In a classic case of horrible timing Andrew Brietbart came into the bloggers lounge just as my Radio show was about to start ( 10 a.m).

Since I had several pre-recorded segments I figured I might be able to grab him for a few minutes, in between, alas that was not the case as my windows were too small, he was however very generous with his time to everyone in the blogger, answered every question and never talked down to anyone despite his national prominence.

When the show was done I went to the lobby and Andrew was talking another group of fans, and again giving of his time. I approached him at that point and he was kind enough to ahem “sit” for an interview:

Well “sit” in a metaphorical sense. As soon as he agreed to be interviewed, he promptly jumped on a table and lay down thus:

Andrew Breitbart "sits" for an interview at CPAC 2011

When I first saw the photo I instantly thought of this:

But Breitbart is entirely serious, his exposure of the Pigford case has prompted attack after attack from Media Matters desperate to make their twisted version of Breitbart the story. (Hey it’s what Soros pays them for). The problem for Media matters is that Pigford can’t really handle the scrutiny:

“I have to say in the beginning I was cautious…When Andrew called, I [said] ‘I hope you aren’t just trying to gin this whole thing up to make amends for [Sherrod],’” Schafer said. “But this is solid. I mean it is solid background they dug out people, files, times, and dates. They have put together a pretty impressive body of work.”

His presentation on Pigford was devastating:

* Tom Burrell, president the Black Farmers and Agriculture Association, of tells potential claimants what happened when the checks hit the streets: “Where did you get that new truck from? Why is Sears Roebuck visiting your house? … Something’s up.
* “This lawsuit is not a farming lawsuit, it’s a discrimination lawsuit. … Who wants to go through the process today? Get paid?”
* On the four questions that supposedly act as a test for claims in Pigford: “Look at the four questions like a baseball game … When do you get a score?”
* Stranahan then says that Burrell gives them the correct — and allegedly unchallengeable — answers that will win them a Pigford score. “Did he own land? Let’s suppose the answer is no. The judge is going to give you three more shots at it. … Did he ATTEMPT to own? … How does the judge know if you tried? [Laughter] … Congress set up a system … “everyone who says they tried [unintelligible] then you have to give them credit for it.”
* “The issue is not whether you farmed in 1965, but whether you were discriminated against in 1981-1996. … My sister said my daddy went to the USDA office between 1981 and 1996. … The judge says you get paid.”

With a republican House willing to follow-up on this stuff, the subject has to be changed so presto here comes the defamation lawsuit:

Shirley Sherrod has filed a lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart over a video released by the conservative personality that lead to her ouster as an official at the USDA.

Breitbart was served on Saturday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), according to the New York Times: “In the suit, which was filed in Washington on Friday, Ms. Sherrod says the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work.”

The “We are Acorn Mighty Mighty Acorn” left are positively drooling over this but the ability to deflect one press conference for one day can’t compare to what is going to follow:

This seems like a dangerous play for Mrs. Sherrod, because now Andrew and the Bigs can depose her, her friends, get documents they couldn’t otherwise get, and conduct all manner of discovery on her. In other words, they have the power of the law to dig deeper into the scandal. In fact, it’s probably something Andrew has been dreaming about for months.

Or as his official release puts it:

Mr. Breitbart categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech and, to reiterate, looks forward to exercising his full and broad discovery rights.

The real problem for the left is this. Breitbart’s under bright lights shows what he does as the legitimate reporting it is, its what he’s been wanting since day one. The left under light can’t say the same. Expect the left to quietly drop this suit when the heat of discovery process gets too hot for them and expect that to be a single line at the bottom of page F39 for the MSM. If their goal was to try to win one day of media then fine you accomplished that but like the national credit card that the left has been living on for decades, payment will come due WITH INTEREST and Andrew Breitbart will be collecting.

Update: This post had been transferred from the old blog so the scales were off, fixed them

Up very early today and was doing paperwork and I noticed Willie Geist playing a clip from Donald Rumsfeld’s interview on ABC about the lack of WMD in Iraq.

This confuses me. Back in Oct and Dec. we posted on the Wikileaks memos (you remember the wikileaks memos? You know the leaks that the left is so supportive of. The leaks that got Mr. Assange a nomination for a Nobel peace prize?) the left was all over the leaks and have even defended the leaker from the military.

Strangely enough that same media and left decided that some of those leaks are more worthy of notice than others. And one of the most unworthy leaks for the MSM are the leaks concerning WMD.

At the time of my first post I quoted Rick Moran from the American Thinker:

Don’t expect any apologies from the rest of the world or even any acknowledgment that they were wrong. The narrative is set and nothing will change it.

ABC’s Diane Sawyer’s interview proves Rick right. Willie Geist’s lead in confirms it, Morning Joe is on Egypt right now but as there is a 2 hour delay today for my kid’s school and I’ll be getting ready for my flight to CPAC tomorrow I’ll be available to watch the rest of the show to see if they touch it too.

Question: When is it OK in the age of civility to call for lynching, stringing up or sending a black man back to the fields?

Our friends on the left decided to protest the Koch Brothers conference. In the event sponsored by Common Cause, AFFCE, The Ruckus Society, 350, Greenpeace, Code Pink, the Progressive Democrats of America, the public attending had some choice words for Justice Clarence Thomas:

Big Government noted something missing:

At the morning panel event featuring UCI Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, activist Jim Hightower, Center for American Progress journalist and “Koch Brothers expert” Lee Fang, California Nurses Association co-president DeAnn McEwan, and President Obama’s former green jobs czar Van Jones, we were forewarned of the impending demise of both the environment and democracy at the hands of corporate lobbyists and their government shills.

There was eerily no mention of GE, AEP, Goldmann Sachs, Pfizer, Aetna, Alcoa, Xerox, Google, Motorola, IBM, or several other corporate giants who profit at taxpayer expense via their K Street connections to the Obama White House as well as the very economic and regulatory policies they lobby that these Common Cause panelists commonly endorse. But I’m sure that’s only because no one wanted to point out the obvious. Right?

I’m sure the No Labels crowd, the Major networks and the Cable networks will rapidly report on these racist declarations of white folks against a black man with power? Hot Air asks:

Will the Southern Poverty Law Center report on the “Rage on the Left” and label Common Cause a racist hate group?

R.B is more blunt:

Let’s just imagine if the video above was taken during a Tea Party rally and several participants stated that a sitting US Supreme Court Justice should be sent “back to the fields” or “strung up”. Picture the news coverage. Predict what Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann (if he still had a show) would be saying right now and over the next few days. It would be non-stop. Democrat Congressional members would be using the tape as “proof” of what is really behind the opposition to ObamaCare or any other piece of legislation they want to get passed.

Nonsense I’m sure they will give this story all the attention the big three gave the Planned Parenthood story this week.

Having lived through the 80’s I have a distinctive memory of Ronald Reagan. Although I liked his hard line against communism I wasn’t sure about his domestic issues.

What I did know is what every person in media thought of him. They thought of him as a simpleton, an idiot, a warmonger and an actor playing a role. And that’s just the printable opinions.

When Reagan died nothing shook the media more than the public reaction. The outpouring of affection was staggering and the media adapted their coverage accordingly. From that point they have treated the memory of Reagan with kid gloves but they resented the adulation he was given and the necessity of pretending they shared it. (They resented it even more when no similar reaction was forthcoming for Ted Kennedy. The inverse reaction of the public and the media to these two events illustrates the detachment they media has with the public as a whole.

The media as you might recall worshiped Barack Obama, there has never been a president more popular with them, yet he has suffered a major defeat and was forced to compromise on taxes while he still had a democratic Senate and house to prevent a republican house from getting credit

that just about every person in media is now trying to make an Obama Reagan comparison. Gateway pundit notes the Journolist parallel but the most ridiculous thing is the Time Magazine cover story.

Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s diaries and attended the May dinner, left with a clear impression that Obama had found a role model. “There are policies, and there is persona, and a lot can be told by persona,” he says. “Obama is approaching the job in a Reaganesque fashion.”

That statement is so SO false that it boggles the imagination. American Glob notes something:

If TIME Magazine had a shred of integrity or credibility, they might have featured the keynote speaker of Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration on the cover. Can you guess who it is? I assure you it’s not Obama.

Gee I wonder who it is that IS giving that speech

Former Republican Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will give the keynote address in February at the Reagan Ranch Center honoring the 100th anniversary of the former president’s birthday.

And what does the Author of that Obama is Reagan piece think of her? Stacy McCain can tells us.

If there is one thing we can say for sure it is not Reagan that Barack Obama reminds people of, but they were close. On the 9th post that this blog ever had I said this:

You sometimes get a rookie pitcher with a winning season but usually not. I’m hoping for Chester Arthur but I’m expecting Jimmy Carter.

That is Barack Obama as for Sarah Palin, well democrats and liberals don’t know ….um they don’t know….ummm l’m not going to touch …. Um is there any way to put this that doesn’t sound like Charlie Sheen?

Update: Kerry Picket provides details on the civility of Liberals toward Reagan during the 80’s

Can someone tell me where this move to the center is?

Since the election every network (except Fox of course) has one word for the president: “centrist”, “centrist” “centrist”. Son of Journolist lives!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the President made one deal to avoid an embarrassing defeat concerning taxes. That’s it.

If the White House didn’t make that deal, democrats would have gotten all the blame for a tax debacle while letting Republicans get the credit for it for the solution.

Where is the move to the center? Where is this BS coming from? Are people uninformed enough to believe it?

It’s clear that this is the template that the White House/Democratic Party/MSM has embraced to prepare the ground for 2012 but in a world where social networks allow us to bypass these sources, can they convince the public to buy it?

If we do, or if we don’t, we will get the government we deserve.