After Election 2012: WWBD -- What Would Breitbart Do?

Townhall.com ^ | November 10, 2012 | Andrew Markus

[rdb3]

Breitbart was the man!

The pain you feel today is the strength you'll have tomorrow.

[Sherman Logan]

Or, the media will start reporting “new” information about Benghazi and ignore their past dereliction of duty on the issue.

It will be interesting to see whether the ideological or the personal career issues have more influence over them.

[trebb]

Heck - even folks who ask WWJD either get it wrong or ignore the truth of it. That being the case, I can’t figure out why we would bother to ask about what Breitbart would do...most on FR (and across the Nation) would have done the same as him, but it was never done ...

[Bon mots]

The US military is MUCH stronger then 1861. The succession would last minutes.

Who would the US Military kill?
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, he's going to murder his fellow Americans?

It doesn't need to be done with military forces.
We are a republic held together by willing participants, not a military dictatorship. It would be better to die free than live under a red Obama.

Of course, letting them know that there are many of us behind enemy lines, so starting to kill people is a bad way to settle differences.
Obama himself says it is better to talk with Iran, so he would prefer to murder Americans?

[Morris70]

State would be quarantined from outside. Citizens would not support state government . State government seeking succession would be SOL.

[RobinOfKingston]

There is discussion in this thread of the MSM (better term, legacy media) beginning to do its job, and investigate obama. Don’t bet anything you can’t live without on it.

A better way is to replace the legacy media. Breitbart filled massive shoes. He has to be replicated to stand any chance of, not just truth, but, the other side of the story to surface in an effective manner.

The legacy media is not your friend. Even for Fox, Fox comes first.