By the way, great news!  Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World has been hovering between #1 and #2 on the Amazon Bestseller’s List in Non-Fiction, and between #10 and #12 Overall. Congratulations, Andrew!!!

Check out Andrew’s list of upcoming appearances and other press coverage.

Check out Andrew’s list of upcoming appearances and other press coverage.

I always find it fascinating when people who used to be liberal say they turned to the right. That happened with you. Can you tell us about it?

Well, it’s a cliché from the left to the right. And it’s usually a story of opportunism in those few cases where the people move from the right to the left. It’s almost embarrassing to go back into my liberal background because it was about as shallow a belief system as humanly possible. It was go-along to get-along social. It was living in Los Angeles, being young, and single, and flowing with the trendy liberal crowd.

When I started to work in Hollywood at a fairly low level delivering scripts around town, listening to AM talk radio, I at first listened to it as a novelty. But I started to have certain things in my life going on such as living in a rent controlled apartment, having listened to the Clarence Thomas hearings, the OJ Simpson trial — I just started to see trends in my personal experiences that ran so contrary to what the media narratives were. At first I was flummoxed by it and then I just started to listen to certain people on the radio who were more clear thinking than the professors that I had in college.

I remember thinking when I was in college that a lot of these known Chomsky-like, verbose high lefty thinkers made absolutely no sense but I thought that was my problem. So when I started to listen to conservative thinkers and to read conservative thinkers, there was a clarity of thought. It wasn’t muddled. It wasn’t confusing. It started to make sense at an intellectual level and tie into the values that my parents gave me when I was a young kid that I diverted from when I was in high school.

So it was basically a reconnecting with everything that my parents attempted to instill in me in my youth. It has made me sleep a lot better at night, being centered and oriented with human nature as opposed to living in a world of self loathing nihilism, trying to undo human nature, and trying to create a path towards an unrealistic utopia.

Now, you were recently banned from the front page of The Huffington Post….

Oh, the tragedy of my life.

(Laughs) It is, it is. Apparently you made some sort of ad hominem attack on Van Jones and The Huffington Post has a policy against that. It must have been in place for at least two minutes or so before you were banned. Can you talk about that?

Read the entire review at RightWing News.

Check out Andrew’s list of upcoming appearances and other press coverage.

I’m starting to doubt if Colbert is a real conservative or just an angry left-wing comedian pretending to be one. Anyone else getting that vibe?

After all, would a real conservative get their news from NPR? How else to explain Colbert’s completely false claim that O’Keefe plead guilty to “tapping” Senator Mary Landrieu’s phone?

Should we send Retracto after Colbert…?

Nah, he’s a comedian donchaknow.

Anyway, here’s a link where you can donate to O’Keefe’s Project Veritas. Never forget that if it wasn’t for him and Hannah Giles, ACORN would not only still be in the business of voter registration fraud, they would’ve also been involved in the U.S. Census — the very heart of our democracy when it came to any number of things, including Congressional districts.

While the biased AP apparently only whips out the term “heavily edited” when the institutional left is under fire, it’s difficult to disagree with them on principle, especially when we live in a world where on a daily basis the network nightly news programs, Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show,” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, and every facet of the MSM broadcast and publishing world release reports no less “heavily edited” than Rosa and O’Keefe’s initial video releasse. However, unlike Rose and O’Keefe, the mainstream media never allows the public to view the full, unedited material in order to judge the full context for ourselves.

This can and must end today.

With New Media once again leading away, let’s start a new era of responsible journalism that we’ll call The Rose/O’Keefe Standard of Journalistic Transparency, where the insidious practice of “heavily edited” interviews and reporting finally comes to an end. If the mainstream media is as devoted to transparency, truth, and context as James O’Keefe, here are some examples of how it can work….

Within hours of a “heavily edited” broadcast report or interview on the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric and CBS will release online any and all video used to compile that report. Within hours of the Associated Press or Politico releasing an article quoting an interview subject, the AP and Politico will release the notes and/or audio recordings of the full unedited interview. The same with Rachel Maddow, and because he’s The New Murrow and awfully concerned with how the media behaves — Jon Stewart himself should lead the way with the release of the full video of any and all interviews within hours of his wacky editors making the latest “Daily Show” target look like a fool.

Because Mr. O’Keefe and Ms. Rose have led the way in journalistic transparency and taken the first step, as a show of good faith from the MSM in accepting this offer, we call on Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric to release every frame of video involving their 2008 interviews with then Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin.

Veritas, anyone?

In all these cases the left-leaning media exposed its obvious bias against James because of his contrarian point of view and because the targets of his investigations are protected institutions of the Democrat Media Complex.

However, in my dealings with Ms. Boudreau, she and her producer, Scott Zamost, conducted themselves professionally, and I believe James owes them a candid and public explanation.

From what I’ve read about this script, though not executed, it is patently gross and offensive. It’s not his detractors to whom he also owes this public airing. It’s to his legion of supporters.

Maybe that wasn’t a fun fact after all. 

Kind of an opposite of a fun fact, if you ask me.

But you didn’t.

Anyway, with ACORN gone, it leads me to two thoughts. One: if it were a right-wing entity, and the pranksters were lefties – this would immediately turn into a mega-million dollar movie, directed by Steven Soderbergh, with George Clooney comically hamming it up as the bad guy.

In fact, they should do that, anyway!

Turn ACORN into a drug company, with James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles becoming whistleblowers who discover that the lifesaving cancer drug was made from fetuses! No wait. That won’t matter. It’s made from puppies! Right! Puppies!

Matt Damon could play O’Keefe, or possibly even Giles. He’ll take any excuse to show off his marvelous legs.

But you get my point. In the past five years, we’ve had two very funny movies by Sacha Baron Cohen, a performer who used either racist or overly obnoxious characters to create discomfort among clueless Yanks (who, for the most part, reacted politely). But none of his pranks ever exposed corruption or real, deadly hate. I’ve said it before – Cohen, a Jew, would have scored more points if he hit a Willesden mosque, instead of a southern rodeo.

But he’s the star.

Anyway, I look forward to the newest incarnation of ACORN. This stuff just doesn’t goes away, you know – it only finds another shell.

(What, you thought I wouldn’t end with a nut metaphor?)

And if you disagree with me, you’re a homophobe racist who bullies overweight flight attendants.

During Breitbart’s 33 minute long address, he threatens to upend the entire media establishment, calling them out on their hypocrisy while demanding they change their ways, or else.

The entire speech is available in this post and is broken down into four parts, but if you would like to view some of the highlights, you can click on any of the eight links below:

1. It’s You That Sucks!
2. You Better Bet Your Ass!
3. Just Add al-Qaida
4. MSM McCarthyism
5. Breitbart Challenges Soros
6. There Are More Tapes
7. The O’Keefe Arrest
8. Breitbart Issues An Ultimatum To The Media

Full Address Parts 1-4:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Conservative Blogger Faces Criticism Over Protege, by DAVID FOLKENFLIK

The conservative online news entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart is, for the moment, doing little to dispel stereotypes about bloggers. During a recent visit to his home on the west side of Los Angeles, Breitbart, 41, is working from his own basement. Barefoot. At the beck and call of his own kids.

But that basement is light and airy, with a decent view of the city. A young assistant works there with Breitbart to help funnel wire service stories to Breitbart.com, his main news aggregation site. And his reach, thanks to a brawling rhetorical style and a protege who taped the undercover ACORN videos last year, is only expanding.

Over the past year, Breitbart has hired editors to run a new network of conservative blogs called BigGovernment.com, BigHollywood.com and BigJournalism.com. No matter the focus, the media are a prime target throughout.

“They want to control the narrative,” Breitbart says. “I’m saying, ‘No more!’ The new media has freed it up. I’m sorry, mainstream media. It’s over. Your ability to control the narrative is over.”

New Fodder

He can talk that way for hours — and finds fresh grist all over. The media have devoted intense coverage to the late-January arrest of James O’Keefe, the 25-year-old videographer and conservative provocateur. He was charged with trying to get into Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s federal office in New Orleans under false pretenses to commit a felony. And O’Keefe is also under contract to write for BigGovernment.com.

Read the full transcript at NPR.com.

The government has now confirmed what has always been clear:  No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office.  Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines.  Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.

As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN.  For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.”  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.

On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building.  The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator.  We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.

It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story.  MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent “gag order.”  The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I “broke in” to an office which is open to the public.  The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me.  And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting.  The public will judge whether reporters who can’t get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.