Opinion Forum

Reward!

March 25th, 2010

Andrew Breitbart, Editor in Chief of the new websites BigGovernment, BigHollywood, and BigJournalism, is offering a $10,000 reward in the form of a check to the United Negro College Fund in return for any documented evidence of racism at the March 20th Tea Party.

So far, the Tea Party has managed to get hold of two videos (here and here) that show nothing racially offensive was hurled at the black lawmakers.

But the mainstream media, in their turn, has not managed to get hold of a single piece of evidence that the Tea Partiers behaved in a racially offensive manner. We know this for a fact, because if they had they would have played it over… and over… and over… by now you would have to live under a rock to not have seen it, if it in fact existed.

Additionally, no arrests have been made and no charges have been filed. And while none of this actually proves that nothing happened, I for one find it difficult to believe otherwise when not only did I not see a single shred of evidence that anyone at the Tea Party was racist, but neither has anyone else with a video camera.

However, Andrew Breitbart is willing to give Representative John Lewis the benefit of the doubt about his claims. If Rep. Lewis is able to come up with verifiable video evidence of racism, or if he is willing (and able) to pass a lie detector test of the incident, Breitbart will not only concede the argument, he will write up a $10k donation in atonement for the Tea Party’s wrongs.

For that matter, I’m willing to take it one step further. I am so sure that Breitbart will never have to give up his money that I’ll see his bet and raise it. Granted, I don’t have the ability to throw the amount of money into the deal that Breitbart is risking, but if Breitbart loses his bet with Rep. Lewis I will personally write out a $50 check to the United Negro College Fund.

In the event that Breitbart and I actually lose, proof of the donation will be done via a scan of the check, which will be posted here. Fortunately for me, I have about as much fear of this bet being called in as I do of a liberal actually taking up my offer to send them a copy of my research and reading lists. Y’know, zero?

Let the search begin.

Articles written by Brianna Aubin
Tags: Breitbart, Lewis, racism, reward, slurs, Tea Party
Categories: News, Politics | Comments (22) | Home

22 Responses to “Reward!”

larry | March 25th, 2010 at 6:23 pm

Brianna
The Democrats have been using this type of deception for years. The liberal leftist wing of the party is forever looking for any excuse blame the Republicans. This particular incident is most likely a step towards an out right attack on the Tea Party.
Be especially vigilant for out right lies. The Democrats are very good at diverting attention from their sometimes less than germane tactics. This time they are trying desperately to divert as much attention as possible from their spend us broke healthcare law. Please note that I called it healthcare law and not bill.
The irony of all this is the fact that our complacent population will most likely swallow this treachery hook line and sinker. They are for the most part still convinced that this type of treasonous activity can’t happen here. Well people it just did. What are you willing to give up next?

Tom | March 25th, 2010 at 6:29 pm

It’ll be interesting to follow this and see how it turns out. I suspect Lewis, Hoyer, et al. will just ignore Breitbart. But if they don’t and can prove their allegation, then I’d like to see Breitbart make a public event out of paying the $10K.

And in terms of poker lingo, if you “see his bet and raise it” by $50, then you have to put $10,050 in the pot. Just joking — we know what you mean!

Brianna | March 25th, 2010 at 6:52 pm

Tom – you better be! I haven’t got that kind of cash.

More seriously though, I doubt I’ll ever have to pay up. Just as Breitbart doubts he’ll ever have to pay up. I was AT that tea party. I saw them. The tea partiers didn’t even trash the lawn, for God’s sake! The idea that they are primarily motivated by race defies imagination when one looks at the facts. The largest march the KKK ever held was smaller than the March 20 rally. Do you really think this country is so utterly colorblind that it could elect a black president, yet simultaneously so racially prejudiced that the call of a single individual to a rally against health care would be answered at the drop of a hat by 40,000 individuals who had less than 48 hours notice because they all had a deep-seated hatred for black people?

Breitbart’s bet will never be called for the exact same reason that nobody has ever, ever requested my research; people like you and Larry because you know I’ve done it and more-or-less agree with me, people like Clarissa because they know if they actually get ahold of the records of the work I’ve done and start duplicating it, then they’ll have to concede a lot of the debate.

Tom | March 25th, 2010 at 7:23 pm

Brianna, I don’t at all doubt your first-hand testimony as to what you did and didn’t see. However, it’s possible that there were a handful of people who did what has been alleged, and it’s also possible that the allegations are baseless. I don’t know the facts and don’t much care. I suspect this particular question will soon be forgotten.

The threats against Democratic politicians and the violent incidents that have happened are another matter. Just like past incidents when threats have been made against Republicans, there’s never a justification for it. To their credit, Republican leaders and those in the leadership of the Tea Party movement have denounced threats and violence and completely distanced themselves from anyone who might be engaged in that kind of criminal behavior. People who make threats against the lives of others, throw bricks through windows, target the homes of people and endanger their families all belong in jail.

As far as research is concerned, you missed a reason — been there, done that, formed different conclusions.

Brianna | March 25th, 2010 at 8:24 pm

“As far as research is concerned, you missed a reason — been there, done that, formed different conclusions.”

For some people, yes. But not all.

Jane Thomas | March 26th, 2010 at 5:09 am

Just an FYI: 8 Aug 1925 40,000 klansmen march down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC. This is a bit less than 1% of total Klan membership.

Sara Diamond has done some excellent research on the KKK. She is well worth reading.

Jane

Tom | March 26th, 2010 at 8:09 am

That brings to mind the issue of a planned Nazi march in Skokie, IL in the late 1970s. The village of Skokie, near Chicago, had a very high percentage of Jews among its population, including Holocaust survivors. That may be why the Nazis selected it for their demonstration. Skokie tried to prohibit the march, and after a number of court cases, including the Supreme Court, Skokie was overruled and the march was permitted. As it turned out, the Nazis decided not to march in Skokie but did so in three locations in Chicago.

The ACLU defended the Nazis and represented them in court, and without that support the Nazis probably could not have had their case heard because of the costs involved. The ACLU’s support was obviously based not on their approval of Nazi ideology but on their determination to defend freedom of speech whenever necessary.

In the words of a federal judge who heard the case,

“It is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear …. The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy of even hateful doctrines … is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country.”

This is not a commentary on the Tea Party movement. It isn’t racist, despite what some have said. However, it’s becoming clear that some Democrats are trying to discredit the movement by continuing to play up what a very few people may or may not have done at the Capitol. In my mind, this is an effort against freedom of speech, in that it attempts to discredit people with certain views and discourage them from speaking.

There is no freedom of speech unless the most offensive speech imaginable is permitted.

larry | March 26th, 2010 at 8:57 am

Jane
With all due respect, I fail to see where the KKK march in Washington so many years past has any bearing on what Brianna has stated.
The standard liberal ploy of invoking racism and the Klan is well known and documented. Leftist liberals such as Morris Dees and the ACLU have always used it to create problems where none really existed. The use of racism as an attempt to discredit the Tea Party had to happen. The liberal game plan never varies.
Brianna
I commend your efforts to research your work. I confess that I don’t always do a great job at nailing down facts like I should. I have grown to comfortable with the notion that we can take each others word. Once again we run afoul of the liberal mindset. any statements made with an opposing opinion must be authenticated beyond any doubt but even then a liberal will never admit they are wrong.

Tom | March 26th, 2010 at 9:20 am

I suppose we’ve gotten into freedom of speech and assembly, the point being that it’s tolerated for all and must be. It’s off the direct point of Brianna’s article, but relevant.

“The liberal game plan never varies.” Would that be something like the Republican game plan, which is to hysterically scream, “Socialism! Socialism!” every time the President burps?

As to opinions being “authenticated,” I would guess you mean providing references for key parts of your arguments that you claim to be facts. It may be inconvenient, but it’s helpful, especially when you’re maintaining that something is a fact when common sense would indicate otherwise.

Brianna | March 26th, 2010 at 11:14 am

““The liberal game plan never varies.” Would that be something like the Republican game plan, which is to hysterically scream, “Socialism! Socialism!” every time the President burps?”

Is taking control of banking and money not an essential piece of collectivized economics? Is Universal Health Care not a socialist talking point? Is a large welfare state and guaranteed social safety net not a socialist concept? Is government ownership of the means of production (auto companies) not a communist ideal? Is government control of the media not a part of the Communist manifesto (NPR, FCC, not to mention the way so much of the mainstream media seems to do the government’s bidding).

Explain to me why the Republicans do not have a right to be a teensy bit worried about a socialist takeover right now, and I promise that I’ll stop crying Socialism!

Brianna | March 26th, 2010 at 11:16 am

“Just an FYI: 8 Aug 1925 40,000 klansmen march down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC.”

Fair enough. My mistake.

larry | March 26th, 2010 at 11:28 am

Tom
Yes I’m guilty of being wrong because I go on “Gut” feeling sometimes. I equate prior experiences to common sense and “Gut” feeling. Let me assure you that my distrust of liberals is not unfounded, the same goes for the Democratic party.
If this President isn’t a socialist, just what is he? The old adage about walking and talking like a duck comes to mind. No matter how you spin it, the proof is becoming more evident every day.

Tom | March 26th, 2010 at 12:31 pm

Brianna, your examples are a bit strained. You know as well as anyone what socialism actually is, and what we have in the U.S. ain’t it. Neither is the President’s agenda. Bits and pieces might be construed to resemble parts of a socialist system, but that’s part of living in the modern world as opposed to the wild, wild, west.

Crying “Socialism!” is of no value in a discussion of why one might disagree with what the Democrats are doing. It’s much more effective to debate specific points of policy as to their practicality, effectiveness, legality, and consistency with U.S. traditions. When a conservative begins a discussion with “Socialism!” I turn it off in my mind just as quickly as I do when a liberal begins with “Fascist!” The thing is, many conservatives (certainly including you) are fully capable of discussing their postitions substantively, and that sets them apart from those who aren’t. Those who can do it should.

Brianna | March 26th, 2010 at 1:17 pm

Tom – Are my examples really that strained? The federal government owns, if I remember correctly, 50% of the mortgages in this country and has a stake in over 80% through either the Fed, Fannie or Freddie. They just did a significant re-vamp of 1/6 of the US economy… a piece of the US economy, I might add, in which they already accounted for nearly half of every dollar spent. They has been passing benefit after benefit extension after bailout after subsidy for both the poor and the rich in the name of the common good. They control the means of education, which while not exactly new, is still one of the 10 tenets of the Communist manifesto. And that’s in addition to the other points I made.

I do not say that we live in a fully socialist economy. Rather, I am trying to point out that we live in a mixed economy, one that contains elements of both socialism and capitalism… and we are trending away from the capitalist parts and towards the socialist parts at an frighteningly fast rate. I think the evidence for that is pretty undeniable at this stage, and that the irresponsible thing at this juncture is not that people are calling it out, but that too few people are pointing it out and that the warning is being blindly dismissed as fearmongering hokum by so many.

The United States is not a special place where the laws of physics and economics fail to apply. If we keep printing money, we WILL end up like the Weimar republic. If we keep advocating the tenets of Nazi (short for National Socialist) party as the economic ideal, we WILL end up in a place looking very like Nazi Germany… or more realistically, fascist Italy, since I doubt America as a nation could ever be tempted to exterminate Jews. I have never met a liberal who has been able to adequately explain how they can keep advocating all the policies of socialism, but somehow not end up in the same place that socialist governments always end up – murder, enslavement and dictatorship.

I have a great deal of respect for you Tom, but you HAVE to stop blindly dismissing the fact that the ideals currently being preached to us by the left are more-or-less the exact same things that socialism, communism and fascism preached to the people who adopted them. Go back to my article about the Tea Party and reread the bits about the Romanian and Chinese immigrants, who have lived through these things and thus know them when they see them under any brand of cover-up political rhetoric about helping the poor and downtrodden. Because it can happen here, and the best way to allow it to happen is to keep blindly dismissing the facts as right-wing hysteria.

larry | March 26th, 2010 at 2:38 pm

Bless you Brianna, very well said.
I’m amazed that after almost a half century of the so-called cold war, we are becoming politically what we spent billions of dollars to defeat

Tom | March 28th, 2010 at 7:40 am

I just saw a report on CNN showing video from Oct 20 of a verbal confrontation between Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, who is black, and a white male protestor as Cleaver was going up the Capitol steps. Cleaver says that the confrontation happened because the man spit on him. The man was arrested by the Capitol police.

You can see the same video at Fox Nation. The incident begins at 1:23. Cleaver’s reaction before the confrontation began could certainly have been a reaction to being spit on. At 1:43, Cleaver looks at his hand as though there is something on it.

Further, a CNN producer heard the word “faggot” shouted at Rep. Barney Frank several times.

Got your checkbook ready?

Brianna | March 28th, 2010 at 2:00 pm

I saw that video last night. It looked pretty clear that the guy in question was yelling “kill the bill,” though of course, it’s hard to be positive with things like that. The man in question was also not arrested, though he was apparently detained. But I am admittedly not in the best position to judge, so I will ask you to read this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589776,00.html

and call the incident for yourself. I will abide by your verdict.

Tom | March 28th, 2010 at 3:55 pm

No, not me! I figured you would go with Breitbart — if he ever decides he has to pay up, then I’d suppose you would, too.

You know, even if it finally emerges beyond question that stuff happened, it doesn’t mean much of anything. In a group of people that large, for a very few to have done something stupid doesn’t really say anything about the rest. As I said before, I don’t think this is going to amount to much in any case.

Brianna | March 28th, 2010 at 4:24 pm

Tom – Certainly if Breitbart pays up, then I will. However, if I am convinced by the evidence, then I will pay up whether Breitbart does or not. Frankly, I am not yet convinced.

“You know, even if it finally emerges beyond question that stuff happened, it doesn’t mean much of anything. In a group of people that large, for a very few to have done something stupid doesn’t really say anything about the rest.”

True, but unfortunately that’s not the way things are being billed in the media.

“As I said before, I don’t think this is going to amount to much in any case.”

I hope you’re right.

Tom | March 31st, 2010 at 1:59 am

You may already know this, but Breitbart has upped the reward to $100,000. He did it in a speech at the Searchlight, NV tea party rally. The video is here, and he does it starting at 6:30.

Brianna | March 31st, 2010 at 9:09 am

I didn’t, but I’m not going to up mine. I’ve had enough unusual expenses this month that my finances are fairly straitened already.

Tom | March 31st, 2010 at 11:51 am

If I were you, I wouldn’t increase it either. In politics you never know what’s going to happen — some guy may show up with one little snip of video showing some doofus saying the “n” word somewhere in the vicinity of John Lewis. And there goes your money, even though your original point was valid.