Andrew Breitbart’s Address To CPAC 2010
by Andrew MarcusBelow is the full length speech Andrew Breitbart delivered to CPAC 2010. We have also taken the liberty of breaking out some of the best soundbites from the speech.
Below is the full length speech Andrew Breitbart delivered to CPAC 2010. We have also taken the liberty of breaking out some of the best soundbites from the speech.
As a member of a very successful Tea Party in Quincy, Illinois it is my distinct honor and privilege to offer my thanks and congratulations to this astroturf response to the tea parties. This hard hitting website has taken the MSNBC format to a new level. Hit us again guys, because while you spend never-ending union dollars attacking Tea Parties, we are repairing the change you said we could believe in, one candidate at a time.

This tiny group of Tea Bashers says its mission is “To prevent the Tea Party’s dangerous ideas from gaining legislative traction.” You might want to watch something other than the mainstream media. In case you haven’t heard, we have already gained legislative traction, which I’ll venture a guess that this was the reason for the emergency birth and delivery of your premature website.
We can’t think of a better way for organized labor to spend its time and money. I am so thrilled with your approach I may donate to your cause myself.
Andrew Breitbart raised the roof at the National Tea Part Convention this morning in Nashville, Tennessee. Speaking to the dozens of reporters assembled in the back of the room, Andrew said this:
“It’s not your business model that sucks, it’s you that sucks.”
Andrew finished his speech with this warning to the media:
No recent Supreme Court ruling have evoked more liberal fury than Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a campaign-finance case involving government censorship of a political documentary called Hillary: The Movie. The Federal Election Commission prevented the anti-Hillary Clinton film from being shown on television just before the 2008 Democratic primaries, a decision that was upheld by lower courts. Siding with The First Amendment, the Court struck down laws regulating independent political advertising by for-profit and non-profit corporations before an election even as they reaffirmed rules about disclosure and disclosures for ads and against direct corporate giving to candidates.
Critics fear that corporations will now overwhelm the political marketplace with commercials and advertisements that will program citizens to vote for whatever agenda “the corprations” want at a given moment.
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann railed against the decision, calling it “a Supreme Court-sanctioned murder of what little democracy is left in this democracy” and comparing it to the notorious Dred Scott decision, which ruled that had no rights under the Constitution. His fellow corporate media host at MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, exclaimed, “If you are a regular person who has ever made a campaign donation before, forget about ever having to do that again. What’s the point?”
The government has now confirmed what has always been clear: No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office. Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines. Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.
As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN. For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.
I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.” I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken. In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working. (more…)
Today is the day that I have been invited to go on MSNBC for the very first time. At no point during the ACORN story was I put on the hot seat to defend the work of James O’Keefe. My thesis from day one has been that the mainstream media is biased in favor of the left and MSNBC is its most obvious case study.
So when MSNBC led the charge on Tuesday against James O’Keefe when he and three others were arrested in New Orleans at Senator Landrieu’s office, it came as no surprise that the cable network seized upon a narrative that presumed O’Keefe’s guilt, falsely extrapolated that he was being charged with felony wiretapping and instantaneously coined and repeated endlessly the new buzz phase, “Watergate Jr.”
Thus it came as no surprise to me that Keith Olbermann’s super sub, David Shuster, called me early Wednesday. ”Watergate Jr.” pushed MSNBC to send Shuster down to New Orleans to own the destruction-by-media of James O’Keefe and anyone in his proximity. I immediately told Shuster that I had been getting emails about his absurd, over-the-top and rush-to-judgment journalism. He told me that I had him confused with Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, that he has “no horse in this race.” He asked that I come on his show and that he would give me a fair interview. He proceeded to send me the following emails to formalize the request. See below <strong>(emphasis mine)</strong>:

As you see, Shuster is attempting to lure me into this story based upon the false premise of his objective neutrality on the issue. Notice he says, “As I said, I don’t have a horse in this race.” A simple Google search of David Shuster and James O’Keefe immediately finds that Shuster went into a Twitter frenzy to tar and feather James O’Keefe and propogated what are now provably false lies about the Landrieu case.
See below:

(Read the full post and watch the video of the interview at BigJournalism.com)
We live in seriously challenging times – times that warrant serious conversations on the state and direction of our nation. From the fiscal crash course our nation is on to the ever-present threat we face from Islamic terrorism, there’s plenty of fodder for constructive political discourse. Many on the Left, however, are bent on marginalizing opposing views by any means necessary. The censorship and number fudging exposed in ClimateGate is one recent example.

The tea party movement seems to perpetually be in the crosshairs of the Left’s most insidious propaganda artists. A post on taxpayer subsidized NPR’s blog that’s getting some attention this week features a video by Mark Fiore entitled “Learn to Speak Tea Bag.” The cartoon gives mock step-by-step instructions on what Fiore believes is the modus operandi of tea party activists. Fiore unintentionally serves up a nearly all-inclusive package on all that is dishonest and malicious about the Left’s continued campaign to discredit this wildly popular grassroots force.
Fiore’s isn’t the first and likely won’t be the last tea party hit job. Everyone from the President to “mainstream” media commentators have joined in since the movement’s inception in February 2009. This multifaceted attack on the tea party movement has revealed an interesting trend that mirrors the evolving tactics of a maladjusted, intellectual deficient schoolboy bully.
Earlier today, while guest hosting on The Dennis Miller Show, Andrew Breitbart interviewed Kurt Haskell from Taylor, Michigan. Mr. Haskell was a passenger on the now infamous Flight 253 on Christmas day from Amsterdam to Detroit. We all know now how this flight ended (with the Flying Dutchman careening across multiple seats to stop a would-be-suicide bomber from exploding the plane and hundreds of innocent lives). But, Mr. Haskell shared his story of what he witnessed before anyone even boarded the plane.
While waiting in the holding area in the Amsterdam airport, in a room designated for only the passengers of Flight 253, Mr. Haskell saw a well-dressed man of apparent Indian descent accompany a young, poorly attired man of African descent to the boarding gate. What Mr. Haskell saw and heard next is of seemingly great significance:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Politicians, pundits, and citizens have long bemoaned the power that “special interests” wield in Washington, D.C. and state capitals across the nation. The pharmaceutical, energy, and defense industries and everyone in between employ armies of lobbyists to educate elected officials on their respective industry interests and to persuade them to protect said interests. Other groups represent the concerns of a body of constituents, such as general taxpayer, second amendment, or pro-life groups.

Despite the soiling of the term “lobbyist,” particularly following the fall of Jack Abramoff, these activities are protected under the First Amendment – and rightfully so. If it weren’t for second amendment groups, Chicago, where I currently dwell, would not have a powerful coalition challenging the city’s irrational, unconstitutional handgun ban in the Supreme Court. The majority of Americans own stock – stock in corporations. In today’s legislative environment, corporations would do a disservice to their shareholders not to go to bat for their interests in the Beltway ball game.
In response to the Columbia Journalism Review’s accusing me of “blackmailing” the Attorney General of the United States, I must take notice that the mainstream media as a journalistic establishment IS paying attention to the ongoing ACORN scandal. Good. I thought so.
What the Columbia Journalism Review is doing is very similar to what Media Matters is doing: protecting the Democrat-Media Complex, the natural alliance of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media. This ACORN investigation has been going on for two months and Hannah, James, and I have proven to be truth-tellers every step of the way, while the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now has been proven time and again to be liars.

Yet instead of engaging the real, newsworthy issues of ACORN’s possible corruption, malfeasance and illegal behavior, the CJR, like its more overtly political online counterpart Media Matters, and indeed every other MSM outlet, has been sitting it out on the sidelines, waiting – rooting – for Hannah Giles, James O’Keefe and me to make a mistake. In fact, my appearance Thursday night is the only time in which the media has introduced itself into this ongoing narrative: proof that it’s paying attention and taking sides.
Neither, by the way, has the CJR challenged James Rainey, a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, who has consistently shaded his coverage favorably toward ACORN since we first broke the story back in September, evincing little interest in the truth but instead muttering about the standards of the Society of Professional Journalists (take link, be sure to read the comments). “But the Society of Professional Journalists has set a standard that deception should be used only when every other reporting approach has been exhausted and only then in certain cases, most notably to reveal a severe social problem or to prevent people from being harmed.” (more…)
Last week, right after the Fort Hood shootings by Major Nidal Malik Hasan that killed thirteen people and wounded thirty, the Council on American Islamic Relations showed up on PBS and MSNBC with their three standard talking points, here paraphrased:
Or as Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR instructed MSNBC’s Chris Matthews:
“I’m really not happy to see that his religion is becoming the subject…even if this guy uttered the words Allahu Akhbar or God is great, so what? It tells me that this is an isolated incident…We need to find out how he thinks and what he did, but I will NEVER come to the conclusion that religion is the motive…”
Media outlets like leftwing MSNBC and PBS give CAIR airtime because of the group’s claim to the title of “America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group.” But that claim rests on a smoke and mirrors illusion of political support from Muslim Americans and the U.S. Congress. That political support for CAIR seems to be diminishing and indeed nearing the vanishing point. In fact, much of their current support appears to derive from foreign sources. As a matter of stated policy, CAIR openly solicits and accepts donations from foreign embassies, foreign organizations and individuals from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and other Middle Eastern states.
However, even that foreign support can’t conceal the reality that CAIR is a rapidly shrinking organization that may be approaching obsolescence. A look at just three printed programs distributed in 2006, 2008 and 2009 to attendees at CAIR’s annual fundraisers, and their most recent publicly available IRS tax documents, shows an unrelenting downward trend in their public support over the last five years. The numbers don’t lie, and they are drawn from CAIR’s own public documents.
So you don’t have to wait for Hollywood’s remake next year of The Incredible Shrinking Man ; a real-life remake is going on in Washington starring the controversial lawfare and lobbying group, The Incredible Shrinking Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Let us count the ways that CAIR is shrinking:
Whenever reading Politico, everything should be washed through this filter. You must always keep in the front of your mind that this supposed “news” organization took the time to dig up and publicize dirt on a private citizen whose only sin was asking a perfectly reasonable question of a public figure. Politico’s warning to the everyday American was clear: get in the way of our guy and we will summon all our resources to publicly humiliate you. This all goes to prove that Politico is nothing more than a digital version of the Dinosaur Media — and just as clueless and dishonest as their unholy brethren, especially when it comes to explaining why their counterparts are drowning in the tar pits of obsolescence.

To hear Politico tell it, CNN’s stuck in humiliating fourth place behind FOX, MSNBC and their own Headline News because they’ve made the mistake of not appealing to the great unwashed who prefer partisan bickering and echo chambers:
With the proliferation of media across platforms these days, there’s less shared knowledge among people, who are increasingly heading to niche outlets for information. At the same time, there’s a large appetite for the new media world where the MSM gatekeepers no longer hold as much clout, and “he said, she said” journalism gives way to strong point of view. …
There’s no doubt that the over-the-top, and politically partisan, hosts are having more success attracting viewers on nights when there’s no major news event. (more…)
1. Fox News is not really a legitimate news source because it has a ‘point of view’ and2. We encourage all legitimate news networks to stop treating them as if they are legitimate.
The Radio Equalizer blog has published audio of Media Matter’s Karl Frisch admitting to Stephanie Miller on liberal talk radio that Rush Limbaugh never made the two famous racist statements defending slavery and praising Martin Luther King Jr. assassin James Earl Ray. These statements were resurrected and proliferated by the media once it became known that Limbaugh was pursuing part ownership of the NFL’s St. Louis Rams:
FRISCH: You know, in fairness to Rush, those two out of literally dozens of racist things were not necessarily accurate. We were never able to find them. We’ve had people call us trying to find it. We don’t know where they came from. They could just be Internet apparitions. But you know, that being said, anyone who wants to know how racist he is, we’re happy to give them other examples.
The mainstream media were complicit in their coverage of the ACORN scandal. Their behavior was and continues to be an insult to democracy and journalistic responsibility as the Fourth Estate has ignored facts, engaged in one-sided sourcing, and avoided basic and inherently important journalistic questioning.

First, there was avoidance. Some media outlets simply ignored the story. On Sept. 15, five days after the Maryland tape was released, ABC’s Charlie Gibson said, “I don’t even know about it… so you’ve got me at a loss” and said that the story might be “just one you leave to the cables.” But, Gibson was not alone in his lack of knowledge. The New York Times did not cover the story for nearly a week. On Sept. 26, Clark Hoyt, The Times’ Public Editor, acknowledged the paper’s tardiness, but insinuated that the story was lacking in facts:
But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn, The Times stood still. Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire…But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself.
Since ACORN’s crass corruption came into sharp focus a few weeks ago, Andrew Breitbart has not only been part and parcel of cracking ACORN’s nuts, but he has also been pointing out the ludicrous lack of reporting on ACORN’s asininities by what used to be the mainstream media.

Breitbart, via the ACORN controversy, has shown the “mainstream” to be everything but conventional and more akin to an irrelevant, unwatched drip of ideological flotsam that’s entirely in the septic tank for the lunatic left.
The Daily Show’s John Stewart—hardly a right-winger—also pointed out this willful ACORN media blindness this past month, as only Stewart can. Yep, it appears the motto of the generic broadcasting boys who’re bent to the left has become: “We distort. We decide.”
Most folks who have a lick of sense have long understood that the media has been mollycoddling the Left and their lovers for quite some time, but this ACORN controversy pummeled us over the flippin’ head with this hypocritical fact.
Now . . . I get that the former MSM is the mouthpiece for the Amerika that embraces Eurosocialism and all its weirdness, but the question I have, as a goofy sinner who’s part of Christ’s church, is this: Who the heck is the Christian media in the tank for? Their reportage on this ACORN slop has been conspicuously inconspicuous.
The 2008 election campaign filled me with an eerie sense of déjà vu, as I suspect it did many British people living in America. The hysterical reception accorded Barack Obama was strongly reminiscent of the frothing enthusiasm for Tony Blair in 1997.

Obama had a more inspiring biography than Tony Blair of course and did sincerity better; nevertheless there were many parallels. Both were relatively young, charismatic men who insistently repeated stirring but vague mantras about change and a coming new era to an exhausted electorate craving a break with the recent past. Both surrounded themselves with pop stars and other glamorous types, in an attempt to identify with everything that was young and progressive and hip. Of course, this being America, Obama operated on a much grander, messianic scale: Blair never implied that his victory might lower the earth’s water levels for example, and nor did anybody ever faint at his rallies as if he were a faith healer. However when Blair won the election the sympathetic Guardian newspaper did get rather overheated: I recall an article in which the atmosphere in the UK was compared to the relief felt at the end of World War II, thus equating the hapless John Major with Adolph Hitler. That total absence of proportion will sound familiar to anyone who has flicked through the People’s Temple style newsletter that is Newsweek or spent a few minutes watching the risible MSNBC. (In the Guardian’s defence however, none of its writers were ever so feeble-minded as to compare Blair to God.)
Anyway, during the election campaign I would say to those who asked for my thoughts on the Obama phenomenon that perhaps it wasn’t wise for so many people to allow themselves to be so carried away. Obama was only a man; worse still a politician; and even worse- not a very experienced one. I would then suggest that many Americans were setting themselves up for a massive disappointment: that the impossible expectations that Obama and his devotees had aroused would ultimately lead to profound disillusionment, leaving people even more cynical and embittered than if they had never been thus misled. Tony Blair’s career in Britain offered a shining example of this process in action. My listeners would then change the subject and never mention Obama to me again. I understood: they wanted to believe, they were protecting their faith.
A friend of mine on Facebook recently wrote the following about an article on the life of the late Irving Kristol:
“Once upon a time, not too many years ago, the Republican Party was the party of ideas. Would even its staunchest supporters say so today? I think not. The sole substance of the Republican Party today is opposition to whatever the Democrats are for, period.”
Were it true, it would be damning. Thankfully it’s not.

My friend, a former White House high-ranking employee in both the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations, grew angry, very angry, about the direction of the Republican Party under President Bush 43, something upon which I agree with him. But, unlike him, I prefer to stay and fight for what’s right within the party I agree with most, not abandon it. He grew so angry that he voted for Obama in 2008. Now, I don’t claim to know how any human being works internally, but I don’t understand how someone who claims to be a conservative could make that sort of switch. Simply because your side didn’t live up to their ideals doesn’t mean, to my mind, that you switch to the side that advocates explicitly the opposite point of view.
But that’s neither here nor there. My friend, and everyone else, is free to vote for whomever they want, for whatever reason they want. What I take issue with his the common mantra of the Left, echoed by my friend, that Republicans are out of ideas and Democrats are a fountain new ones.
For those who watch MSNBC regularly and aren’t related to any of the hosts–and I mean both of you–you are familiar with the Will Ferrell Funny or Die video that came out a few weeks ago on health care. I don’t want to embed it, but it was essentially multi-millionaires sarcastically talking about other multi-millionaires because they didn’t like how they made their money. Seems it’s OK to make hundreds of millions of dollars speaking the words other people wrote on camera, but running a company that pays for other people’s health care should be something that only earns one just enough to get by.
That’s not to say that health insurance is perfect; some do some shady things and some people get hurt, but just because liberals find the worst case scenario and present them as the norm doesn’t make it so. The vast majority of Americans are satisfied with their health coverage. They aren’t masochists who like being screwed over when the chips are down; they get what they need when they need it.

And that’s not to say Will Ferrell doesn’t deserve the money he makes either, though I’m fairly certain he didn’t return any of the millions he was paid for Bewitched when it became the Ishtar of 2005.
If, as the Funny or Die video seems to imply, someone is to be paid based upon their contributions to society, health insurance executives do deserve to make a lot of money. Certainly they deserve to make more than someone who gets paid $20 million for 1-3 months worth of work, especially when the result of that work is something like Land of the Lost.
But that’s neither here nor there.