NYT’s 5,000-Word Story on Pigford Fraud ‘Vindicates’ Andrew Breitbart; But Where Have They Been All These Years?
On Thursday for Friday's print edition, the New York Times carried a weakly headlined but well-written story entitled "U.S. Opens Spigot After Farmers Claim Discrimination" on its front page. Written by Sharon LaFraniere with the help of three others, it laid out how what began in 1997 as a class-action suit by black farmers (Pigford v. Glickman) claiming they had suffered discrimination at the hands of the U.S. Department of Agriculture "became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms." Moreover, LaFraniere covered how the scope of the litigation grew "to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers" to the tune of over 90,000 claims and potential ultimate taxpayer cost of over $4.4 billion, in the process morphing into a vehicle for the Obama administration to unjustifiably dole out taxpayer money to as many people and constituent groups as possible. It is worth reading the entire story, though it will make just about anyone concerned about the financial and cultural future of this nation shudder.
The Times coverage indeed "vindicates" the late Andrew Breitbart, whose Big Government blog exposed the fraud associated with Pigford, but that vindication is hardly satisfying. We're supposed to be impressed that the paper finally got around to substantively covering it, and that the paper even noted the "Public criticism (which) came primarily from conservative news outlets like Breitbart.com and from Congressional conservatives like Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, who described the program as rife with fraud." I don't see why.
The cover story of the upcoming New York Times Sunday magazine is independent journalist Jonathan Van Meter's 8,000-word sympathetic profile-slash-therapy session for disgraced New York City former congressman Anthony Weiner, he of explicit Twitter photo infamy. Weiner's extended interview is having its intended effect, as the networks promote his political rehabilitation.
But even some liberal journalists think Van Meter left a lot out of his cover story. And conservative blogger Ace of Spades' timeline of the summer 2011 scandal suggests Van Meter is shielding Weiner by tossing details of the scandal down the media memory hole while ignoring the indispensable role played by the late Andrew Breitbart:
Looks like liberals are still trying to peddle the discredited allegation that Tea Party members attacked black members of Congress.
The op-ed page of today's New York Times contains a column by James Sleeper, a long-time left-wing activist, now a lecturer at Yale. The gist is the grudging respect that Sleeper came to have for Ed Koch, the former New York City mayor who passed away two days ago. Sleeper writes of how as mayor, Koch wrestled to the ground a protester who had stormed the stage as he spoke and pelted him with eggs. Sleeper wrote that Koch's asking the audience whether they wanted the other protesters removed looked demagogic at the time, "[b]ut not so much now, with Tea Party heckling and assaults on public officials." More after the jump.
Gateway Pundit blog and Michelle Malkin's Twitchy site both reported on Saturday how Ryan Clayton, a far left contributor to DailyKos and Huffington Post, was escorted out a Friday night showing of the documentary, Hating Breitbart, in Arlington, Virginia, for his outbursts during the opening minutes of the film. Clayton actually makes an appearance in the movie, where he shouted bogus allegations of cocaine use and soliciting male prostitutes at Breitbart in 2011.
I actually played a part in getting the leftist booted out of the theater. I went to the 10:20 pm showing at the invitation of Jason Jones of Movie to Movement, who is a good friend and a former boss. I sat towards the back of the theater, as many of the seats were filled by the time I entered. When the documentary started, Clayton somehow thought it was appropriate to add his own commentary track and laughed like a hyena at various points. I spoke up and told him to stop talking. But he didn't stop.
Hollywood Reporter's Paul Bond is reporting that "Hating Breitbart," the Andrew Marcus film which was to hit theaters two days from now has been pushed back to October 19 in a dispute over the film's rating.
Marcus has pushed for PG-13, but the MPAA retained its R rating of the film even after the filmmaker deleted all F-bombs except a few delivered by Breitbart himself. So nine days from now, because time is running short, the film will be released with an R rating. Why MPAA is being so inconsistent? I think it would be useful to look at who is in charge of the organization and who runs the day-to-day ratings operation, and will do that after excerpting key paragraphs from Bond's report:
The late Andrew Breitbart wouldn't be surprised to learn 2012 was the year conservative films finally broke through.
He had a way of predicting media trends, sensing the Web-based technological revolution would let conservatives have a louder voice in the marketplace of ideas.
Mere hours after Politico reported on Republican Congressman Kevin Yoder's admitted skinny-dipping in the Sea of Galilee in Israel, CBS highlighted the story on its Monday morning newscast. By contrast, the network was slow to report on former Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner's lewd photo scandal in 2011. On June 1 of that year, ABC and NBC's morning shows reported on the "underwear uproar," while CBS's Early Show punted on the story.
The following day, CBS played up conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart's early role in spreading word of the New York liberal's indecent Twitter pic: "Supporters of Weiner note that it was right-wing blogger, Andrew Breitbart, who broke the story. But Breitbart tells CBS News he had nothing to do with the supposed hack." Of course, Weiner would go on to admit that he sent the photo.
The upcoming documentary "Occupy Unmasked" is getting the kind of promotional push too rarely received by right-of-center films.
The movie, directed by Steve Bannon and featuring the late Andrew Breitbart, tells the story of the chaotic, destructive Occupy Wall Street movement. The message hardly fits the standard theatrical template, which routinely sides with or sympathizes with the bedraggled protesters seeking their "fair" share of the one percent's cash.
Just imagine the uproar there'd be if a conservative radio talk show host pretended to talk to the devil to find out how a recently deceased liberal activist is doing in Hell.
Now contrast that with the virtual media silence there's been since liberal radio host Mike Malloy acted as if he was on a phone call with Satan to learn how conservative activist Andrew Breitbart is faring in Hades.That incident took place on Tuesday during Malloy's program, which is heard in 13 markets across the nation and Sirius/XM radio. [Radio Equalizer's YouTube clip of this embedded below page break]
“Hey, Satan,” the talk show host began. “Hello, down in Hell! What's up?
“Really?” he continued. “Yeah, it’s hot up here, too.
“I was just reading something by someone named Andy—not the Andy that you’ve got down there,” Malloy stated, obviously referring to Breitbart. “I just want to ask you, how’s Andy doing?
“Really?” he asked. “How many times did he do that?And then you did what to him?”
Malloy pretended to react in horror about some “starfish thing,” apparently another torture Breitbart is supposed to be receiving in Hell.
“Well, that’s to be expected,” the liberal host added. “That’s pretty painful.
“No, you’ll never see me down there, pal,” Mallow stated, “because I know you don’t exist.”
Before he "hung up," the host pretended to hear that Breitbart wanted to know what was happening back on Earth.
Malloy said to tell the conservative that “Planned Parenthood is still operating” and that “ACORN is making a comeback.”
“That’ll frost his ass, in a manner of speaking,” the liberal radio host concluded.
This isn't the first time Malloy -- a strident, outspoken and spiteful atheist -- has gone after the deceased conservative activist. When Breitbart passed away on March 1 due to heart failure, the liberal seethed with malicious rage: "Roast in hell, you son of a bitch Breitbart—I mean seriously, you thug punk!"
And the liberal talker has turned his verbal venom on many other Republicans, including former President George W. Bush, whom he said was “responsible for many more deaths that Osama bin Laden.”
Another of Malloy's favorite targets is former Vice President Dick Cheney, whom he outrageously claimedwas responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and advised his daughter Liz that “her time would be better served preparing for his funeral.”
However, the liberal host went too far when he ridiculed tornado victims in the Midwest on March 2:
Their God, if this is the way they want to look at it, keeps smashing them into little grease spots on the pavement, in Alabama, in Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia and Oklahoma—you know, the Bible Belt...where they ain’t gonna let no g*dd*mn science get in the way, it says in the Bible, blah blah blah, so according to their way of thinking, y’know, God with his omnipotent thumb, and so far tonight, has smashed so far 20 people on Highway 12, or whatever the hell highway they live next to.
That was too much even for Mike Malloy, who released a statement a few days later:
I sincerely apologize for the inflammatory language that I used, and for the anger and pain that came as a result of my comments.
After backtracking that his remarks had been taken out of context, he noted: “I have nothing but the most heartfelt sympathy for those families who were devastated by those tragic storms.”
“I made a mistake, I was wrong, and I will not let it happen again,” he concluded.
According to Brian Maloney of the Radio Equalizer website, Malloy's comments on Tuesday show that he's unable to keep that promise:
In the new "progressive" mindset, it's not enough for political enemies to merely drop dead, it's also important to make sure they're burning in Hell.
Who knew they believed in such concepts?
“The liberal movement is nastier than ever,” Maloney added after stating that Malloy is “certifiably nuts.”