he mocks.

Instead, Wise now claims that Breitbart was guilty of a “cover up,” admitting that he does not know the essential facts, but referring to hearsay in a newspaper article, whose conclusions he distorts. He continues to speculate that Breitbart is both a racist and an alcoholic. Neither opinion which is libelous per se, particularly in the case of a public figure like Breitbart (who must satisfy a higher standard of proof in a defamation case), but both of these ridiculous claims are nevertheless untrue. Regardless, Wise’s fevered rantings are so transparently ridiculous that most judges would conclude as such and refuse to entertain a legal action.

Despite his repeated dares to Breitbart to sue him (“I will own you b4 its over: u and yr wife’s “Orson Bean money?”! All $50 of it), Wise lacks the guts to state as fact what he knows is fiction, because he knows he cannot prove what he is alleging. Luckily for Wise, despite his fantasies of “destroying” Breitbart, no one–save the hapless Seder–takes him seriously.

But now, in the wake of Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer’s blockbuster bestselling insider trading expose, Throw Them All Out, and the 60 Minutes report the book sparked, Mr. Obama and his campaign team have begun co-opting the insider trading issue, first in Mr. Obama’s State of the Union speech and now in a new campaign email blasting House Republicans for inaction on the issue and praising the Democratic leadership of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in the Senate.

The Obama-Biden email, with a subject line titled “This isn’t already illegal? Email from O’camp,” reads:

Right now, members of Congress can make personal investment decisions based on confidential information they get in the course of regulating industries and doing their work.

It’s kind of unbelievable that this isn’t already illegal. President Obama wants to make it illegal once and for all — no one should profit from inside information about the very businesses they’re supposed to be regulating.

Today, the Democratic leadership in the Senate voted to move forward on a bill to extend to Congress the same strict rules that apply to anyone else whose job gives them access to sensitive information about businesses. This legislation is expected to pass the Senate with bipartisan support later this week.

But Republicans in the House have yet to move on it.

There aren’t a lot of good reasons to disagree with this bill. So the question here isn’t how many people we have to persuade, but simply how loudly we can speak up to prevent the House Republicans from dodging this issue.

Say you support the President on banning insider trading in Congress:

http://my.barackobama.com/Ban-Insider-Trading-in-Congress

Thanks, and stay tuned,

James

James Kvaal
National Policy Director
Obama for America

The email appears to be part of a coordinated campaign by Democrats to seize the congressional insider trading issue that had for years remained dormant under their leadership.

On Monday, Sen. Harry Reid shocked Republicans in the Senate when he charged them with seeking to block a vote on the insider trading bill and sprang a cloture vote without ever notifying the Republican leadership.  Sen. Reid said:

I’m really disappointed that I had to file cloture to stop a Republican filibuster on this worthy legislation, but I did.  They’re not going to let us move to this. We had to file cloture to stop this filibuster … I repeat, it is too bad we had to file cloture.

According to The Hill, Republicans were “mystified”:

A senior Republican aide, however, shot back on Monday that Reid had not checked in with Minority Leader Mitch McConnelll’s (Ky.) office to see if any of any GOP members had objections, and suggested Republicans were mystified on why Democratic leadership filed cloture.

“Sen. Reid didn’t even check in with us before filing cloture so it came as a surprise when he did it,” he said.

Despite the Obama campaign and Sen. Reid’s contentions, Republican Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) is one of the cosponsors to the Senate version of the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act and urged Mr. Obama after his State of the Union speech to put pressure on Sen. Reid to move the bill forward.

Furthermore, the Republican-led House has already announced that it plans to take up the insider trading issue in February.

In the interim, however, it appears the Obama campaign and Democrats are determined to seize the congressional insider trading issue and use it as an political bludgeon against Republicans.

“Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress and I will sign it tomorrow,” President Obama said to applause. “Let’s limit any elected official from owning stock in industries they impact.”

Since the release of “Throw Them All Out,” Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer has been a one-man battalion fighting for members of Congress to abide by the same insider trading laws that apply to all Americans.   President Obama’s speech Tuesday night is evidence that Schweizer’s battle against congressional insider trading and cronyism has scored a critical victory.

“It appears that our message has finally broken through,” said Schweizer in an interview Tuesday night with Breitbart News.  “Thousands of citizens across America have called and written their representatives and the White House demanding a ban on congressional insider trading.  The President’s speech tonight is proof that their efforts were not in vain.  Now is the time to apply maximum pressure and get behind Rep. Sean Duffy’s (R-WI) RESTRICT Act.  It’s the best proposal I’ve seen to date.”

The RESTRICT (Restoring Ethical Standards, Transparency, and Responsibility in Congressional Trading) Act (H.R. 3550) would require members of Congress to either establish blind trusts or submit to a three day public disclosure of any and all investments.  According to Schweizer, the bill is preferable to other bills, such as the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act, which Schweizer believes do not go far enough to remedy the problem.

Since November, Peter Schweizer and Breitbart News have published numerous articles detailing bipartisan instances of congressional insider trading that have included Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), all of which were featured in a special report by 60 Minutes.

“There’s still much work to be done,” said Schweizer.  “We need to get behind Rep. Duffy’s RESTRICT Act and let our leaders know that we will not stand idly by as members of Congress profit off of access to material, nonpublic information.”

The year 2011 was one of turmoil for the conservative movement, as we celebrated the success of 2010 but faced a divisive counter-revolution by the Democrats and the media.

The Republican establishment, together with social conservatives, libertarians and the Tea Party, waged war against the Obama administration, the public sector unions, the mainstream media, the Occupy Wall Street Movement and the Progressive movement, writ large. And simultaneously, in these terrible economic times and our new, challenging  political reality, we were unfortunately, too often, fighting each other.

I have been a steadfast combatant in the trenches against the organized left, with the scalps and scars to prove it.

Yet the last year has had me often fighting our own. In the heat of the great battle over ideas, I argued with CPAC and the American Conservative Union on behalf of GOProud, and I argued against GOProud on behalf of privacy and civility.

I realize now, as the great debate of 2012 unfolds, that being MIA from the battlefield in the most important election of our lifetime is exactly the wrong decision.

Davids Brooks, David Gergen, and David Frum may “disagree.” But this David fights!

But we need to work with each other. Not against each other. [Frum, let's do lunch!] We need to communicate better. [Gergen, perhaps I could have said it better!] We cannot let internecine battles and pressures of high-stakes politics separate us at a time when unity is needed most. [Brooks, Obama does have a nice creased pant leg!]

I have decided to accept CPAC’s gracious offer to speak on the theme of unity and the GOP Big Tent. We need to unite in 2012. White, black, gay and straight. Tea Party, Social Conservatives, establishment types, Libertarians and Neo-Cons, alike. We all must find common ground. Not just for the sake of winning this monumental election. But to reclaim the Big Tent, Big Party mantle of the man who united us best, Ronald Reagan.

Yet I promise my speech won’t be all Kumbaya talk. No, sirree. I will step up to the podium and in no uncertain terms declare 2012 a call to arms. Patriots need to unite behind our candidate, behind the GOP, behind the conservative movement. Or else.