Ted Kennedy American Traitor

 http://www.forbes.com/

Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”
Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”
Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.
First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.
Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”
Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.
Kennedy’s motives? “Like other rational people,” the memorandum explained, “[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.” But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy’s motives.
“Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988,” the memorandum continued. “Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.”
Kennedy proved eager to deal with Andropov–the leader of the Soviet Union, a former director of the KGB and a principal mover in both the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring–at least in part to advance his own political prospects.
In 1992, Tim Sebastian published a story about the memorandum in the London Times. Here in the U.S., Sebastian’s story received no attention. In his 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, historian Paul Kengor reprinted the memorandum in full. “The media,” Kengor says, “ignored the revelation.”
“The document,” Kengor continues, “has stood the test of time. I scrutinized it more carefully than anything I’ve ever dealt with as a scholar. I showed the document to numerous authorities who deal with Soviet archival material. No one has debunked the memorandum or shown it to be a forgery. Kennedy’s office did not deny it.”
Why bring all this up now? No evidence exists that Andropov ever acted on the memorandum–within eight months, the Soviet leader would be dead–and now that Kennedy himself has died even many of the former senator’s opponents find themselves grieving. Yet precisely because Kennedy represented such a commanding figure–perhaps the most compelling liberal of our day–we need to consider his record in full.
Doing so, it turns out, requires pondering a document in the archives of the politburo.
When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the evil empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov. On the Cold War, the greatest issue of his lifetime, Kennedy got it wrong.
Peter Robinson, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a former White House speechwriter, writes a weekly column for Forbes

http://thefederalist.com/

Ted Kennedy Secretly Asked The Soviets To Intervene In The 1984 Elections

March 10, 2015 By Sean Davis

Earlier this week, 47 Republican senators published an open letter informing the leaders of Iran that any nuclear deal with the United States that failed to be approved by the Senate would likely expire in 2017, once President Barack Obama’s term ended. You can read the full letter here.
The letter enraged progressives, who immediately began accusing the senators of treason for having the audacity to publish basic constitutional facts about how treaties work. Here is but a small sampling of the response from the outrage brigade:
If these progressives want to know what actual treason looks like, they should consult liberal lion Ted Kennedy, who not only allegedly sent secret messages to the Soviets in the midst of the cold war, he also begged them to intervene in a U.S. presidential election in order to unseat President Ronald Reagan. That’s no exaggeration.
According to Soviet documents unearthed in the early 1990’s, Kennedy literally asked the Soviets, avowed enemies of the U.S., to intervene on behalf of the Democratic party in the 1984 elections. Kennedy’s communist communique was so secret that it was not discovered until 1991, eight years after Kennedy had initiated his Soviet gambit:

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

You can read the full KGB memo detailing Kennedy’s secret letter and request for electoral intervention here.

 

Letter Details Kennedy Offer To USSR

[A repost of a S&L article from December 2006.]
This letter which details Senator Edward Kennedy’s offer to help the Soviet Union defeat Reagan’s efforts to build up the nuclear deterrent in Europe was unearthed by a Times of London reporter in the 1990s after the KGB files were opened.
It got little or no attention, however, until the publication of Paul Kengor’s book "The Crusader – Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism."
But even then the actual text of the letter (which is in the book’s appendix pp 317-320) has gotten short shrift:

Appendix
TEXT OF KGB LETTER ON SENATOR TED KENNEDY _________________________________________ Special Importance
Committee on State Security of the USSR
14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV
Moscow
Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov
Comrade Y.V. Andropov
On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.
Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.
According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the "success of Reaganomics."
Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.
The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.
However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.
Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.

If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.
Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.)
2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.
Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.
Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples.
The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.
Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.
We await instructions.
President of the committee
V. Chebrikov

Lest we forget in our grief.

 

Remembering Teddy’s KGB Connection

Connie Hair | Thursday Aug 27, 2009 8:55 AM

The death of Sen. Edward M. “Teddy” Kennedy this week marks the end of an American political era colored in crayon by the media-generated notion of American royalty.  Ted Kennedy will be laid to rest at Arlington Cemetery, the last of the three Kennedy brothers who once dominated the American political landscape, and the only one of the four Kennedy brothers to live to see his fifties.
As his fellow liberals attempt to shove the national takeover of health care through Congress, even suggesting renaming the bill after Kennedy in a memorial tribute, it becomes urgent to set aside the perfunctory kind words one usually says about the departed — regardless of truth.  A whitewash of Kennedy’s history cannot be used as an emotional power play to push through government-run health care in his “honor.”

I will not belabor the story of Mary Jo Kopechne, the young woman left behind in her own water torture at the hands of the late senator. That particular miscarriage of justice has come to mind for many as we all heard of Kennedy’s death this week and has even been reported as part of his sordid legacy by a few media outlets.
But Kennedy’s private outreach to the KGB Soviet intelligence agency in attempts to undermine first President Jimmy Carter then President Ronald Reagan say as much as Chappaquiddick did about the man who appeared to have no moral restraints whatsoever on his personal pursuit of raw political power.
Documents found in Soviet archives after the fall of the Iron Curtain revealed a great deal about the character of Ted Kennedy.
As HUMAN EVENTS first reported on December 8, 2003:

One of the documents, a KGB report to bosses in the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee, revealed that “In 1978, American Sen. Edward Kennedy requested the assistance of the KGB to establish a relationship” between the Soviet apparatus and a firm owned by former Sen. John Tunney (D-Ca.). KGB recommended that they be permitted to do this because Tunney’s firm was already connected with a KGB agent in France named David Karr. This document was found by the knowledgeable Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats and published in Moscow’s Izvestia in June 1992.
Another KGB report to their bosses revealed that on March 5, 1980, John Tunney met with the KGB in Moscow on behalf of Sen. Kennedy. Tunney expressed Kennedy’s opinion that “nonsense about ‘the Soviet military threat’ and Soviet ambitions for military expansion in the Persian Gulf… was being fueled by [President Jimmy] Carter, [National Security Advisor Zbigniew] Brzezinski, the Pentagon and the military industrial complex.”
Kennedy offered to speak out against President Carter on Afghanistan. Shortly thereafter he made public speeches opposing President Carter on this issue. This document was found in KGB archives by Vasiliy Mitrokhin, a courageous KGB officer, who copied documents from the files and then defected to the West. He wrote about this document in a February 2002 paper on Afghanistan that he released through the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center.

Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, found contemporaneous KGB documentation and published a story in February of 1992 of an additional communiqué by Ted Kennedy to the Soviet intelligence agency through Tunney.  Full text of the letter from the appendix of Paul Kengor’s book The Crusader:  Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism can be found here. 
This time it was President Reagan in Kennedy’s crosshairs as he attempted to arrange a meeting between Kennedy and General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Yuri Andropov.
In this May 14, 1983, letter written by underling Viktor Chebrikov to Andropov, he relayed Kennedy’s offer to meet, Chebrikov explaining that Kennedy blamed poor American-Soviet relations not on the Communist country, but on President Reagan.  According to Chebrikov’s letter, Kennedy said he wanted to stop Reagan’s re-election effort in 1984.
Chebrikov’s letter also claimed that Kennedy was “very impressed” with Andropov and that Kennedy was reaching out to the Soviets to thwart Reagan’s forceful defense policies.  Kennedy suggested the Soviets reach out specifically to Barbara Walters and Walter Cronkite to counter in the American media what he said Kennedy considered Reagan “propaganda.”
Chebrikov’s letter to Andropov also stated that Kennedy himself had offered to travel to Moscow to meet with Andropov if he would extend an invitation.
These revelations reported in 1992 suggest insight into a man so obsessed with the acquisition of personal political power that he would reach out to the communist Soviet Union for help in undermining not one but two American presidents, one from his own political party.
Kennedy’s strong support for the government takeover of health care and the effort to pass this legislation in memorial tribute fails to warrant a second glance.
Rep. Smith Prompts Senate Judiciary to Stop Perez Nomination
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, requested in a letter to Senate colleagues yesterday that they place a hold on the nomination of Tom Perez to be Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division.  Smith requested the delay of the confirmation process until the Justice Department provides Congress with sufficient information regarding the sudden dismissal of a case alleging voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party on Election Day 2008.
According to Smith, the Justice Department’s response to Congress was “overly vague, raising concerns about possible political interference in this case… If the Department’s political appointees applied pressure to career attorneys to dismiss this case, then they have committed an offense that undermines every American’s right to choose their elected officials.”
Stay tuned.

Communism vs Capitalism; Socialism Is Evil

http://www.culture-war.info/Socialism.html

Capitalism, Socialism or Communism Class Warfare - Rich vs. Poor
Social Justice and Income Redistribution

Is Socialism or Communism better then American Free Enterprise, Capitalism?

On this page we will compare Socialism, Capitalism and Communism. First let us define the terms.

Socialism:

Socialism is a concept that individuals should not have ownership of land, capital (money), or industry, but rather the whole community collectively owns and controls property, goods, and production. Ideally, in this system all share equally in work and the fruits of their labor. Ideally this is a Christian version of help the poor and needy, sharing equally, but in the real world this can cause some problems as we will see later.

Communism:

Communism is a similar concept, in that ownership of land, capital and industry can not be owned or controlled by the individual. However, under Communism the control of these things is not by a local community but by the State Government. Under this system the government has total control of everything produced and control what is made, and who will receive the goods and services produced. Under this system you are not allowed to own your own home, your own car, your own furniture, or even the food you eat. The State decides what you can use and where you will work. You have few if any rights.

Capitalism:

Under Capitalism, individuals own and control land, capital, and production of industry. Individuals are free to purchase and own their own homes, cars, furniture, and other goods such as TV, radios, computers, boats, or any thing else you might want. You have total freedom to live where you want and what type of job field you want to pursue. If you have an idea for a new business or invention, you are free to pursue this without government interference. Under this system you have the maximum number of choices in life. This is the 'pursuit of happiness' from the Declaration of Independence.

America's first experiment with Socialism:

After the Pilgrims landed in 1620, they decided that they would plant a community garden and share the fruits and vegetables equally at the end of the season. The idea was that all would work together and share equally at the end of the season. However, no one wanted to work in the gardens. Most were reluctant to do the planting and weed a garden that was not theirs. That first year, the gardens were not well kept and they had poor crops, which led to hunger the next winter. Under this system, by 1623 the colony was facing starvation. It was decided that a new system be used the following year. Each family was given a plot of land to garden in proportion to its size. They would be allowed to keep the fruits and vegetables for them selves.

Governor William Bradford's account. . .

This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

The lesson here seems to be, when you own it you take care of it. If it belongs to someone else, you won't take interest in it or care for it. But if it is yours to own, you take interest in it and take care of it. The Pilgrims started out with socialism for the first two years but abandoned it in favor for capitalism after two years, which worked much better.

A modern day example: Apple Computers:

Steve Jobs, and Steve Wozniak, built the first Apple Computer out of their garage. They were just young men with an idea that people would like to own their own affordable computers. They didn't have enough money to start a company, so they sought out money from a capitalist. This could have been a bank or a rich individual. In their case it was multi-millionaire Mike Markkula, who provided essential business expertise and funding of $250,000. Jobs and Wozniak were right, people did want to own home computers and sales took off. Today Apple, employs over 48,000 employees world wide, and has annual sales over 65 billion dollars. As of September 2011, Apple is the largest publicly traded company in the world by market capitalization and the largest technology company in the world by revenue and profit.

Capitalism allowed these two men the freedom to buy parts for the first prototype computer. The freedom to seek out funds to set up a new company, develop production and distribution to customers, is the American Enterprise of Invention which we call Capitalism. Did Jobs and Wozniak steal from the poor to become rich? NO! They borrowed money from a Capitalist, who wanted a return on his investment. They all took a gamble and might have lost, but instead they won. They ended up creating great wealth for themselves, their employees, and their stock holders. They did not steal money from anybody!

Why Social Justice is wrong: Take from the rich and give to the poor. Income Redistribution.

Steve Jobs was not born rich. He became rich by following his dream and hard work. In doing so, he created new products, he created a new company and new jobs. This all worked to create more wealth for many people. He did not steal his money from the poor like some progressive liberals would have you believe. He created his money. So should he, and all other rich people, have to give their money away until everyone in America has an equal amount? This is the mentality of liberals; they sold the money from the poor, and they must give it back. This is the lie of the Communist Social Justice ideology.

The idea that all Capitalist steal money from the poor is utter non-sense. Most Capitalist create money through innovation of new ideas, hard work, good investments, good business decisions and properly managing their assets.

While it is true that there are dishonest crooks in business that can and do steal under Capitalism, there are also crooks and thieves under Socialism and Communism. Human nature being what it is, people tend to be lazy. What can I get without having to work for it. If I can steal it without having to work to get it, maybe I'll just take it. Maybe mom and dad will just give me my allowance even though I didn't clean the kitchen like I was suppose to do. (Something for nothing! We always want the easy way don't we.)

Why Socialism or Communism don't work.

If you don't own it, your not going to work or take care of it. Look at apartments that are turned into condos. When the apartments are rented, the renters don't own the apartments. They are not likely to care if something gets broken and mistreated thus lowering the value, because it is not theirs. It is the landlords. It is his problem. (Who cares, no skin off my nose?) However once the people buy the condos and it becomes their property, they now have a vested interest in keeping it in good shape. While they were renters they were living under Socialism (no ownership). Once they brought the condo, they became Capitalist. (ownership) and their thinking changed.

Under true Socialism or Communism, Steve Jobs could not have brought the parts for his prototype computer. If he knew that his hard work, would never allow him to make more money then his neighbor who spends his time watching mindless TV shows, why would he even bother to waste his time trying to invent something new and useful. Why not take it easy? Everybody else does. In Germany and France, union employees get months of paid vacation time. Take it easy, you'll get paid!

Socialism and Communism kill the 'will' to work, competition, innovation and creativity. Why compete to work? You won't make any more money. Why spend time innovating new ideas, or being creative, there won't be anything in it for me. As a result they fail to provide goods and services for their citizens. The Soviet Eastern Communist countries of the 20th century were noted for not having much goods and services for their citizens. Yet, the ruling class always had plenty of everything, and it was usually imported from capitalist countries. While we have rich people in America, we also have a large middle class, that live comfortable lives. Even many if not most poor people in America have refrigerators, TVs, and food on the table.

Socialism and Communism cost money:

Under Semi-Socialism in many Western European countries, the citizens are taxed at high rates of 50% to 75% of their incomes. In return the State provides cradle to grave coverage of health care, union jobs, subsidized corporations and subsidized transportation systems. While the citizens in these countries live comfortable lives they pay a high price for government services.

Under the Soviet Communist rule, the citizens are allowed to keep very little personal goods. Effectively the state takes all the business profits, and gives the workers ration cards to buy food, and clothing. Other personal items such as TVs, radios, AC units are hard to come by, and are rationed out by the state, if you can prove you need them. I met a couple that had lived in Communist Lithunian. They told me they wanted to move across town to another apartment to be closer to his mother. The move had to be approved by the State, and it took them 10 years and lots of red tape for simply moving to another apartment!

Communism: no freedom!

Since Communism controls all goods and services, the individual is at the total mercy of the State. You have no rights except those granted by the State. The old Soviet Union was a police state, with total control over its citizens. When I traveled into East Germany, I immediately noticed the lack of cars. West Germany was full of cars on the Autobahns. The streets in East Germany were mostly empty, with an occasional person on bicycle, even in the middle of winter. Freedom of travel is restricted in a Communist State because they control who gets what and for how long. If you were lucky enough to get a car in East Germany, it was usually a worthless piece of junk. I saw plenty of Soviet solders with rifles, so you dare not step out of line. You could feel the oppression and despair in the air.

Occupy Wall Street:

In the fall of 2011 many college students descended on Wall Street in New York City. They were not demanding a reform of Wall Street bankers who have cheated the American people, but rather they want to topple Capitalism, that they think is the problem. It is not Capitalism that is the problem, it is dishonest crooks. Lying cheating thieves are everywhere on the planet. They are people that think no matter what system they live in, they will find a way to get theirs without having to work for it. They are basically greedy people, and you will find them under Socialism, Communism or Capitalism. So let's not mistake the of blaming the system, when it is clearly the individuals that create the crime.

Under capitalism, the Wall Street banks would have had to declared bankruptcy, and be brought out by the successful banks for pennies on the dollar. The bank owners would have taken big losses along with the stockholders. Instead the government stepped in to bail out the banks who made poor business decisions. Those same bank owners who made the poor decisions, then gave themselves big bonuses from tax-payer dollars. The government rewarded failure. Our Occupy Wall Street crowd should go down to Washington and ask why the government gave tax payer bail-out money to the crooks who were cheating their clients. This is the real Income Redistribution, but not the way progressive liberals would have you believe. Under Socialism or Communism you will see more income redistribution, and the rich will get richer and the middle class will really disappear.

When the Communist took over Russia in 1917, they used many young College students to stage protest against the Czar. Vladimir Lenin called them mindless "useful idiots." The Communist are again using students to press their cause on Wall Street, and it is again to overthrow the government, and seize power. These young college students want justice, as we all do, but they won't get it from their Socialist, Communist or Islamic friends on Wall Street. They are being played as the sucker.



Government Conrol has an inverse relationship to Personal Freedom. The more control government has the less freedom individuals have. At the two extremes you have either a total dictatorship or you have total anarchy. The founding fathers thought about 40% government with about 60% personal freedoms was the best approach. This balance allows free enterprise to flurish, with enough control to prevent abuses. However, they realized this type of government would only succeed with a moral and honest population. As a society becomes more corrupt and dishonest, there are increasing needs for government control of the population. The Communist realize the Christian Church provides a moral framework for our society, and if they can destroy the Church and society's morality, it will be easier to impose Big Government controls on America. (For more on this see Agenda link at top of the page to the Naked Communist.) So ask yourself: Would you rather have a hand out from the government, or a pay check from a business? I think, most Americans would prefer a job which pays good money, over a government hand-out.

If the Government is BIG enough to give you everything, then they are also BIG enough to take it ALL away.

INVESTIGATION: Lena Dunham ‘Raped by a Republican’ Story in Bestseller Collapses Under Scrutiny

http://www.breitbart.com/

by John Nolte

 3 Dec 2014  16

***UPDATE: What media critics of this investigation are not telling you.
—
In her just-released memoir, Not That Kind of Girl, Lena Dunham describes her alma mater, Oberlin College, as “a liberal arts haven in the cornfields of Ohio.” After a month-long investigation that included more than a dozen interviews, a trip to the Oberlin campus, and hours spent poring through the Oberlin College archives, her description of the campus remains the only detail Breitbart News was able to verify in Dunham’s story of being raped by a campus Republican named Barry.
On top of the name Barry, which Dunham does not identify as a pseudonym (more on the importance of this below), Dunham drops close to a dozen specific clues about the identity of the man she alleges raped her as a 19-year-old student. Some of the details are personality traits like his being a “poor loser” at poker. Other details are quite specific. For instance, Dunham informs us her rapist sported a flamboyant mustache, worked at the campus library, and even names the radio talk show he hosted.
To be sure we get the point, on three occasions Dunham tells her readers that her attacker is a Republican or a conservative, and a prominent one at that — no less than the “campus’s resident conservative.”
For weeks, and to no avail, using phone and email and online searches, Breitbart News was able to verify just one of these details. Like everyone else interested, we immediately found that there indeed was a prominent Republican named Barry who attended Oberlin at the time in question.
Whatever her motives, Dunham is pointing her powerful finger at this man. But as you will read in the details below, the facts do not point back at him. Not even close. This man is by all accounts (including his own) innocent.
Nonetheless, even though she is aware of the suspicion under which she placed this man, to our knowledge, Dunham has yet to clear his name.
To be sure we weren’t overlooking anything, Breitbart News then took the added step of visiting the Oberlin campus in Ohio during the very cold week just before Thanksgiving. Here we interviewed a number of Oberlin staffers and students. Most were pleasant and helpful. Some less so. One adamantly refused access to documents and told us outright that it didn’t matter if Dunham was telling the truth.

In the end, Breitbart News could not find a Republican named Barry who attended Oberlin during Dunham’s time there who came anywhere close to matching her description of him. In fact, we could not find anyone who remembered any Oberlin Republican who matched Dunham’s colorful description.
Under scrutiny, Dunham’s rape story didn’t just fall apart; it evaporated into pixie dust and blew away.

One of the Most Powerful Women in America Cries ‘Rape’
After receiving a reported $3.7 million advance, Dunham’s memoir hit bookshelves in September with a publicity blitz usually reserved for conquering generals returning to ancient Rome. On top of the usual network television appearances and glossy magazine profiles, Dunham’s book tour not only sold out in places, but scalped tickets reportedly sold for as high as $900.
Just four years ago, Dunham was casting family-members in micro-budgeted independent movies she hoped would help her break through. Today, she is the toast of elite salons along both coasts. Every word uttered, every Tweet tweeted, every promotional or political appearance made, and every episode of Girls (the HBO show Dunham created, writes, and directs) is obsessed and gushed over — not only in the entertainment media, but also the mainstream media.
A name search at the New York Times yields more than 5000 results for the 28-year-old, almost exactly the same number recorded for Oscar-winner Kate Winslet, who’s been a star since Dunham was 10.
Although she doesn’t appear to have a very big or mainstream audience, Dunham is still adored by All The Right People and, as a result, she currently stands as one of the most powerful and influential women in America.
When no less than the President of the United States needed young people to turn out for his 2012 re-election effort, BarackObama.com turned to Lena Dunham.
What Dunham says reverberates through our culture. This obviously includes her rape allegation. The story of being a rape survivor led the charge and captured most of the headlines surrounding Dunham’s book launch.

The Rape
The facts of the rape as Dunham lays them out are found in two chapters. In the chapter titled “Girls and Jerks” Dunham describes an “ill-fated evening of lovemaking with our campus’s resident conservative.” No name is given, no allegation of rape is made. The man in question is merely described as a jerk who tries to get away with not using a condom during sex and who “didn’t say hi to me on campus the next day.”

The following chapter – titled “Barry” – opens with the admission, “I’m an unreliable narrator.” It is here that Dunham refers back to that night of “ill-fated lovemaking” and admits that previously she had not been honest with the reader: “[I]n another essay in this book I describe a sexual encounter with a mustachioed campus Republican as the upsetting but educational choice of a girl who was new to sex when, in fact, it didn’t feel like a choice at all.”
Dunham’s narrative choice to tell the reader that she didn’t tell the full truth before adds a powerful sense of gravitas to her rape allegation. The reader is left believing that the time for any rhetorical games, half-truths, or artistic license will now be put aside.
Before getting into the disturbing details of what Dunham says really happened that night, she sets the stage with anecdotes from her childhood about her misunderstanding and misuse of the word rape.
Dunham writes that she was 19-years-old at the time and met Barry through mutual friends. She met up with him one winter evening at a party. Dunham admits to drinking alcohol and taking drugs that night, including cocaine. She also admits that she took Barry back to her on-campus apartment even though, without her consent, Barry had just jammed his fingers into her vagina: “Barry leads me to the parking lot. I tell him to look away. I pull down my tights to pee, and he jams a few of his fingers inside me, like he’s trying to plug me up. I’m not sure whether I can’t stop it or I don’t want to.”
After ignoring a warning from a friend, Dunham tells us she still took Barry back to her place and then explicitly details a dark sexual encounter. Twice during intercourse she discovers that he has removed his condom without telling her. The second time she throws Barry out and, the next morning, she “diligently enter[s] the encounter into the Word document… titled “Intimacy Database.” Barry. Number four. We fucked. 69’d. It was terribly aggressive. Only once. No one came.”
Dunham writes in the following paragraph: “When I was young, I read an article about a ten-year-old girl who was raped by a stranger on a dark road… And I never forgot this story, but I didn’t remember until many days after Barry fucked me. Fucked me so hard that the next morning I had to sit in a hot bath to soothe myself. Then I remembered.”
Dunham then recounts that, after telling friends and co-workers about the night, she is told in no uncertain terms that Barry raped her. Dunham also claims Barry hurt her to a point where she later found it necessary to visit a doctor. We also learn about Barry’s very troubling history of violence against other women:

There was a story of him punching a girl in the boobs at a party… 
[and]
[M]y friend Melody tells me that once her friend Julia woke up the morning after sex with Barry, and the wall was spattered with blood. Spattered, she said, “like a crime scene.” But he was nice and took her for the morning-after pill and named the baby they weren’t having.

Dunham sums up the rape story:
“But I also know that at no moment did I consent to being handled that way. I never gave him permission to be rough, to stick himself inside me without a barrier between us. I never gave him permission.”
During her book tour, in an interview with radio superstar Howard Stern, Dunham replied with a simple “yes” after Stern said, “You were raped by a guy.”
Dunham is obviously describing an evil man who not only raped her but physically hurt two other women. He also comes off as a raging hypocrite: a big-shot campus conservative who runs out to purchase a morning-after abortion pill. Again, on three different occasions Dunham reminds readers that her rapist is either a Republican or a prominent campus conservative.
Dunham also goes into great detail to describe Barry. Here’s what she tells us — everything in quotation marks is directly from the memoir:
1. The name of Lena Dunham’s rapist is Barry. Early in the memoir, when Dunham uses a pseudonym, she informs the reader of that fact. She did not do so in this instance, leaving the reader to assume that Barry is her alleged rapist’s real name.
2. Dunham was a 19-year-old Oberlin College student when the incident occurred.
3. Barry was the “campus’s resident conservative.”
4. Barry “hosted a radio show called Real Talk with Jimbo.”
5. Barry “wore purple cowboy boots.”
6. The incident occurred in winter.
7. The incident occurred just before Barry graduated in December of that same year.
8. Barry was a “mustachioed campus Republican” with a “mustache that rode the line between ironic Williamsburg fashion and big buck hunter.”
9. Barry “worked part-time at the library… shelving books.”
10. Barry had a voice “that went Barry White low.”
Also, as National Review’s Kevin Williamson points out, Barry is not a common name. It doesn’t even rank in the top 100 as a popular male name.
In a relatively small school with fewer than 3,000 students, it shouldn’t be difficult to get a line on someone that flamboyant named Barry. Moreover, Oberlin isn’t just a liberal school; it is a famously liberal school where Republicans stand out like nuns on a football field.
Nevertheless, no amount of digging could verify even a single detail of Dunham’s rape claim.

Exonerating the Man We Call “Barry One”
Anyone with half a brain and access to Google has already discovered that, during Dunham’s time at Oberlin College, there was a prominent Republican named Barry who was politically active and quite well-known.
Breitbart News is not going to name this man. Instead, we will refer to him throughout as “Barry One.”
Last month, Barry One told National Review’s Kevin Williamson that “he has never met Dunham and had no relationship with her.”
Our independent investigation backs that up:
1. Dunham claims Barry raped her when she was nineteen in the late fall or winter before her winter break. Because Dunham was born in May of 1986, this means the incident occurred in 2005.
Dunham describes Barry as a “super senior” with “one more semester to finish” who went on to “graduate in December.” That leads the reader to believe her rapist graduated in December of 2005.
Barry One graduated in May of 2006. Among other sources, we verified that Barry One was still an Oberlin student through the archives of the campus newspaper and video of Barry One speaking at a school event in 2006.
2. Dunham describes Barry as sporting a mustache like a “big buck hunter.” Two sources who knew Barry One during the time in question confirmed that he never had a mustache of any kind. We also found two photographs and one video of Barry One during his time at school in which he’s clean-shaven.
3. Dunham describes Barry as having a voice that “went Barry White low.” Video of Barry One speaking for more than a few minutes confirms he had a normal pitched voice.
4. Dunham says her attacker worked part-time at the library. Barry One did work at a specialized library but not the school library (known as the Mudd Center). Breitbart News interviewed a staffer who worked with Barry One at this particular library. This person remembered Barry One quite well and chuckled at the idea that he ever sported a big mustache.

Breitbart News also spoke with another longtime staffer at the college and asked if anyone would describe the library Barry One worked at in the way Dunham did: as simply “the library.”
“Absolutely not,” we were told. “That library is specialized and off-campus and focuses only on [that particular field of study]. Unless a student is majoring in that area, it’s unlikely they would even know about that library.”
Nothing in Dunham’s memoir or college history indicates an interest in this field of study.

The Search for a Different “Republican Rapist”
Once it was clear Barry One was not the person Dunham refers to, Breitbart News expanded the scope of the investigation to the larger Oberlin Republican community during the time in question. Once again, not a single detail could be verified.
Though it appears to have since disbanded, during Dunham’s time at Oberlin (2005-2008), there was a small but organized group of college Republicans. Breitbart News spoke to an individual who was a part of this small group during Dunham’s time at Oberlin.

“There was only one Republican guy named Barry [Barry One] I knew of all those years,” our source said. “I’ve read Lena Dunham’s description of this guy and it’s definitely not that Barry.”
When asked if the details of Dunham’s Barry pointed to any other campus Republican, our source was emphatic, “No. Purple cowboy boots and a big mustache is not something you forget.” (Another source active in Oberlin Republican circles at the time said the same.)
He added, “I’m not saying Lena Dunham is lying. It is possible there was a Republican on campus who wasn’t part of this circle.”
A close reading of Dunham’s memoir reveals that our source is being generous. Dunham doesn’t simply describe Barry as a guy who votes or leans Republican. She describes Barry as “our campus’s resident conservative,” which clearly identifies him as a student with some stature on campus as a Republican.
Other than Barry One, who is clearly not the person in question, Breitbart News could find no record or evidence of any Republican named Barry at Oberlin College. Nor could we find any Republican who matched Dunham’s vivid description of her rapist.
If Dunham’s rapist had the stature as the “campus’s resident Republican” she claims he had, he apparently had nothing to do with the small group of organized Republicans on campus at the time.

Searching for Any Guy Named Barry at Oberlin
At this point, Breitbart News decided to widen the scope of the investigation — into the entire student body.
As mentioned above, in an early chapter of her memoir, Dunham informs her readers she’s using a pseudonym for an old boyfriend. “Name changed to protect the truly innocent,” she writes on the third page of the first chapter.
When Dunham writes of her rapist, though, she neither indicates she’s using a pseudonym nor puts quotation marks around Barry’s name. The reader is therefore left with the impression that Dunham is telling her readers the true name of her rapist.

In the unlikely event the Barry in question was unknown to the small group of campus Republicans, we searched for anyone named Barry who attended or graduated from Oberlin College at the time in question.
After a good-faith search through the campus newspaper archives and Oberlin College graduation announcements (available in the school archives), at least in those records, Breitbart News could find no record of anyone named Barry graduating or attending Oberlin College in 2005, 2006, or 2007 — other than Barry One.

What If His Name Isn’t Barry and He Isn’t a Republican?
If Dunham made a mistake about her rapist’s name and political affiliation, we turned over every available rock in an effort to find this individual based on the multitude of other details she provides.
A longtime employee at the Oberlin library could not recall working with any student with a flamboyant mustache.

For hours, over two days, using Oberlin’s physical and online archives, Breitbart News searched every detail of Dunham’s story looking for a thread that would lead to her rapist.
We found nothing.
This left only one stone left to turn…

Barry the Republican Rapist Radio Star?
In her memoir, Dunham informs readers that her rapist “hosted a radio show called Real Talk with Jimbo.” Even if Barry is a pseudonym and all the other details are, for whatever reason, incorrect, the name of a radio show is the kind of hard fact that should lead to whoever her alleged rapist really is.

According to our search, there are nearly 25 radio stations available in the Oberlin area. Only three of those are talk/news stations. We were able to confirm with the program directors at two of these stations that their particular station never broadcasted a show titled Real Talk with Jimbo. The third, WOBC, is the campus radio station and the most likely broadcaster.
On October 14 of this year, an email inquiry resulted in the following response from a WOBC student staffer:

Hi John,
Sorry I took a while to get back to you. I couldn’t find anything about the show, but you may have more luck asking the station historian, REDACTED. You can reach him at REDACTED@oberlin.edu or at REDACTED@wobc.org
Good luck!

Via email, Breitbart News reached out to the station historian but never heard back.
For obvious reasons, WOBC was a priority during our physical visit to the campus. We were referred to Sophie Hess, who identifies herself as WOBC’s station manager. After a short round of phone tag, Ms. Hess and I caught up one evening.

At first, Ms. Hess was pleasant and eager to help. She informed me that there are physical archives of the station’s program guides. It would take some time to go through them, she explained, but if WOBC did in fact broadcast “Real Talk with Jimbo,” the information should be there.
With the understanding that I would be supervised, I volunteered to do the work of going through the records myself and offered to shift my schedule in any way that was convenient. She replied that she would be happy to do this work and then inquired into the specific details of the story we were working on.
This transcript is based on memory and extensive notes taken during the call:

“An Oberlin graduate, Lena Dunham, wrote a memoir where she claims she was raped as a student here. We’re checking into the details of the story,” I told her.
“I heard about that but didn’t know it involved the radio station,” she replied.
“Yes, according to Dunham her rapist hosted this radio show.”
“Are there other stories you have written about this that I can read?”
“Quite a few [I gave her the website address and my name again]. You’ll see we’re a right-of-center outlet, but you’ll also see that unlike some others we haven’t questioned the veracity of the claim. We looked into what could still be done to get the rapist off the street. It’s still possible to press charges, but as far as we know, Dunham isn’t going to do that. Now the story is at a point where we need to check the details. If this guy exists, we need to find him. If he doesn’t, we need to know that.”
“What you’re looking for,” Ms. Hess informed me, “could create a conflict of interest on campus regarding sexual assault.”
“I’m not sure what you mean.”
“People here are less interested in justice for this kind of crime and more interested in helping the victim. I’m not psyched to help you do this.”
“You can look at everything I’ve thus far written about this. We just want to know the truth.”
“Asking whether or not a victim is telling the truth is irrelevant,” Ms. Hess proclaimed. “It’s just not important if they are telling the truth. If this person had wanted criminal justice they would have pursued it.”
“I’m not just talking about criminal justice,” I responded. “The details in the book point to a specific individual.”
“Who graduated years ago.”
“This man is easily found using Google and says he’s innocent. Right now everyone is looking at him and he’s just twisting out there.”
“Our archives are private. We have no obligation to share them with anyone. I don’t want our organization to be a part of this. I’m the general manager and the answer is no.”

And with that, Sophie hung up.
The next morning, my first stop was an early morning visit to Oberlin’s media relations department. No one was available. I left my card and on it a few details about the story. Later that afternoon, I received a voice mail from Scott Wargo, Oberlin’s Director of Media Relations. In my return message I related what had happened with Ms. Hess and said I would still love to have access to those archives.
That call was not returned.
A general online search and search of the archives of the school newspaper came up with nothing about a radio show called “Real Talk with Jimbo.”

Summary
Lena Dunham might have been raped at Oberlin College, but the “Barry” she describes in her memoir is a ghost.

The man we call Barry One, however, the man legions have found online using details published in Not That Kind of Girl, is very real. And what’s unforgivable is that, through an incomprehensible malice or a combination of breathtaking carelessness and a number of unthinkable coincidences, in the courtroom of public opinion, Lena Dunham is pointing her powerful finger at this man and screaming “rapist.”
After Kevin Williamson’s National Review story published, in which Barry One is portrayed as a stressed and worried family man being hounded by the press and terrified his full name will be published, Dunham responded directly to Williamson’s piece but said nothing about the innocence of the man she placed under this national microscope.
Rather than use this opportunity to clear his name (if Barry is a pseudonym this would have been an opportune time to say something), she instead condemned him through silence and made the “most unfortunate coincidence” of a man’s life all about Lena Dunham:
—

Dear @kmcdonovgh thank you for giving voice to what I could not say: http://t.co/zW9tiMPm6P
— Lena Dunham (@lenadunham) October 18, 2014

—

Some men are enraged by stories of sexual assault that don’t have clear cut villains, pimps or men with guns…
— Lena Dunham (@lenadunham) October 18, 2014

—

That’s because these stories force them to ask hard questions about their history with consent…
— Lena Dunham (@lenadunham) October 18, 2014

—

Well, we all have to ask hard questions. Grow the fuck up.
— Lena Dunham (@lenadunham) October 18, 2014

—

And I have some news for certain “news” outlets. No matter how much you thump your keyboards with your meat hands we will not stop talking.
— Lena Dunham (@lenadunham) October 18, 2014

—
It’s not unheard of for a 28-year-old woman like Lena Dunham to be this selfish and reckless. The real question is, how did this get through her publisher, Random House?
Meanwhile, Barry One has had to hide his Facebook page and retain an attorney.

Post Script:
Through various sources, Breitbart News learned that another news organization is pursuing other leads and individuals. One particular name came up twice. His name is not Barry, but for obvious reasons we won’t reveal his name. A thorough, good faith search did reveal that this individual attended Oberlin at the same time Dunham did. If this is him, two individuals directly involved in Oberlin’s Republican organization did not know the man Dunham describes as Oberlin’s “resident conservative.”
We could find nothing about his political affiliation, and the only radio history we could find belonged to a family member.
We were able to verify that this individual did not hold any kind of job at any Oberlin school library.

The harrowing rape and murder scandals currently unfolding at the University of Virginia are a potent reminder to women and the men who love them that campus sexual assault is a serious issue that demands to be treated seriously.
Based in part on her story of being raped at Oberlin, Lena Dunham has positioned herself as a campus sexual assault activist. This is a noble cause but one that should come with setting a good example.
Maybe Lena Dunham’s rapist is out there, and maybe this man voted for George W. Bush, and maybe this man did indeed hurt two other women.
What we do know is that whatever her motives, rather than cooperate with campus and local authorities (who are taking her charges seriously) to get a brutal man off the street before he hurts another woman, Dunham has apparently decided to instead hurl suspicion at Barry One.

Yesterday afternoon, seeking comment, Breitbart News left detailed voice mail messages for Dunham’s publicist at Random House and the person the publicist asks callers to contact if the matter is urgent. Those calls were not returned. 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC  

Read More Stories About:

Big Hollywood

Send A Tip

http://www.breitbart.com

Creepy Hell-Hound Trolls!: Media Blasts Breitbart Over Dunham Reporting

 

by John Nolte11 Dec 2014474

Let me open by saying that most of the mainstream and entertainment media have handled the Lena Dunham/Barry One story quite fairly. And throughout the week, we have published as many of those pieces as possible. The examples below are notable exceptions. 

–
For months Lena Dunham knew her memoir had plucked an innocent man out of obscurity and placed him under a cloud of suspicion that he was her rapist.
And she stayed silent.
For whatever reason, a very powerful woman and an even more powerful publisher (Random House) allowed an innocent family man to twist in the wind.
Those lashing out at Breitbart News for committing the crime of journalism never tell their readers that basic fact. It’s too damning, because her behavior in that instance is indefensible. The Daily Beast won’t tell you that. Jezebel won’t tell you that. Tamara Holder won’t tell you that. Even the Washington Post won’t tell you that.
Instead, they just lash out… we’re creepy and hounds of hell and trolls for committing an act of journalism… that resulted in some bad publicity for someone they admire… and the exoneration of an innocent man.
Although the Washington Post’s Eugene Volokh has published two superb pieces of analysis based in part on our reporting, on the same day the Washington Post published a methodical and righteous debunking of Rolling Stone’s University of Virginia rape hoax, elsewhere in that same publication Breitbart News was vilified for an act of journalism that resulted in Lena Dunham and Random House admitting a memoir labeled as non-fiction contains some fiction damaging to a very real person.
As Newsbusters points out, the Washington Post believes what we did was a bad thing:

The Washington Post explicitly sided with Hollywood feminist it-girl Lena Dunham in Thursday’s Style section with an article titled “Lena Dunham and the uncertain territory of memoir.” This is how we handle a crumbling allegation of sexual assault? Post writer Karen Heller lamented memoir writers are “held to some standards of reliability and are often subject to attacks if their stories defy verification.”

They played the don’t-pick-on-the-rape-survivor card, and Breitbart’s John Nolte and Breitbart were butt-kicking “hounds of hell” for trying to verify her tale of how “Barry” the campus conservative at Oberlin assaulted her[.]

Breitbart News has never once questioned whether or not Lena Dunham was raped.
Not once.
Ever.
Please, Google.
Or feel free to call us if you’re not sure.
Or maybe read the piece in question that closes by making it clear that our reporting was not about whether or not Ms. Dunham was indeed assaulted:

Maybe Lena Dunham’s rapist is out there, and maybe this man voted for George W. Bush, and maybe this man did indeed hurt two other women.

So let me repeat:
Barry One said he was innocent.
Lena Dunham knew Barry One had proclaimed his innocence, and she said nothing.
Digging into the truth of that circumstance is not questioning Dunham’s story of being sexually assaulted.
We uncovered a completely separate story.
The story of Power abusing the Powerless.
That’s not about right vs. left, or red vs. blue, or liberal vs. conservative.
That’s about right and wrong.
John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

 http://www.breitbart.com/

by John Nolte 18 Feb 2015

After hitting a series low last week, Lena Dunham’s “Girls” hit yet another series low again Sunday in the all-important 18-49 youth demo (total viewers hasn’t yet been released). Incredibly, only 385,000 tuned in. That’s a catastrophic 0.17 rating, down from last week’s already catastrophic 0.21 when just 406,000 demo viewers tuned in.
Last week, Dunham supporters appeared to want to blame the competition of the Grammy Awards. This week it’s the “Saturday Night Live 40th Anniversary Special.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that throughout the Sunday night, four season run of “Girls,” competing networks have and will continue to put programs on they hope will be popular.
Throughout all of season three, the lowest Sunday night demo rating was 0.34, which is double this Sunday’s 0.17.
How is this for a comparison: Against no less than the Academy Awards last year, “Girls” still managed 0.45 demo rating.
It does appears as though, despite the biggest publicity push “Girls” has ever enjoyed, Dunham is losing what was an already small but fiercely loyal fan-base.
Nothing is more fatal to a popular personality than doing something that negatively and forever alters the way your fans perceive you. Over the past year, Dunham self-destructed her own credibility repeatedly by stepping on the scandal third rail of Lies/Children/Hypocrisy. That kind of behavior goes beyond politics and culture.
How bad is a 0.17 demo rating? Ad nauseum in the New York Times and incessantly on every magazine cover in America, Lena Dunham has been sold, processed, packaged and pitched for years as the Voice of Her Generation. And yet, last week, The Voice of Her Generation likely pulled in fewer viewers from her generation than 53 year-old Sean Hannity and definitely fewer than 65 year-old Bill O’Reilly.
As of today, the science proves that Fox News is closer than Dunham to being the voice of Dunham’s generation.  
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC               

http://www.breitbart.com

Lena Dunham’s Mom: Women ‘Are Still Fighting to Hold onto Our Basic Rights’

 

by Daniel Nussbaum5 Feb 2015

In a feature for UK’s The Independent, Laurie Simmons, mother of Girls star Lena Dunham, opines about the pressures young girls face today and discusses her feminist influence on the young television actress.

Simmons is an artist herself, having worked for four decades as a photographer and painter. According to a feature on her work in the Telegraph, Simmons’ photography involves blow-up sex dolls dressed as geishas and Barbie figures placed in interesting poses.
Simmons told the Independent that despite all the progress women have made since the seventies, the pressure these days has been “amped up to a hysterical level.”
“I’m always shocked at how many problems are the same now as when I was in my twenties,” Simmons told the outlet. “We are still fighting to hold onto our basic rights. We are still paid less than our male counterparts. And this is just in America. On a global level, the continuing violence towards and injustices for women are shocking and unacceptable.”
In a 2013 interview with the New York Observer, Dunham said of her mother: “She introduced me at an early age to concepts of equality and gender equality that I really carried with me and that have been a huge part of my identity.”
“Lena was raised by two feminists,” Simmons told the Independent. “I would say her father and I have equally influenced her worldview. We’re at a point in history where I question what it would mean for anyone to say they’re not a feminist.”
Still, when it comes to Dunham’s work on Girls, Simmons was hesitant to say that she was a principal influence behind the show.
“I feel like Lena makes work that is honest in some way, with an eye towards what she really knows and has experienced,” Simmons said. “That’s what I think she’s most likely (and most hopefully) gotten from me.”

 http://www.breitbart.com

NBC’s Savannah Guthrie Covers Up Lena Dunham’s Victimization of ‘Barry One’

by John Nolte7 Jan 2015

For 6 weeks to two months Lena Dunham and her publisher Random House knowingly allowed an innocent man (we identify as Barry One) to twist in the wind under a false accusation of rape. You wouldn’t know that, though, from an interview NBC’s Savannah Guthrie conducted Wednesday morning on the “Today Show.”
 
Rather than assume the role of a journalist, Guthrie instead went full-fan girl and propagandist. Guthrie completely ignores the fact that  the details in Dunham’s memoir caused an innocent man to be accused of rape. Instead, Guthrie fabricates the notion that the media storm (that exonerated this innocent man) was meant  to “discredit” and cast “doubt” on the rape accusation:

GUTHRIE: You recently wrote a memoir of your life. One of the things you talked about was a difficult episode in your life where you talk about being sexually assaulted. And the reaction to that, in the media and in the public world, was strange. In some places you were attempted to be discredited, and so many so places  doubted. How did that feel for you to go through that on this public stage?

DUNHAM: It’s very difficult to share an episode that personal and receive criticism. What I received was only a small percentage of the doubt and victim blaming that most women who are sexually assaulted in this country experience. I am a celebrity with a platform and a lot of incredible support. Most women who come forward with accusations of sexual assault don’t have those benefits, don’t have my legal and emotional and financial supports. So for me, I really feel like it enhanced my understanding of the cause and hopefully will make me a better advocate and activist in the future.

GUTHRIE: And giving voice to those who might have been voiceless.

Guthrie then asked Dunham for an acting role on Dunham’s HBO  show “Girls.”

GUTHRIE: Let’s end on a happy note. Lot of great guest stars on “Girls.”  As for the yet unwritten role of responsible big sister, or girl five, I want you to know I am still available.

In what was advertised as a non-fiction memoir, Dunham gave her alleged rapist 7 completely unnecessary identifying characteristics that pointed everyone with Google to an actual person — an outspoken conservative Republican who attended Oberlin College at the same time Dunham did.
Dunham now says she made up those identifying characteristics out of thin air. She also claims that the fact that those 7 unnecessary details point to an outspoken campus Republican was just a “surreal coincidence.” Moreover, we now know that while Barry One was hounded by the media and lived under a cloud of suspicion as Dunham’s rapist, for at least 6 weeks both Random House and Dunham ignored pleas from  Barry One and his legal counsel to clear his name (see the timeline here).
Dunham and her publisher finally came forward and did the right thing last month, but only after a lawsuit was threatened and Breitbart News released an in-depth investigative report clearing Barry One’s name.
While the outcome of the lawsuit remains unknown,  Random House has agreed to ensure that future printings of Dunham’s memoir make clear that the details pointing to her alleged rapist are fabricated details.
Although no journalist has yet shown the courage to press Dunham on this scandal during her publicity blitz for the upcoming premiere of the latest season of “Girls,”  it would be one thing for Guthrie to join her cowering colleagues and choose to ignore altogether the controversy surrounding Barry One.
What Gurthrie did, though, was to intentionally and dishonestly mischaracterize the scandal.
Guthrie didn’t just gush over Lena Dunham, she lied to her audience.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC               

http://www.breitbart.com/

De Pasquale: Judd Apatow’s Random Acts of Outrage

by Lisa De Pasquale31 Dec 2014Los Angeles, CA

A few days ago, director and Hollywood darling Judd Apatow went on a Twitter rant against Bill Cosby. The Washington Post wrote, “Apatow’s outspokenness is rare among entertainment industry figures, who have remained largely silent on the allegations that have swirled around Cosby for years but have reached a fever pitch over the last several months.”

Yes, how very brave of Apatow to take to Twitter for his random act of outrage. I assume we’ll see a similar outcry against Roman Polanski, who actually has been convicted of crimes, any day now. As far-fetched as that is, it’s even more unlikely that you’ll hear anything but praise for his pal Lena Dunham.
Like many in Hollywood, Apatow’s outrage is reserved only for those who are unconnected to his career or who have already been demonized by the media. It’s not particularly brave to speak out against someone when the media is running interference for you. While Apatow railed against Sony for (temporarily) pulling The Interview, he urged Canadian theaters to pull Cosby’s performances from their schedules. The driving principle shouldn’t be whom Apatow thinks deserves an audience, but whether a business is free to make market-based decisions on featuring that work rather than giving into the whims of people with their own agendas and biases. That’s not to say that business shouldn’t be free from being criticized for those decisions.
The problem with Apatow’s appetite for outrage is that it’s selective and unprincipled. He’s the executive producer of Lena Dunham’s HBO show, Girls, but doesn’t demand truth and accountability from her.In addition to Dunham’s admissions about her behavior with her sister, new evidence suggests that she changed the story of a sexual encounter at Oberlin College into a rape committed by a Republican – two details that Gawker includes in a defense of Dunham. Those details were different in her book proposal.
Where is Apatow? Is he not outraged by Dunham’s behavior against her sister or nonchalance when it comes to rape accusations in order to sell books?
While Dunham’s story of rape “collapses under scrutiny,” Apatow’s need for truth collapses when it affects his pockets. I doubt he would be as understanding of those who want Dunham’s book pulled from the shelves or show pulled from HBO.
Reason.com’s Robby Soave wrote, “Given all these reasonable assumptions, Barry [the name Dunham uses in her book for the alleged rapist] is very probably a composite character, or a specific character whose key traits—like his party affiliation—were altered to make a more convenient villain.”
Despite the elitist media’s glowing reviews and profiles of Apatow and Dunham’s works, they are not brave for their random acts of outrage. They live in a bubble that’s free from criticism thanks to parroting the narratives accepted by the media. Of all the people who read Dunham’s book before it was published, none were “brave” enough to question her behavior with her sister or the story of Barry.
While it’s not breaking news that Hollywood darlings like Apatow are hypocrites, it’s still worth exposing. As the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

http://www.breitbart.com/

 

by Ben Shapiro 6 Nov 2014 679

This week, Lena Dunham threatened to sue TruthRevolt.org, a 501(c)3 website I run, for covering her new book, Not That Kind of Girl. More specifically, she threatened to sue us for “millions of dollars,” as well as punitive damages, unless we both retracted a story about her book and ran something like the following apology:

We recently published a story stating that Ms. Dunham engaged in sexual conduct with her sister.  The story was false, and we deeply regret having printed it.  We apologize to Ms. Dunham, her sister, and their parents, for this false story.

What, specifically, was false? According to Dunham’s lawyers, by quoting her book and then stating that she “experiment[ed] sexually with her younger sister, Grace,” “experimented with her six-year younger sister’s vagina,” and “use[d] her little sister at times essentially as a sexual outlet,” we had defamed her. Of course, all of those characterizations of Dunham’s activities were based directly on her book.

In her book, Dunham describes sexually abusing her sister.
She tells the story of “lean[ing] down between her legs and carefully spreading open her vagina…My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina. This was within the spectrum of things I did.” Dunham says that she was seven years old and her sister one at the time, but the other elements of the story – her sister had “stuffed six or seven pebbles in there” as a “prank” – suggest that the two girls may have been older. (It is extraordinarily unlikely that a one-year-old would be playing pranks by shoving objects up her vagina, and it is even odder that a one-year-old would shove pebbles up her vagina for her sister to find unless there was prior history of such activity).
This passage has drawn the most scrutiny, because it is most arguable as to its sexual abuse – there are some who claim that children of seven years of age investigating the genitals of younger children is “relatively common,” like Debby Hebernick of Indiana University School of Public Health. “That doesn’t mean it’s OK,” Hebernick added, although USA Today ran a whole article attempting to slough off the incident.

Of course, the media largely neglected to quote the other problematic portions of Dunham’s book with regard to her sister. In a second section, Dunham writes:

As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a “motorcycle chick.” Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just “relax on me.” Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying. 

How old was Dunham when she was bribing her younger sister to kiss her on the lips or “relax” on her in the manner of a “sexual predator”? If she paid her sister to dress like a “motorcycle chick” at the same time that she paid her for kisses, that would apparently make Dunham 11 and her sister 5, given that Dunham has tweeted a picture of her 5-year-old sister dressed as a “Hell’s Angel sex property,” complete with lipstick and fake breasts.

And Dunham writes, too, of masturbating in bed as a teenager next to her prepubescent sister:

I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old. She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me. I put on a big show of saying no, taking pleasure in watching her beg and sulk, but eventually I always relented. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out.

But we were the bad guys for calling this sexually abusive behavior.
Originally, Dunham went on a self-described Twitter “rage spiral,” writing that accusations that she “molested my little sister isn’t just LOL – it’s really fucking upsetting and disgusting.” She then added “by the way, if you were a little kid and never looked at another little kid’s vagina, well, congrats to you.” She did not congratulate those who did not dress their siblings up as sex properties, or pay them for prolonged mouth kisses, or masturbate in bed beside them.
After Dunham issued her legal threat regarding our original article, she went silent on Twitter. A few days later, she issued a statement via her friends at Time.com, in which she said that she did not “condone any kind of abuse under any circumstances.” She then added:

Childhood sexual abuse is a life-shattering event for so many, and I have been vocal about the rights of survivors. If the situations described in my book have been painful or triggering for people to read, I am sorry, as that was never my intention. I am also aware that the comic use of the term “sexual predator” was insensitive, and I’m sorry for that as well.

In her Time statement, Dunham did not alter any of her original narrative, nor did she explain why her behavior did not constitute sexual abuse. She simply said that her sister, Grace, had approved the writing. And Grace defended her sister by stating, “As a queer person: i’m committed to people narrating their own experiences, determining for themselves what has and has not been harmful,” and blaming “heteronormativity” for the hubbub.
That’s nonsense on stilts – we didn’t back off of Ray Rice’s assault against his then-fiancée just because she defended him. There are standards of sexual abuse, and Dunham’s behavior fits within them (huge portion of sexual abuse happens within families, and 31 percent of female sexual abuse victimizers were younger than 12, according to the US Department of Justice). That’s why even those on Dunham’s side of the political aisle are wildly uncomfortable with her revelations, including Samantha Allen of The Daily Beast, or Monica Weymouth of PhillyMag.com, or Sara Luckey at Feminspire, or Perez Hilton. John V. Caffaro, Professor at the California School of Professional Psychology, writes at The Washington Post:

Drawing a conclusion about Dunham’s interactions with her sister is impossible without much more contextual information about her family.  But, in general, the topic of sibling sexual abuse is more common than many realize and deserves much more discussion than it has received. Sibling sexual abuse is the most closely kept secret in the field of family violence.

If Dunham were a boy doing this to his brother or sister, everyone would rightly see her behavior for what it was – and certainly her lighthearted writing about it at age 28 would be seen as perverse. If Dunham were named Bristol Palin, the helicopters would never stop swirling over Wasilla, and the calls for prosecution would come from the same people now defending Dunham. If Dunham weren’t a leftist feminist icon, who would be covering for her now?
Dunham never even thought, apparently, that writing publicly about her behavior might be problematic. That’s what happens when you live within a leftist bubble in which your every sexual thought is labeled cute, charming, feminist, and delightfully subversive. But that doesn’t mean that suing those who disagree is permitted by the First Amendment, or that sickening behavior is justifiable.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

Washington Post’s Volokh: Did Lena Dunham Libel ‘Barry One’?

by Ben Shapiro 4 Dec 2014 1248

After Breitbart News’ comprehensive report debunking Lena Dunham’s reported rape at the hands of “campus Republican” Barry, the Washington Post’s Eugene Volokh reported that “Barry One” – the campus Republican tabbed by the media as the probable suspect in the rape – could theoretically sue Dunham. The Post tabbed Dunham’s accusations a “classic defamation case.” 

Volokh explains that Barry would argue:

1. Dunham said things about him that injured his reputation with some people
2. because some people reasonably identified him as the Barry she mentions and yet,
3. those statements were false, in that no conservative Oberlin student named Barry actually did to her what she says was done to her, even if someone else with another name or other identifying characteristics did this, and
4. Dunham knew that the statements were false, in that she knew that no conservative Oberlin Barry did this to her.

Volokh writes that Barry’s case would be successful. The only downside would be the publicity brought to Barry by the lawsuit. But given Dunham’s prominence, it would be well worthwhile for Barry to take her to court.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.