When so many cultural institutions, from the news media to Hollywood to your local university campus, are utterly dominated by liberal Democrats, there inevitably arises a stigma toward conservative ideas and Republican politics. When people are hammered day after day by the relentless partisanship of what the late Andrew Breitbart called the “Democrat-Media Complex,” when movies and TV sitcoms habitually mock or demonize Republicans, when conservative college students are afraid of their liberal professors and radical campus activists, who can blame anyone for thinking there is something wrong with being a Republican? Cast under this shadow of stigma and suspicion, many Republicans seem to internalize the negative stereotype of themselves, to become defensive and apologetic — “Please don’t hate me” — and generally to act as if they are guilty of doing something wrong. . . .
Please read the whole thing. Republicans who send out signals of weakness and fear are, in effect, inviting attacks. And because so many Republicans lack either the courage to fight back or the skill to fight back successfully, their enemies are emboldened.
Sad but true, we have to all develop stiffer spines, McCain explains
Organizations have images — reputations — and if a negative perception develops, that perception tends to become self-perpuating. The Republican Party is currently perceived as an organization of selfish, cowardly losers, and this makes it difficult for the GOP to attract support from people who admire generosity, strength and success. The party is increasingly defined by its whining pathetic supporters.
From the perspective of the neurasthenic weaklings who now run Republican politics, anyone who wants to stand up and fight for principles is considered a troublemaker. Ted Cruz? Mike Lee? Rand Paul? No, the GOP leadership doesn’t want to elect people like that. They want smooth-talking sellouts like Lindsey Graham and good ol’ boys like Mitch McConnell who understand that the job of Republicans is to “compromise” by giving Democrats everything they want.
Well, who in their right mind would fight on behalf of a such a party? Who would risk their reputation, their comfort, perhaps even their livelihood, to defend the Republican Party, when the party itself is run by wimps who only care about their own re-election?
Think about this: When Lady Liberty and Sister Toldjah came under fire by North Carolina Democrats, did anybody in the North Carolina GOP apparatus stand up for them? Hell, no.
You cannot win in political combat by continually retreating. If you ever hope to win, you must first determine to fight. And once you’re in the fight, you must never stop fighting until you win.
In short, they attack us because we, or too many of us bury our heads in the sand, or refuse to rally around those few that DO stand up. Another problem is that we, as a party, are too ready to throw the “wacko birds” under the bus to appease our “friends across the aisle. Newsflash, those folks across the aisle are not our friends. The see us not as friends, but as ENEMIES. And frankly, we have to face up to reality and grasp that anyone who considers us THEIR enemy, is, by definition OUR enemy!
Liberal bias is not a matter of unfairness, but rather a matter of dishonesty — deliberately ignoring some facts, and misrepresenting other facts, in order to misinform the public by portraying to them a politically falsified view of events and personalities. If there were ever any honest person employed by the New York Times (we stipulate the hypothetical), that person would have been obligated to quit Thursday morning, when the banner headline on the front page of the paper should have been: “ANDREW BREITBART WAS RIGHT.” (An appropriate subhead might be, “Anthony Weiner Is a Typically Dishonest Democrat Dirtbag.”) Cheating a great man out of his posthumous vindication is, however, just small change in the vast franchise of journalistic dishonesty of which the New York Times is the flagship enterprise. The fundamental falsehood of the whole Big Lie business is that Democrats are virtuous simply because they are Democrats, which is the only reason any fool ever could have thought a wretched human stain like Anthony Weiner worthy of admiration. . . . .
Speaking of Anthony Weiner A.K.A Carols Danger A.K.A. Perv Boy, if there IS Karma, then we will soon find out that one of Weiner’s on line “playmates” is really….
Two prominent Occupy Wall Street movement activists have been arrested by the New York Police Department for allegedly possessing a cache of weapons and explosive material in New York City’s Greenwich Village.
The Occupiers, Morgan Gliedman, 27, and Aaron Greene, 31, were visited by New York City police due to a warrant for Gliedman’s arrest relating to alleged credit card theft. Once in the couple’s apartment, police claim they found the explosive materials and how-to manuals on terrorism.
According to the New York Post:
A detective discovered a plastic container with seven grams of a white chemical powder called HMTD, which is so powerful, cops evacuated several nearby buildings.
Police also found a flare launcher, which is a commercial replica of a grenade launcher; a modified 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun; ammo; and nine high-capacity rifle magazines, the sources said.
Cops also allegedly uncovered papers about creating homemade booby traps, improvised submachine guns, and various handwritten notebooks containing chemical formulas.
The arrests come at a critical time due to recent allegations by the left against the FBI for having apparently infiltrated the revolutionary Occupy movement. A recent document release from the FBI revealed multiple large scale investigations into the movement had occurred, prompting a revival of the left’s decades-long attack on the FBI for having investigated radical movements.
Supporters of the FBI’s efforts have pointed out that the Occupy movement, though many participants may be well-intentioned, involved some individuals and groups with checkered histories and revolutionary aims.
The Occupy movement was heralded by mainstream media outlets as heroic and altruistic, but right-of-center critics, such as Andrew Breitbart, began to point out the movement was little more than a rebranded gathering of extremist far-left groups.
Breitbart released a series of internal Occupy emails that revealed the “new movement” was months in the making, with professional organizers such as Lisa Fithian behind the coordination. Breitbart also pointed out the similarities between Communist doctrine of the “bourgeoisie vs the proletariat” and the Occupy movement’s “1% vs the 99%” argument. Breitbart’s efforts eventually culminated in one of his final projects before his passing, the Citizens United documentary Occupy Unmasked.
One major thesis of the film was that the Occupy movement was created to move the national discussion off of deficits and debt, and onto the false dichotomy of the “rich vs the poor,” so that the Democratic Party could win in the coming 2012 presidential election and other left-of-center groups could retain power in the US political process.
As a result of Breitbart’s efforts, right-of-center grassroots media began investigating and infiltrating the Occupy movement’s camps and researching their organizers and backers. As rapes, other crimes, terrorist ties, and involvement with hostile foreign nations were discovered by independent grassroots efforts, law enforcement began to take justifiable interest in the self-proclaimed “revolutionary movement.”
Recent document releases from the FBI reveal they did indeed take interest and infiltrate the Occupy movement. Left-of-center media outlets and activists have begun to complain and claim the FBI either violated civil rights by infiltrating them or otherwise wasted resources by having done so. Some, such as the UK Guardian, have gone as far as claiming “the FBI dismantled a political movement.”
Clearly, the FBI acted on its responsibility to protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights of Americans by monitoring the Occupy movement, as evidenced by the recent arrests and previous thwarted bomb plots.
The Occupy movement was not dismantled by the FBI or other law enforcement agencies. Rather, the Occupy movement was exposed by right-of-center grassroots citizen journalists exposing the dark secrets US mainstream media refused to share with the public.
Media outlets like Andrew Breitbart’s magnified the voices of the grassroots, and law enforcement appropriately acted on the data that had been presented to the public.
I admired Andrew Breitbart, and the new media empire he built before his untimely passing. I am also a big fan of Dana Loesch, who works for Breitbart. Now, The Other McCain reports that Loesch is suing Breitbart.com
Rumbles of discontent at Breitbart.com, which I’d been hearing from various sources since spring, have finally erupted into actual news, as Dana Loesch has filed a federal lawsuit seeking (a) $75,000 and (b) to be released from her contractual obligations:
St. Louis talk radio host Dana Loesch, also a frequent guest on CNN, alleges in the suit filed in federal district court in St. Louis that the site is refusing to publish her work while “sabotag[ing] her attempts to labor in a similar fashion elsewhere through public misstatements and private threats to sue those who would otherwise employ Loesch.” . . .
Breitbart.com is “binding Loesch to what amounts to an indentured servitude in limbo,” she charges in the suit, which was first reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
More at the BuzzFeed. It’s unfortunate that matters came to such a pass, and I don’t want to get into the blame game in a situation where I don’t know both sides of the story.
I would not take sides here, as I do not know both sides, but I will say I tend to be a person that says if your employee wants to leave, let them go. Stacy McCain has read the lawsuit and gets this from it
OK, now having skimmed over the lawsuit, the claim is that in October 2011, Breitbart.com failed to exercises its option to renew Dana’s contract for another year, so that her employment thereafter was on a month-to-month basis. In September of this year — perhaps having been offered better terms by another site — Dana gave a month’s notice of her intent to leave Breitbart.com, at which point management claimed that she was still contractually bound to the company, and threatened legal action against any company that hired Dana.
Four word come to minds: Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
As I said, I can not understand why, if these allegations are true, Breitbart would go this route.