Breitbart: “I have videos of Obama in college nobody has seen”
While relaxing and gearing up for the week this afternoon, here’s a short, entertaining video to watch of Andrew Breitbart speaking at CPAC Friday.
Breitbart makes an interesting comment at about 5:30 into his jabfest of the Left: “I’ve got videos… This election we’re going to vet him from his college days…. The videos are going to come out….” Wow, perhaps a little truth about Obama’s radical nature, finally…
Feb.12, 2012 11:39 am |
Obama |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I love that! We are silent no more!!! Amen!
I love this guy, but he’d better watch out or they will hurt him or worse. I would not put anything past the Obama regime. This is a very brave man.
Hi Mario,
Absolutely, put nothing past this regime.
Jack,
Yeah the Occupy folks. With their headlice, fleas, rats, TB, tents to protect women from sexual assault, and police confrontations.
If you want to see what happens when great liberal thinkers get together, watch the “up twinkles, down twinkles” video of Occupy Portland on Youtube.
Mary,
Don’t forget child neglect/endangerment with that one guy Occupying DC who was arrested for leaving his infant daughter in a tent by herself in nothing but mittens, a diaper, and socks in freezing temperatures while he went off to do who-knows-what.
I LOVE Andrew Breitbart, and don’t blame him for getting snippy with them when they threaten him (in a roundabout way, of course) with violence by trying to intimidate him and sending a giant SEIU goon to follow him around wherever he goes.
Also, he’s adopted. ^_^
Just finished watching all of it, and I have to say again: I LOVE ANDREW BREITBART.
How come Jack’s comment, with it’s blatant defaming and coarse insinuation that Andrew and Matt Drudge engage in homosexual acts, remains up on this blog?
I love how every time Andrew opens his mouth, liberal’s heads explode. He is awesome! Let’s not forget, EVER, that he brought down ACORN and he finally seems to be bringing about the end of the lawbreaking in Congress related to insider stock trading and profiteering.
The guy WILL NOT back down and it makes the left insane. At which time they resort to libelous attacks on peoples’ persons. Nice, Jack. Very mature.
Interesting video. I know what I am about to say is a bit of topic, but I feel it needs to be said.
I would like everyone to pray that the Catholic Bishops do not accept Obama’s revised MANDATE. I hope the Bishops help protect the religious liberty of those who own and operate insurance companies. Religious liberty is a right for all Americans and should be protected and supported by all…When did the US Government get involved with issuing mandates? … “Mandates” sounds so un-American and anti-democratic.
Wow, judging by the comments, Occupy and Operation Rescue have things in common.
Wow, Jack, judging by your comment, you know little or nothing about either Occupy, OR, or both.
Right. This guy is the biggest attention whore of all time. If he had scandalous videos of the President, he would not be able to wait 5 minutes to air them, much less the 9 months until the election.
Hi Tyler,
Apparently the president of Notre Dame and Sr.Keehan have caved, which is no surprise as they were both a couple of Obama schmoozers.
Sociopaths like Obama are masters at convincing you they have seen your point and understand when in fact they just playing you for a chump, which is what Obama is doing here. These folks are no match for him. Never for a moment underestimate Obama by thinking he is in over his head. We should be so lucky. He knows exactly what he is doing.
As for the bishops, so far I have heard they haven’t caved. Obama has the White House stenography pool, AKA the mainstream media, kissing his backside so you know they will shill for him then silence this whole story ASAP or sooner.
I hope the bishops fight. People have to understand this is not about contraception, rather it is about the First Amendment.
I hope so much that Breitbar is not bragging and we will see the real proves!!!
I am inclined to remain skeptical until I actually see anything…
We must unite, move forward and support the conservative candidate this November as there is valid reasoning that if we don’t, they’ll be no reservatiion as to the destruction that will increase the next 4 years. Let’s pray that the message given is true, unite and win this November!
I agree 100%, Theresa Cz! After all, the thought of Obama making any more Supreme Court appointments is terrifying. An imperfect Republican would be much better than another term of Obama.
Prediction: the video will be something related to anti-Israel activities.
Think Rashid Kalidi, Obama’s college buddy.
Breitbart helped to bring down ACORN and Congressman Anthony Weiner. Even if I hated Breitbart (which I don’t), I wouldn’t underestimate him.
See there? Joan’s head exploded and she attacked Andrew’s person. Predictable behavior. Nothing constructive. We can smell their fear.
This is why I like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Andrew Breitbart. They are so sure of their viewpoint that they have fun shouting it to the world. And that’s what gets under the skin of the other side.
They expect us to meekly mumble, “Well, I disagree.” Standing up to bullies always knocks them for a loop.
There are many rumors about Obama. That he lazed his way through Occidental, then got the back-up of a Saudi’s money for Harvard. Funny how he left no indelible mark on three universities.
Easily stopped. “Show us the records!”
Thanks Mary.
God bless your insight into this horrible mess.
Joan: “This guy is the biggest attention whore of all time.”
Really? Wait till your president starts spending a billion dollars in the general campaign.
“If he had scandalous videos of the President, he would not be able to wait 5 minutes to air them, much less the 9 months until the election.”
Right. Because people are motivated only by gleeful, hand-rubbing malice — never a sense of strategic timing. Breitbart’s the kind of guy who can’t help himself. He can’t possibly be the kind of guy who actually wants to be, you know, effective. Because everyone knows the best way to get more attention is to be ineffective.
How young are you? Seriously?
“Really? Wait till your president starts spending a billion dollars in the general campaign.”
You’re right. Running a political campaign and saying incendiary things to get attention are completely identical.
“Right. Because people are motivated only by gleeful, hand-rubbing malice — never a sense of strategic timing. Breitbart’s the kind of guy who can’t help himself. He can’t possibly be the kind of guy who actually wants to be, you know, effective. Because everyone knows the best way to get more attention is to be ineffective.”
You can’t be serious. This is a guy who has doctored videos in order to defame political enemies, and who “unintentionally” leaked pics of Anthony Weiner’s penis to radio shock jocks Opie & Anthony (after he had already resigned from Congress, mind you). Yes, he is most certainly motivated by gleeful, hand-rubbing malice. It’s what his employer pays him for.
Why is it that conservatives are largely incapable of distinguishing between legitimate political commentators and bottom-feeding scumbags who base their entire careers on saying and doing stupid, outrageous things for money? Andrew Breitbart and Ann Coulter are feted with prime speaking slots at major conservative events. If I was a Republican, I would be thoroughly embarrassed by the state of my party and the movement of lunatics and morons that has essentially hijacked it.
Joan: “You’re right. Running a political campaign and saying incendiary things to get attention are completely identical.”
Not my assertion. Why do you move your OWN goalposts — and turn them into straw men at the same time? Do you think that’s rhetorically deft or something? You said “attention whore.” Seems to me $1,000,000,000 will buy more attention than anyone else on the planet has ever received.
“You can’t be serious.” And you do it again. My point was that your supposition that he couldn’t resist releasing something the moment he came into possession of it, assumes he’s not strategic. You neglect that point and hew merely to the malice motif. Neglect this: he strung ACORN out with strategic releases, saving the worst until after two rounds of denials by everyone on the left that there could possibly be a problem. Yes, Andrew’s strategic.
Why would he NOT save anything bad he’d have on Obama till the general election? Gee, Joan wants so hard to imagine there can’t be anything bad about Obama that she’s willing to posit that Andrew’s incapable of being strategic…
I suspect you’re projecting with this whole uncontrollable compulsion to publish without thinking thing.
Please cite specifics on the doctored videos. Simply linking to a source you deem credible — that cites specifics — will do. Otherwise I’ll subscribe you a slanderous liar.
“You said “attention whore.” Seems to me $1,000,000,000 will buy more attention than anyone else on the planet has ever received.”
And that’s a ridiculous thing to even bring up as a counter-point to my original assertion, which is what I was obliquely and sarcastically pointing out. An “attention whore” is not merely someone who solicits attention, regardless of the how and why of it. An attention whore is someone who does so in a purposefully provocative or frivolous way. A political campaign is, at its core, an advertisement of services; therefore, trying to draw some kind of parallel between that and a guy who has made his career out of stirring up controversy is beyond absurd.
“My point was that your supposition that he couldn’t resist releasing something the moment he came into possession of it, assumes he’s not strategic… Why would he NOT save anything bad he’d have on Obama till the general election?”
No it doesn’t. In fact, it implicitly recognizes that he is strategic, insofar as drawing attention to himself is concerned. Following from that, it would be silly for him to wait until the general election season to release a damaging video of Obama, when the media focus would be entirely on the presidential race and his own role in creating the controversy could get lost in the fray. If he was to release this supposed video or videos now, he would ensure his own ubiquitousness in the 24/7 cable news cycle.
“Please cite specifics on the doctored videos. Simply linking to a source you deem credible — that cites specifics — will do. Otherwise I’ll subscribe you a slanderous liar.”
http://www.mediaite.com/online/has-the-white-house-fallen-for-breitbarts-game-beck-calls-sherrod-firing-political-assassination/
I think this is the prime example of Andrew Breitbart’s utter dishonesty and willingness to selectively edit or otherwise manipulate videos for his own ends.
Joan: “No it doesn’t. In fact, it implicitly recognizes that he is strategic, insofar as drawing attention to himself is concerned. Following from that, it would be silly for him to wait until the general election season to release a damaging video of Obama, when the media focus would be entirely on the presidential race and his own role in creating the controversy could get lost in the fray.”
That’s the most idiotic imaginable thing you could say. I think you’re more intelligent than that, but apparently you’re worried about sticking with some original point you’re unwilling to abandon. Your entire reason for thinking he’d release it now is that he’s an attention whore: ” If he was to release this supposed video or videos now, he would ensure his own ubiquitousness in the 24/7 cable news cycle.”
Maybe he’s not an attention whore? Maybe he’s trying to draw attention to OTHER things? Hey, it’s easy to find out — just look at what happened to ACORN in the wake of his strategically timed releases. The point of all that was to effect changes.
If someone wishes to effect changes, yes, they’ll be part of the story. That’s inevitable. You don’t like Breitbart because he opposes your politics. So it’s easiest to demonize him. I understand that. But when you actually start to believe your own propaganda, you end up saying stupid things.
Why wouldn’t releasing it later make him the center of attention as well, though, if that’s your theory? Why wouldn’t offering teasers like this keep him the center of attention (what’s Breitbart got? Oooh, a cliffhanger!)? What you’re offering is counterintuitive. You’re wagging the dog of your theory with ad hoc explanations that make no sense. You’re sticking to a lame theory of how the world works out of sheer stubbornness, not by way of reason.
As for your link, it sucks. It doesn’t even rise to a level of describing the early confusion the video engendered, much less offering some definitive analysis. You could only have Googled the issue and offered some random link, because substantive treatments of the issue are in abundance.
You’re also lying. You said “this is the guy who doctored videos,” then you cite a story concerning a video that he didn’t doctor.
Actually, I don’t think you’re lying. I think you’re the kind of news consumer who believes what she hears from echo-chamber liberal sources, and passes it along without any critical thinking.
I could be wrong.
Prove it.
“Maybe he’s not an attention whore? Maybe he’s trying to draw attention to OTHER things?”
Yeah, like the penises of congressmen, pictures of which he carries around on his iPhone to share with radio shock jocks, apparently.
“Hey, it’s easy to find out — just look at what happened to ACORN in the wake of his strategically timed releases. The point of all that was to effect changes.”
Strategically timed to keep him front-and-center on the 24/7 cable news cycle. A strategy that worked exactly as intended: it kept him in the headlines for an extended period of time and increased awareness of his brand (Breitbart/BigGovernment/BigHollywood/etc.) exponentially. So yes, he’s very much strategy-minded. We’re in total agreement on this point.
“You don’t like Breitbart because he opposes your politics.”
I don’t like Andrew Breitbart because he’s a shameless, self-promoting peddler of lies and half-truths. If he happened to instead represent my political sensibilities rather than yours, I would disown him and so would most other liberals.
“Why wouldn’t releasing it later make him the center of attention as well, though, if that’s your theory?”
I already offered an explanation for why someone in his position, and with his particular motivations, would have more reason to release it now than during the general election. If you find that explanation wanting, too bad. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
“As for your link, it sucks. It doesn’t even rise to a level of describing the early confusion the video engendered, much less offering some definitive analysis.”
I didn’t claim that it was a definitive analysis of the situation. The only intended take-away from my link is that Andrew Breitbart purposely released an incomplete video that purported to show a person representing some one of his political targets–NAACP, USDA–making racist comments, when in fact the complete video–which he released after the damage had been done–shows that this was not the case at all. If that doesn’t meet your definition of “doctoring”, or at the very least, blatant “journalistic” misconduct, then that says more about you than it does about me.
I have Breitbart on my twitter feed. He does make the libs heads explode on a regular basis. One person on twitter called him a hypocrite for being pro-life but not having children. He has four children.
As to the Sherrod video, the whole video, while less damning than the clip in terms of Sherrod herself, is hardly exonerating of her. In addition, it actually shows the mindset of the group overall to actually be worse than the edited clip. Also, he released the video as it was given to him. He was not the one who clipped it. Lastly, perhaps if Obama had waited to get the full story he could have avoided having egg on his face. HE is the one who jumped the gun and fired the woman without knowing all the facts. That is not Breitbart’s fault.
What I don’t understand is that the libs always paint themselves as the pro-gay-rights group and yet the second they hate someone the first thing they yell is some of the most vile and pejorative terms for homosexuals that exist.
It would be nice if they would just address the questions of fact: Were there or were there not rapes in the Occupy camps? (That particular fact has already been settled, yes, there were.) Were those rapes reported to the police (some were, some were not). Did the Occupy organizers help police in apprehending the perpetrators? No, we have video proof that they did not. Emily Crockett seems to think that having anti-rape seminars is acceptable in lieu of such assistance. You would think that they would WANT their camps to be as safe as possible!
Rather than address these facts and issues… they call names. I’m sure it makes them feel good for the moment (and emotion does seem to be all they are about, rather than objective fact). But all the name calling in the world doesn’t dispute the facts Breitbart has put forth…
I remember somebody – at least one person – right here on Jill’s site, going on and on about “the videos that will come out….” This was four years ago.