Andrew Breitbart-One Year Later

Friday, March 1, AD 2013

Andrew Breitbart addressing  pro-life students in February 2012 and explaining to them why he is pro-life.  He died one year ago today, much too young.  His keen insight for conservatives is that there can be no long lasting success politically if the culture is ceded to the other side.  I think we at The American Catholic understand that and we do our small part in the struggle over the culture.  May the ranks of conservatives who understand this basic fact swell and may we recall Andrew Breitbart as we engage the culture.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Andrew Breitbart-One Year Later

  • I sure miss that guy. I remember him every time I see people using his image on the web. He was a principled fighter.

  • Yes, Kyle Miller, I miss Andrew Breitbart too. May he rest in peace.

  • such a powerful speaker for life….May God keep you!!!

  • He was afraid of nothing or no one. Rare breed in this day and age. The good, they die young.

  • It is good for all of us who are Davids against the Goliaths of the world that Andrew’s example is among the signs we have, sacraments in a good sense, that Jesus is the Victor in our war, even though we see the battle lost so often apparently by the destructive tactics and the incessant condemnation and exaggeration of the faults and sins and the abuse of Reason by the Dragon and his minions. I pray my Guardian Angel prayer morning and evening and the prayer to St Michael every night to call upon the power that drove a little stone through a Giant’s skull.

  • Right-wing “conservatism” violates Catholic faith and morals just as much as left-wing liberalism. Faithful Catholics should register Independent and stop sacrificing our souls for the sake of these godless political partieis, i.e., the Big Two.

  • A perfect prescription for making certain that the Democrat party is the dominant party in this country forever. Your premise is completely mistaken since “right-wing conservatism” in this country is usually on the same side as Catholics in regard to non-negotiable issues such as abortion. Your home state of California, hopelessly in debt with a fleeing Middle Class and social policies straight from Planned Parenthood, is a perfect example of what happens when the Democrat party faces no effective opposition.

The Dead Hand of the Sixties

Friday, December 7, AD 2012


This ties in with Paul’s post today on culture and its political impact.  Jonah Goldberg is usually worth reading at National Review Online, but today he was brilliant:

The bowel-stewing hypocrisy notwithstanding, what’s amazing is how the same dreck is recycled as new, fresh, and courageous. Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution will be 100 years old next year. Its attack on the Founders as greedy white men was wrong then, but at least it was relatively original. Today, college kids regurgitate the same nonsense — and professors applaud their rebelliousness. Except what or whom are they rebelling against? Not the faculty or the administration.

Hackneyed left-wingery is not only treated with respect on campuses (though most mainstream academics aren’t as left-wing as Zinn or Stone), it is repackaged daily by Hollywood and celebrated by the mainstream media.

The self-styled rebels of Occupy Wall Street received overwhelmingly positive coverage in the mainstream media in no small part because the liberal press thinks authentic political expression for young people must be left-wing. The regurgitation of hackneyed ’60s slogans pleasing to the ears of aging, nostalgia-besotted baby boomers elicits squeals of delight. Meanwhile, tea-party protests were greeted as dangerous, odd, and deserving of hostile journalistic scrutiny.

And yet the kitsch of leftism still works its magic. In huge numbers, young people think they’re rebelling when all they’re doing is playing their assigned part and lending energy and, often, votes to a stale, regimented form of statist liberalism that often disappoints and never satisfies.

Continue reading...

33 Responses to The Dead Hand of the Sixties

  • Peer pressure and brainwashing . . . the power off massive numbers of stupid people.

    I (as much as physically possible) plan to thank each one at the end of the World as we know it.

  • I think I get the point and I agree, at least in some aspects, but this doesn’t help much.

    Pop Culture is a toxic brew of sensuality, irresponsibility, self-indulgence, and self-loathing. When we talk about it in terms of harnessing and using it, I think it is fair to ask “how” and whether doing so will destroy us.

    Appearing on talk shows and such is good. Late-night comedy may be better. We can do the traditional stuff – the first pitch of the season, horning in on sports and entertainment victories, taking advantage of social occasions and such; but that really isn’t a change. We could choose more photogenic persons I suppose but that is adopting the substance-less candidate selection of the Left that gave us the self-aggrandizing dolt we have.

    One way to look at the problem is that we are looking for a bullet proof candidate and that means honestly discussing race and gender. Is the GOP willing to do that, even internally? The Dems have a long history of finding minority lackeys to hold up as tokens. We’ve avoided that as beneath us. The GOP seems to say “come one, come all but we aren’t coming out to drag you in. Come on your own terms or don’t come but we aren’t going to demean you or us by pandering.”

    There is a gulf between popular culture and conservatives. It has always been so. To win, the Majority has to believe that what was is better than what is. This is to say that conaervativism looks back by nature because the new is often not better. Conservatives are “conservatives” because we reject unproven change.

    How then do we harness the tools of our opposition? That is the question not addressed in the video or the post.

  • The gaming culture G-Veg provides many opportunities for conservatives. I have noticed that many people who play games like Civilization, or military oriented games, the mega hit Call to Duty for example, express fairly conservative views. Movies like the Passion of the Christ indicate that mass audiences are there for films with traditional values as long as they are well made. Tom Clancy has been producing best selling pot boilers with conservative viewpoints for over a quarter of a century now.

    Too often well meaning drek gives entertainment produced from a Conservative Christian perspective a bad name. Conservatives can play well in the cultural arena if we do not cede it a priori to our adversaries, which has been the case for the past four decades, and if we produce work that can attract a mass audience.

  • A play based upon the Screwtape Letters has been entertaining audiences up and down the country, and I believe a movie is in the works:

  • I do agree that conservative ideas need to meet people where they are. Not everyone is able and willing to read publications from Heritage and AEI. Many Americans, and a number of my friends and relatives, come home each day watch a few tv shows and maybe the news. That’s it. If we completely disappear from popular movies, TV, pop music, etc., we won’t be reaching huge chunks of America. My first reaction to what I see in popular culture is to disengage. Mr. Z and I have a running joke about becoming Amish and checking out completely. I don’t know how we can really fight in these arenas. Maybe we need to invest in film production companies, cable tv channels etc. that are committed to offering conservative content. If I had George Soros’ pockets, that’s what I’d do. This effort of reclaiming the culture is going to take many individuals in many industries committed to promoting conservatism and old western culture in general. This is not the work of a single politician or the Republican party.

  • Donald, agree completely. We saw Screwtape last year. Excellent all the way around. That is exactly the sort of thing we need much more of.

  • Having reached my majority in 1972, just a bit passed the “Summer of Love” and “Woodstock”, I do recall those days. I actually enjoyed many of them but was frightened by some too. I do see the death spiral America is in as an extension of those days and know that I came through it, without being swept along in it, by virtue of my choosing to be Catholic and somehow burrowing into the orthodox Catholicism which I found attractive, even as a Charismatic in the “earlier days of my walk”.

    Yet, I am amazed how those who call themselves Catholic can do so, as they are, like cancers, eating away at the body. These men and women, actually believe, their destruction is building up the body. Rather than leaving the Church to fester somewhere else, they are choosing to remain and destroy the
    very body which gave them life. It is heartbreaking to have grown up when I did and to see how awful
    things have become.

    Amen, Don.

  • “Donald, agree completely. We saw Screwtape last year. Excellent all the way around. That is exactly the sort of thing we need much more of.”

    I was a freshman in college in 1975 when I first read the Screwtape Letters Mrs. Z and I was stunned at the spiritual insights it contained and wittingly conveyed. I think a well made movie on the book could have quite an impact.

  • “Imagine how strange it would have been if back in the Sixties young people had been aping the fashions, music and political beliefs of the Roaring Twenties.”

    Well, in some ways, that’s just what they were doing! Short skirts on women, beads, headbands (worn by “flappers”), loud and raucous music, and the first explicit public promotions of what was then called “free love” go back to the ’20s. People like Margaret Sanger and Bertrand Russell were hard at work in the ’20s laying the foundation for the sexual revolution and other things we now associate with the ’60s. Also, the popular culture of celebrity that we know today really got its start with the rise of the film industry and radio in the ’20s. If you read the book “Only Yesterday” by Frederick Lewis Allen you might be surprised to discover the parallels. Perhaps a case could be made that the Depression and World War II, and the desire to return to normalcy that followed both (expressed in the early Baby Boom) delayed until the 1960s social changes that otherwise would have occurred much earlier.

  • Superficially there is some resemblance in female styles Elaine as to the length of skirts, but I find it hard to think of two eras farther apart politically than the Free Market Twenties under Harding and Coolidge and the Sixties during which a radical expansion of the welfare state occurred. Free love goes back to the nineteenth century. The celebrity culture goes back to the mass press of the nineteenth century. A far more wide spread phenomenon in the Twenties was the taking off of fundamentalism and revivalism.

  • Just to point out that Mary Pickford was already an established celebrity prior to World War I and Biograph Studios made a point of not publishing the names of their star actors due to anxiety about the effect of that sort of publicity on the salary scale of stars. The phenomenon of celebrity was understood by those making a living in the entertainment industry prior to the 1920s.

  • If I understand correctly, reading Frederick Lewis Allen on the history of the 1920s is rather like reading Barbara Ehrenreich on the history of the 1980s: not something to be done in isolation.

  • “I find it hard to think of two eras farther apart politically than the Free Market Twenties under Harding and Coolidge and the Sixties during which a radical expansion of the welfare state occurred.”

    Then perhaps the POLITICAL decade most parallel to the Sixties would have actually been the Thirties, when the New Deal got rolling and when, in some circles, it was acceptable if not fashionable to be a socialist or communist. That’s when many of the people who got busted during the Mc Carthy era blacklist first came into contact with leftist ideas. So perhaps the political shift ran slightly behind the social/moral shift in this case.

    “Reading Frederick Lewis Allen on the history of the 1920s is rather like reading Barbara Ehrenreich on the history of the 1980s”

    Allen, I am sure, had his biases and blind spots, but he wrote his decade histories immediately after the decade they summarized, when all the events and their impact were still fresh — “Only Yesterday” was published in 1930 or ’31 and “Since Yesterday,” his history of the ’30s, was published in 1940. Perhaps that deprives them of some long-term perspective, but on the other hand, at least he didn’t wait 10 or 20 years and then filter everything through the revisionist views of later decades.

  • I doubt if war time trauma had anything to do with it. The main culprits:
    1. Unprecedented prosperity.
    2. A radicalization caused by the Civil Rights Movement, Feminism and the war in Vietnam.
    3. The combined impact of the sexual revolution, drugs and rock. (Yeah, the old college chant of sex, drugs and rock and roll.)
    4. Members of the Old Left, many in academia, able to create a New Left.
    5. The expansion of the welfare state in the Sixties.

    The Sixties presented a perfect storm of factors that aided in the growth of the Left in this country. Paradoxically, the Sixties also saw a growth of conservatism, partially as a reaction to the excesses of the Sixties, but also as a movement that was beginning to mature politically.

    In spite of the gloom of the last election, the Republican party has never been stronger accross the nation and this battle is far from over.

  • The effects of the sixties generation proves the adage cited by Reagan that freedom is only one generation from extinction. This begs another question, “Why did things go so bad so quickly? Why was the WWII generation incapable of effectively communicating the values they sacrificed so much for to their immediate posterity ?” Affluence and academia, while a factor, do not come close to accounting for the full reason. Another reason I believe is that WWII combat vets were so traumatized by their experiences they couldn’t even begin to communicate to their young why our values are what they are. This made that generation vulnerable to the brainwashing of left wing, communist academics.

    Something we orthodox Catholics often refuse to recognixe when lamanting popular culture is that we are a part of that popular culture and bear some responsibility for its woes as well as its goods. As to the former, we have seen orthodox Catholic commentators act like the MSM with a Rosary. They look the other way when members of some of their own cliques engage in behavior they are only too ready to lambast the New York Times and other MSM outlets for. They also look the other way when their favorite bishops engage in Obama-like race baiting and distort Church teaching on subjects like capital punishment, illegl immigration, and other issues of this nature.

  • Donald,
    But why did they let 2, 3, and 4 happen? My issue with the “Greatest Generation” is that they put off doing what they knew needed to be done until it got so bad they had to fight a world war and then let their kids run amuck which we suffer from today. I am not saying they did not sacrifice and pay a horrible cost but I am saying that much of the problems of today could have been averted or at least lessoned if they did a better job.

  • Most of them had zero power over two and four. Over three they had power until their kids left for college and then precious little after that. Many of the kids raised by WW2 vets turned out fine, but a hard core migrated to the New Left, and they have been a malign influence on the country ever since.

  • A bit off-topic: mor-tmain, a “dead hand” controlling property in perpetuity, may provide a solution to the “fiscal cliff.”

    There are $$$ trillions in cash and securities in dead, white men’s foundations. The government could confiscate, er, tax, all of it (for the public good!) to cover the disastrous deficit and resolve medicare/social security insolvency.

    That would be doubly beneficial – the government could balance its books and anti-Catholic gangs, like “Catholics for Choice”, would be financially (they are morally) bankrupt.

    Plus, Obama and Geithner won’t be “forced” to steal your 401k and IRA pension money.

  • CatholicLawyer – I wouldn’t say that the Greatest Generation were the ones who let the world lapse into war. They were the kids who had to fight it. But they definitely dropped the ball with raising their children.

    Prosperity softens people. It softens institutions, including religious ones. Parents were permissive toward their baby-boomer children, being told to be so by the latest parenting books. The WWII generation had grown up during the Depression, and they were happy to be able to spoil their kids. They didn’t spoil them completely, though: they knew the importance of education, and sent their kids to college. Unfortunately, this was right about the time that college stopped being a place that fostered maturity. So, spoiled kids arrive at college and are told that sex and drugs are good – and let’s be honest, at that age you’re just looking for someone to tell you that. You’ve been trying to tell women to loosen up for the past five years, and now society is telling them the same thing? Yay! (Not really yay, but that’s what you’re thinking if you’re a freshman in 1967.)

    And religion has gotten soft too. If you grew up with something strict, you’re looking for a reason to rebel. If you grew up with mass-produced tacky religious art and a well-meaning but ineffective Irish Catholic priest, you don’t have the grounding you’d need to fight temptation. The smart people are reading Salinger and Kerouac and dabbling in Eastern mysticism. You don’t stand a chance.

  • If I had to pick one dominant factor, it would be the sexual revolution. Once the West abandoned its traditional understanding of interdependence among sex, children and marriage, all bets were off. It is no secret that US poverty is highly concentrated in single parent households, yet our “elites” seem not to care that the US illegitimacy rate is now over 40%. The atrophy of marriage has generated enormous social costs. America’s ruling class believes that these costs can addressed by a smart and expensive government. They are dead wrong.

    Emblematic of this phenomenon is our evoving legal understanding of marriage. Traditionally, the marital contract was of higher dignity than a commercial contract. The latter could be unwound if all parties so desired, whereas a marital contract could not be even with the consent of both parties — precisely because society understood that God and the community were also parties (or at least 3rd party beneficiaries). Today a marital contract can usually be extinguished as long as one party so desires, meaning that society regards it as lacking the dignity of even a commercial contract.

  • Mike – I’d only add to that, “love, sex, children, and marriage”.

  • ‘If I had to pick one dominant factor, it would be the sexual revolution. ‘

    I concur Mike. Societies can recover from most things because they always have the family to fall back upon. The rise of easy divorce and illegitimacy make certain that for a substantial portion of our society family relationships are threadbare at best. The weakening of family ties helps explain why more and more of our policies seem to involve complete indifference to long term consequences.

  • Dunno, Pinky. I do not recall my parents’ contemporaries as being notably permissive with young children. I think perhaps we might look to Paul Gottfried’s interpretation of the era or the observations incorporated into mass entertainment products like Rebel without a Cause or Blackboard Jungle. What emerged in the post-war era was a post-pubescent population without regular and year-round work or apprenticeships but difficult to manage due to their size and to the loss of diligence and self-confidence on the part of a critical mass of the adult population. The result of that was a toxic peer culture.

  • Don’t underestimate the impact of Dr. Spock, Art. His book, published in 1946, was the second most popular book in the latter-20th century. He had some legitimate criticisms of the overly-disciplined approach to child care of the time, but promoted a permissiveness that became the American standard for raising baby-boomers.

  • My parents who were kids during World War 2 never read Dr. Spock and would have laughed their heads off it they had. My brother and I both had chores around the house and realized if we got out of line there would be swift consequences from Mom. Dad was reserved for major transgressions which were very, very rare. I think widespread permissive parenting was something that came after the rearing of my generation.

  • Breitbart is dead wrong when he says we live in Simon Cowell’s universe. If only there were more people like Simon Cowell who had the guts to tell young skulls full of mush who have no talent who think they can succeed in a difficult business like the music business that they…well… have no talent, America would be a better place.

    I also think he is mistaken about Sarah Palin and her daughter. Palin’s TLC reality show bombed and I think her daughter looked like a tramp on Dancing with teh Stars.

    But I do agree with teh larger point I think he is trying to make and that is that teh cult of celebrity is a problem. And as i alluded to above, it is a problem even in the Church when we look the other way at the bad behavior of some of our own celebs. Something we need to take a hard look at.

  • My mother was given a copy of Dr. Spock’s book in 1954. She said she got to the part where he advised never to hit your child in anger and threw it away. She said she wasn’t going to hit any of her children unless she were angry with them.

  • Something the sociologist Paul Hollander pointed out the bourgeois youth born after the war had that the pre-war generation lacked and (in a more esoteric way) their juniors lacked: a sense of security borne of their upbringing. It was his hypothesis that the collegian population in 1965 encountered something to which they were unaccustomed (threat) and reacted with rage.

    Again, repairing to Paul Gottfried. He pointed out that the disposable income and physical mobility of the post-war generation was without precedent most particularly given their work responsibilities (vis a vis what had been normal 40 years earlier). This, per Gottfried, disrupted maturation: “they were children and behaving in ways normal for children, but they had learned elaborate rationalizations for their behavior”.

  • Frederica Matthews Green offered a different hypothesis. She pointed out that women of her cohort (b. 1947) saw a dearth of men in the cohorts they would ordinary look to for husbands (1944 +/- 3 years) due to the gyrations in the birth rate experienced between 1929 and 1947. The result was that the resistance of her contemporaries to non-marital sex and transgression against the marriage vows of other women broke down. You saw these rationalizations of that in period literature like Sex and the Single Girl.

  • “She said she wasn’t going to hit any of her children unless she were angry with them.”

    Back in ’67 my maternal grandmother called my Mom a savage when she slapped me (a slap I had well earned). My Mom responded that if she didn’t discipline me now, I would be the savage after I grew up. Wise woman my Mom.

  • AD, all good and insightful comments.
    In particular, it the admonition that parents should never strike in anger always struck me as vaguely sociopathic insomuch as it implied that it is more acceptable to strike sans emotion.
    Also, to Ms. Green’s theory — one of my more insightful law partners once commented: “For centuries men tried to pressure women for sex before marriage and mostly women said no. Sometime around 1970 women stopped saying no, and society has had hell to pay ever since.”

  • “For centuries men tried to pressure women for sex before marriage and mostly women said no. Sometime around 1970 women stopped saying no, and society has had hell to pay ever since.”

    True words Mike, and the loss of much of the mutual respect between the sexes.

Andrew Breitbart Addresses Students for Life

Thursday, March 1, AD 2012

At C-PAC on January 10, 2012 Andrew Breitbart, who died today, explains how he became pro-life.  Brietbart always understood that the struggle over the culture was more important that the political battles, although they were very important.  Adopted as an infant, and the father of four kids, Breitbart understood how the pro-abort dominance of the arts and entertainment helps sustain the pro-abort cause.  Something for us all to remember and to work to change.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Andrew Breitbart Addresses Students for Life

  • I pray to God that I someday will have a modicum of the courage that Andrew Breitbart possessed. The Adoption message is very close to home in our household and sadly it is rarely discussed in the general world. The militant secular world is obsessed with abortion because it reflects their hatred toward God and life. Let’s never forget that their hatred is really directed, not at us but God Himself, which by our faith and our belief in life is the only way they can project their true hatred. I have had too many conversations with militant secularists in which at the end of the day, I found this to be oh so true.

    Servant of God, Father Patrick Peyton the Rosary Priest and founder of Family Theater in Hollywood truly believed that Hollywood would eventually be a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. It may sound ludicrous now, but Christian hiding in Rome in 310 AD would have thought the same thing if you told them that within their lifetimes Rome would be the center of the Faith. In the1940s, Father Peyton saw the filth long before others did and believed it would end and be replaced by faith.

    My trips to speak at Family Theater in Hollywood were some of my favorite stops. Talk about faithful people shining the light in a midst of a cesspool. I really looked forward to finding a way to connect with Andrew on my next visit out there later this spring when my next book, “The Tide Continue to Turn Toward Catholicism,” was scheduled to come out. I had heard so much about him and I really wanted to meet him. Sadly that won’t be the case. However, I pray that he will be assisting those from above who will continue his struggle to bring truth to a world being told lies by the mainstream media. We certainly will need lots of help and prayers with the latest attacks on Faith emanating from the corridors of power. Andrew left behind a wife and four children. In addition to our prayers for him, let us not forget his family.

  • This must be seen. A modern day warrior!

    Andrew Breitbart Memorial: “Man Against The Mob”

Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Thursday, March 1, AD 2012

Shocking news as one of the most tenacious fighters of the conservative movement has died this morning.  This from his Big Journalism site.

Andrew passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles.

We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.

Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love.

Please keep him and his family in your prayers.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

  • I had no idea he was even that much older than me….

    God bless and keep him, and may his family be comforted.

  • May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob raise him to eternal life.

  • I regret that I just discovered him more recently but I have to say, he made me stand up and take notice. Sadly, he was only 43 years old. His voice will be missed. RIP

  • I heard the news from my friend this morning. I was shocked, shocked more than usual because I just watched him at CPAC. He was fired up and seemed ok.

    This is a huge loss for conservatives, conservative media, and the nation. 🙁 His media company has brought some good exclusive stories forward, exposing ACORN and such.

    Prayers for him, his wife Susannah, and their 4 children.

  • In Pacem requiem

    He spoke truth to tyranny.

    He met sudden death.


    After you mourn, organize.

  • Rest in peace.

    Definitely a big loss for the Conservative Movement.

  • A true warrior.

  • Even in death Andrew Breitbart’s message of liberty lives in the vile hatred that is being spewed on the internet by some militant secularists who hated him. Breitbart loved to post the hateful messages that were sent his way or directed at him. It was his way of putting the mirror up to their ideas and words. Many a writer or talk show host who knew him mentioned his indefatigable nature and how the angered directed toward him gave him energy not to repeat their words or ideas, but rather to show why liberty is sacred. He was raised in a liberal, secular environment, but as he became a young adult he began to appreciate conservative and religious ideals. Though filled with passionate zeal, he had a kind heart and would often research a person’s interests so as to give them a proper gift and or token of his appreciattion. Naturally he deserves our prayers, but so to his wife and four children.

  • Some of the comments on twitter are just stomach churning in their awfulness, though certainly revealing. As Dave says, there was a reason he always re-tweeted the nasty stuff written about him.

    And it’s not just far-left crazies. David Frum really had no credibility left to shred, but he’s attempting to dig deep into the sub-credibility regions.

  • David Frum is worthy of this sequence:

  • Appropriate clip, Don, especially considering the first comment (definitely don’t read if you’re opposed to foul language).

  • I think Ace at Ace of Spades sums up Frum well in comparison to Breitbart:

    “On the other hand there’s David Frum.

    He writes blog-posts for a liberal rag which doesn’t even get published on paper. His most notable “conservative” colleague at this very non-prestigious posting is Meghan McCain, who’s primary mission in life to prove that Rick Santorum spoke too charitably when demeaning the value of college.

    Breitbart was a busy man. If his heart did not kill him, one day an airplane mishap would. He was constantly on planes, rallying the troops in this city or that. Agitating. Moving. Changing. Persuading. Defending. Attacking. Rebutting. Remaking.

    On the other hand, as I say, there’s David Frum.

    As I type this, Breitbart is more alive than David Frum has ever been.

    I doubt very much that will change as the years march on.

    It is the nature of the rat to envy the lion.

    We should not fault the rat overly for this. For what else can the rat do?

    But we should say that there are lions, and there are rats. And they are easily distinguishable.

    And they are as different from each other as the sun is from the mirror that reflects it.

    Scavengers have their place. They serve a function.

    But scavengers know their place.

    And scavengers only challenge the lion when it lies, safely, dead.”

  • Sad news, may he rest in peace and may God grant comfort to his family.

    How do they know that the causes are ‘natural’ so soon. A tox screen takes much longer.

    Notice he expressed that he had tapes of college-aged Obama revolutionary to which he alluded at C-PAC.

    Suspicious to say the least.

  • RIP.

    David Frum misses the point. Pat Buchanan viewed the culture war from a plane and Andrew from the trenches, but it’s the same war.

    Not that Pat is ever afraid to get into the mud. That’s the amusing thing about the public remembrance of bomb-throwers. Breitbart and Limbaugh are condemned for not having the dignity of Buckley and Goldwater, but remember what the critics of the older conservatives used to say about them. In another five years, the critics of whomever will be saying that even Breitbart had the quiet dignity to never go after Target X or Y. I suppose that kind of revisionism serves a purpose, but it also allows the critic to depict the current oppoment as ever worse than his elders.

    If Breitbart were alive -and how sad it is to write that – he’d be firing back at Frum on Twitter. “Me, poisonous? The poison was in the mainstream media which reacts to any criticism with venom. Quit collaborating with the snakes, David!”

  • Breitbart was an adopted child, and extremely pro-life. The battle against abortion was personal for him.

  • Pingback: Andrew Breitbart Addresses Students for Life | The American Catholic
  • As are freids well to the left are apt to say

    He spoke truth to Power

    It seems Power did not like it.

    Grant him eternal rest oh LORD, and let your perpetual light shine upon him.


    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  • I hate conspiracy theories. Hate ’em.

    They’re nearly always ridiculous bunkum from end to end.

    Having said that…

    I hope they do a careful autopsy.

    Jus’ sayin’.

    Breitbart, after all, was the king of the uncomfortable exposé. And, Leftists, after all, are leftists.

    So, I just hope they do a careful autopsy.