Justin's Political Corner

In the immediate aftermath of Breitbart’s death last year, at age 43, the Beltway media reflexively whitewashed and glorified his work and legacy, canonizing a reactionary circus barker as some kind of American Icon, a gonzo iconoclast, a conservative punk rocker, or a “Zany, Magnetic Media Hacker,” as Wired’s Noah Shachtman put it. Publications ranging from Time, the Washington Post and Slate sang Breitbart’s praises; scores of ambitious up-and-coming media figures burned both ends of the candle to compose the seminal Andrew Breitbart funeral tribute.

Some examples:

• The Los Angeles Times: “His genius was rooted in the realization that in the new media universe, being outrageous often gets far more attention than being authoritative…In many ways, Breitbart was a throwback to the subversive media manipulators of the 1960s, especially counterculture provocateurs like Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. They courted the media with bizarre antics. Breitbart often did the same.”
• Jack Shafer in Reuters: “I admired the way he ignored journalistic convention and the usual ethical standards to pursue the stories that were important to him. I admired his entrepreneurial approach to journalism and his disdain for the credentialed, self-important press corps.”
• Time: “Breitbart gave hard and must have expected to get it back hard. He came out of the American political tradition that if you cared about things, then you fought about them…Part of Breitbart’s legacy is a rise in the power of openly partisan journalism outlets and contested news. But if another part of his legacy–as exemplified by the first reaction to his death–is a rise in skepticism, alertness and critical reading of the media, that’s not entirely a bad thing.
• The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza: “Andrew Breitbart was complicated. He clearly saw around the corner of where journalism was headed but the ways in which he used that insight rightfully raise questions about his ultimate motives… If you loved him, you really loved him. And if you hated him, well you really hated him. Having met Breitbart on a few occasions and corresponded with him infrequently over the years, I can’t imagine he would want it any other way.”

This is how the mainstream press describes great iconoclasts, not paid hatchet-men and extraction industry tools like Breitbart. It’s uncanny how these major media obits synced with the rebel-washed image of himself that Breitbart pushed on the public, as for example this quote from his book “Righteous Indignation”:

“My mission isn’t to quash debate — it’s to show that the mainstream media aren’t mainstream, that their feigned objectivity isn’t objective, and that open, rigorous debate is a positive good in our society. Man, how I long for the days of Sam Kinison, Richard Pryor, Abbie Hoffman, Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, George Carlin, and Lenny Bruce.”

Slate’s Dave Weigel quoted that very excerpt in his Breitbart obituary; what’s interesting is Weigel’s smart decision to edit the next sentence in that quote:

“Today, the only people upholding their free-speech legacies are conservatives like Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.”

Weigel’s decision to edit out that sentence from his Breitbart quote changes everything — put that sentence in, and Weigel’s Breitbart is suddenly a lot less interesting and unique and trailblazing. That edit was emblematic of the mainstream media’s love affair with an otherwise garden variety GOP sleaze-peddler.

Breitbart, of course, had nothing in common with the comedians whose anti-establishment spirit he claimed to embody. Richard Pryor and Lenny Bruce came up from poverty and overcame anti-Semitism and entrenched, violently enforced racism to wield their wit against powerful forces. Bruce was hounded throughout his career by the FBI, local cops and eventually blacklisted from nearly every comedy club in the United States. Whereas Breitbart collaborated with the FBI and New York police to spy on Occupy Wall Street protesters. Perhaps the only thing Bruce had in common with Breitbart, who spent his career in a mostly uncritical national limelight, was his untimely death at age 40 while in the throes of paranoia and emotional collapse.

Breitbart, the adopted son of a wealthy West Los Angeles restauranteur, used his privilege to immiserate the most marginalized, impoverished, widely demonized groups of Americans. He was a faithful errand boy for rich, Scrooge McDuck tycoons like Peter Thiel, Foster Friess, and the Koch Brothers, wielding smear journalism against anyone or any interest that threatened their power — usually African-Americans or groups like ACORN, serving impoverished, neglected inner city communities.

There was nothing innovative or new about Breitbart’s smear operation. Indeed, he walked a trail blazed by the now-forgotten snitches and smear artists of the McCarthy era – quasi-eccentric figures like Matt Cvetic and Henry Matusow. Cvetic drank himself to death a few years after McCarthy’s fall; while Matusow recanted, was jailed for perjury, and spent the last decades of his life begging for money and working as a clown for children’s parties. Breitbart, for his part, collapsed on a sidewalk outside his home in Brentwood at the tender age of 43.

Breitbart’s Doomsday Machine

By now, it has become clear that in the months before his death, Breitbart had constructed a journalistic Doomsday Machine and programmed it for an apocalyptic episode of self-destruction. Perhaps it was convenient that Breitbart’s heart exploded when it did; as a martyr, he did not have to witness the implosion of his media empire or bear the responsibility he deserved for its rapid demise.

In the year after Breitbart’s death, his heirs and associates produced a string of grotesque episodes that have embarrassed even their own impossible-to-shame allies on the right, including:

• Spreading the lie that Chuck Hagel took money from a non-existent group called “Friends of Hamas.” What began as a New York Daily News reporter’s burlesque joke-hypothetical question to a Senate staffer was recycled by Breitbart.com editor-at-large Ben Shapiro [see below] and reported as fact from “Senate sources.” From Breitbart, the reporter’s joke traveled onto the Senate floor and nearly sank Hagel’s confirmation as Obama’s new Defense Secretary. Even after the story was completely debunked and disavowed even by fellow right-wingers, Breitbart.com remains the only media outlet in the world that continues to stick by its debunked story;
• In mid-March, Breitbart published a straight news story claiming that Paul Krugman had filed for bankruptcy. The story was sourced from an online news parody site, The Daily Currant;
• Also in March, Breitbart’s most famous protege, video smear-artist and convicted criminal James O’Keefe, wasforced to pay a six-figure settlement to one of the victims of his heavily-edited ACORN videos, which was deceptively re-edited to give the impression that ACORN employees were willing to participate in sex trafficking. ACORN was once a powerful community activist organization working in mostly poor minority communities. O’Keefe’s video, which was heavily promoted by Breitbart, helped destroy ACORN and ruin the careers of many of its employees. Other lawsuits against Breitbart associates continue, including one filed by Shirley Sherrod, an African-American employee of the Department of Agriculture who was fired after Breitbart pushed a heavily-edited video manipulated to make Sherrod appear as if she was anti-white. O’Keefe’s work has been underwritten by everyone from billionaire libertarian Peter Thiel to the billionaire Koch brothers and the billionaireFoster Friess;
• At the most recent CPAC conference in 2013, Breitbart.com’s sponsored panel bashing Muslims was considered too hateful and extremist by CPAC’s organizers and banned from the official CPAC agenda — despite the fact that Breitbart News Network is a major sponsor of CPAC.

Pull the camera back a bit further, looking back on the year since Breitbart died, and the same pattern of appalling failure, journalistic fraud, and malevolence repeats itself on a broader scale. The actual record of Breitbart’s legacy — not the manufactured, iconoclastic legacy cooked up by Breitbart’s fanboys in mainstream media, but his real legacy — turns out to be much less than advertised.

What Breitbart really left behind is not so much a media business as an asylum for fringe-right degenerates, a motley collection of depraved losers, beer hall rage-a-holics and downright freaks offering themselves up as mercenaries for the rich and powerful, taking dirty jobs no one with a shred of self-respect would consider. As hired-assassins who couldn’t hit the side of a barn if their lives depended on it, the unlikely heirs Breitbart once hired as sycophantic underlings come off as a comedy troupe of slapstick fascists — and it would be funny, if not for the powerful corporate forces sponsoring their attempts at sectarian smears and top-down class warfare.

“A Major Letdown”

The string of Breitbart.com’s epic failures began with Andrew Breitbart’s final act — what he promised would be his biggest bombshell of all, bigger than the Anthony Weiner boner-tweet, bigger than the destruction of ACORN or Shirley Sherrod. In a speech to the 2012 CPAC conference, Breitbart titillated his conservative groupies with what he said was video evidence that Barack Obama was a Manchurian candidate programmed and set upon America by Marxist Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. “Barack Obama was launched from Bill and Bernadine’s salon. I was there,” Breitbart snarled.

Looking haggard and swollen as he stood before the CPAC audience, slurring his words, Breitbart described the nefarious plot that his bombshell video would soon expose, bringing down the Obama presidency:

“the rest of us slept as they plotted, and they plotted, and they plotted and they oversaw hundreds of millions of dollars in the Annenberg Challenge and they had real money, from real capitalists. Then they became communists. We got to work on that. That is a parenthesis. Barack Obama is a radical, we should not be afraid to say that!”

The speech was just inane and incoherent enough to be taken seriously by Glenn Beck. It should have been a warning sign; it should have been greeted with derision by everyone in the media purporting to do their job — but they were too enamored of Andrew Breitbart, too easily seduced by his marketing power, his “brand,” his celebrity, his vulgar attempt at gonzo-McCarthyism… too intellectually insecure to dismiss Breitbart’s fake populism for what it was: race-baiting corporate propaganda, handsomely rewarded.

Less than a week after Breitbart’s heart popped like a water balloon, the heirs to his legacy were revealed on Fox News’ Sean Hannity Show. Seated together in a remote studio were Breitbart’s new editor-in-chief Joel B. Pollak, and his mini-me, a weasel-faced anti-masturbation crusader named Ben Shapiro. Before an utterly underwhelmed and clearly disappointed Hannity, the duo unveiled the dramatic Obama video.

What Breitbart’s young heirs delivered — what Andrew Breitbart’s corpse delivered, posthumously — turned out to be a monumental dud. The video showed President Obama as a Harvard law student, affecting the same relaxed, monotone-dull, soporific way of speaking that soothed voters in the 2008 election. The video needed explaining — the African-American Harvard Law professor, Derrick Bell, was a race- and class-war radical, Breitbart’s heirs tried to argue. And Obama hugged him — and embraced him.

To the average viewer, it was hard to get worked up over an arcane doctrine called “critical race theory,” which needed explaining. Jeremiah Wright’s rants needed no explaining. But Derrick Bell’s did.

The anti-Obama right was visibly angry. Hannity tried his best to contain his anger at Pollak and Shapiro, but fellow Fox commentator Juan Williams, the network’s token liberal, called it a clunker right on the program:

“I must say, I thought this was going to be so much more,” said Williams. “I thought this was going to be a smoking gun… But it really didn’t come to much.”

Even Glenn Beck was sorely disappointed — and his bar is notoriously low — telling his radio listeners:

“The Obama college tape — wasn’t that a major letdown? I mean I feel bad for Andrew that that was the thing that came out right after [he died] because it was a little disappointing. I think that’s because, you know, if you die you say to your wife, ‘Oh honey, I have something really important to tell you, don’t let me forget.’ And then you go and die. And then she finds the note. And it’s like, ‘Please remind me, I have a doctor’s appointment tomorrow.’ That’s really kind of disappointing, you know. Because you’re like, ‘I thought he had something really important to tell me.’ … This thing came out and it was like, ‘The. Last. Story. Andrew. Breitbart. Did: Very. Important. Video.’ And you’re like…[shakes head ‘sadly, no’] ‘Not so much.’”

And from there, it’s been all downhill for Breitbart.com.

Indentured Servitude Limbo

Part of the problem was the “talent” charged with pitching and selling the video to the public. Leaving aside whatever demons Breitbart battled with and lost, his legacy is a company racked with infighting, lawsuits, scandals, embarrassments, and is staffed at key levels with sexual predators, police informants, and genocidal sociopaths.

Right-wing radio host Dana Loesch, editor-in-chief of Breitbart’s “Big Journalism” site, would have been the closest thing to a number-two presentable face after Breitbart himself. But weeks before Breitbart died, Loesch had been put out to pasture from her brief stint as a CNN contributor after she came out in support of defiling enemy corpses. Early in 2012, US Marines in Afghanistan photographed themselves defiling and urinating on Taliban corpses, in violation of American military and international law; Loesch went on the air supporting the soldiers, adding that she too would gladly pull her pants down and defile their corpses if given the chance:

“I’d drop trou and do it too.”

Andrew Breitbart stood by Loesch, but he was alone; even Rush Limbaugh denounced the corpse defiling.

Problems with Loesch only got worse after Breitbart’s demise, culminating in a lawsuit she filed in late 2012, accusing Breitbart’s heirs of “forcing her into ‘indentured servitude limbo.’” Loesch’s lawsuit asked for a relatively modest $75,000 in compensation (given Breitbart’s billionaire sponsors), and demanded that Breitbart.com LLC release her from her contractual duties.

Loesch’s lawsuit, filed at the end of 2012, offers a rare insight into the chaotic and poisonous corporate culture that Andrew Breitbart left behind.

The lawsuit describes Breitbart.com LLC as “poorly managed” and describes Breitbart’s heirs as a “vindictive party” determined “to sabotage the reputation and career” of Dana Loesch.

Claiming that she’d been identified as “the face of the Breitbart empire” in the fall of 2012, Loesch’s lawsuit alleges “internal difficulties the new company had with managing the media ‘empire’” and claimed “the working environment for Loesch became increasingly hostile.”

Loesch claimed her contract allowed her to terminate their agreement with a 30-day written notice; Breitbart.com LLC responded that she was bound by the contract to continue with Breitbart.com, yet at the same time, denied her access to the website, effectively muzzling the media company’s only media semi-celebrity.

With Loesch out of the picture, the “face of Breitbart.com” title has mostly gone to the same two clowns — Joel Pollak and Ben Shapiro — who botched the Obama student video on the Sean Hannity Show, and started Breitbart down the long slide into the fringe-right margins.

And that is just how Pollak and his little sidekick Shapiro, a pair of ambitious celebrity-seekers, like it. Pollak and Shapiro both harbor deluded fantasies of becoming the telegenic faces and voices of the conservative movement. The only thing holding them back: their faces and voices.

The Dorm Troll

Joel Pollak was born in South Africa, and moved to suburban Chicago at a young age, becoming a US citizen by age 10. Pollak enrolled in Harvard in the mid-90s, telling a local paper that his dream was to become the Ted Koppel of his generation, with his own TV program like Nightline. It explains a lot — as the idealistic part of that dream soured, all that has remained is the childhood ambition to be a TV talking head; the content is fungible.

In every way Joel Pollak of the 1990s was a different creature, conforming to the politics and mood of the Clinton era: Photographs of Pollak as an undergrad show him proudly sporting an expansive “Jewfro” — he looks much happier and almost likeable, if not human, in his Jewfro. Pollak was a Democrat student activist in his undergrad years. Another photograph shows young Joel Pollak, with his Jewfro cropped, smiling as he screams in unison with other pro-Clinton activists protesting against the Clinton impeachment hearings.

We spoke to several former Harvard classmates of Pollak. Each offered a uniform description of an extremely aggressive, often blundering, always self-promoting character who knew no shame. One former classmate who knew him during his undergraduate years and then during his time at Harvard Law School told us the young Pollak idolized Cornel West, the former Harvard African-American studies professor, socialist activist and critical race theory proponent.

“He absolutely loved Cornell West. He would try to present himself to us as West’s darling. Some Harvard students like to collect relationships with famous professors so it was also part of that.”

In 1999, Pollak graduated Harvard, and moved back to his native South Africa, where he remained until at least 2006, working as a speech writer for a controversial white, Jewish South African politician, Tony Leon, who was accused by top ANC politicians,including former President Thabo Mbeki, of racism. Leon inherited a party that had been known for its comparatively progressive politics during the apartheid-era, merged it with the pro-apartheid National Party, and made race-baiting and fear a cornerstone of his politics.

It was while working for Leon that Pollak met his future wife, Julia Bertlesmann.

Bertelsmann was the daughter of Tony Leon’s close friend, Rhoda Kadalie Bertelsmann, herself a well-known columnist and political activist with neoliberal leanings. After apartheid collapsed, Rhoda Kadalie turned against the ANC and “majoritarian” politics, favoring instead the neoliberal politics of Tony Leon’s party, and its alignment with Ariel Sharon and George Bush. As the ANC veered the country away from the special alliance it enjoyed with Israel during the apartheid era, Kadalie Bertelsmann emerged as one of South Africa’s most fervent apologists for the Israeli government, authoring a series of op-eds condemning critical comparisons of Israeli policies towards Palestinians to those of apartheid-era South Africa.

Before falling under the sway of Tony Leon’s race-baiting neocon politics, Pollak was a Clinton Democrat. When he left South Africa in 2006, Pollak says, he had become an opponent of the concept of majority rule — which in the context of South Africa means opposing black rule.

No surprise then that Pollak explicitly equated his opposition to majority rule (i.e. black rule) to his opposition to America’s first black president, which he describes in “Proud To Be Right”:

“I saw in Barack Obama’s presidency the roots of a cult of personality. I recognized in the Democrats’ eager rush to consolidate political power, and to expand rapidly the role of the federal government in the American economy — adangerous majoritarian impulse that our Constitution, and my experience in South Africa, warned against.”

Pollack’s return to the US coincided with Bertlesmann – then 18 or 19, and Pollack a decade older – enrolling in Harvard. Pollack didn’t just follow his future wife to Harvard, but according to former classmates, he also moved in to her dormroom, along with her teenage friends.

As one former Harvard student described the situation to us:

“When she was an undergrad, they were living together in her dorm room. From what I heard, it was something that people in the house there thought was kind of strange. An older law student always being there all the time with these younger students—and being his usual obnoxious self who was not even low key.

“I know a few people who know Julia [Bertelsmann]…and the consistent theme is there was this really smart, promising, beautiful high school student and somehow she ended up with this guy. Dot, dot, dot, question mark – what’s up with that? It might be part of [Pollak’s] personality. He sees something he wants and goes for it.”

It was at Harvard, where he had enrolled at law school, that Pollak authored a new book denouncing Obama’s election victory, “Don’t Tell Me Words Don’t Matter: How Rhetoric Won The 2008 Presidential Election.”

“He goes up against someone big and tries to puff himself up,” the former classmate told us. “That’s kind of his formula.”

Ignored even by fellow right-wingers, Pollak’s book on Obama was published by an obscure, Illinois based company specializing in medical textbooks, HC Press — which happens to be owned by Joel’s parents, Raymond and Naomi Pollak. The future heir to the Breitbart empire was over 30 years old, living in his girlfriend’s college dorm, and tapping his parents’ money to attack welfare and Big Government handouts.

On campus, Pollak took on the role of ultra-Zionist enforcer, working closely with the pro-Israel super-lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz to stamp out any iterations of Palestine solidarity activity. Pollak’s pro-Israel histrionics were on most vivid display in a class taught by Harvard law professor Duncan Kennedy, one of the most influential and renowned legal theorists of the past few decades.

Pollak and Dershowitz both loathed Duncan Kennedy’s politics, a loathing made clear by Pollak’s own personal blog rants at the time. Despite that hostility (and the waiting list) Prof. Kennedy made sure that Pollak was enrolled in his class, and he hired Pollak his research assistant. On his personal blog “Guide To The Perplexed,” which still stands as a record of his strange college years, Pollak blogged critically, almost obsessively about Kennedy.

Fellow law students recalled how a class debate on whether armed resistance by a theoretical occupied population was permissible set off Pollak into one of his notorious fits of histrionics.

According to one classmate, “He came back to class a week later and slammed a hunk of metal on the table and started shouting, ‘This is what you people are justifying! You are supporters of terrorism! This is piece of a Qassam rocket that’s fallen near [the Israeli city of] Sderot!’ Basically his behavior was embarrassing even to the other Zionists in the course.”

The classmate added, “[Pollak] is just someone who, in everything he did, speaking as someone who’s known him over the years, the persistent characteristic is a very, very deep lack of inhibition or shame.” He added, “I don’t know if it’s because he received too much positive reinforcement as a child or what. And in a way, it’s kind of admirable – he’s always willing to say something no matter how ridiculous or inappropriate it might be in the circumstances.”

In 2010, after graduating from law school, Pollak declared his candidacy for Congress as a Tea Party challenger against Democratic, Chicago-area stalwart Jan Schiakowsky. Despite an endorsement from his former taskmaster Dershowitz, a desperate deployment of his mixed-race wife to brand himself as an enlightened moderate, and an embarrassing but highly entertaining song routine (imagine a Teabagger’s version of that folk singer from Animal House), Pollak was trounced. He failed in an election where nearly every half-baked Tea Party challenger destroyed Democratic opponents. That should have been an ignominious end to his career, but then Breitbart came along with a liferaft.

From Harvard Law graduate to abject political failure, Pollak was recruited by Breitbart to help edit his growing portfolio of right-wing smear sites. And it is there that Pollak’s story of shamelessness, bizarre twists and ethically dubious behavior reached wild new lows.

Genocide Ben

Since Breitbart’s death, Breitbart.com has been defined almost as much by Pollak as it has by his tightly wound little sidekick, Ben Shapiro, now the site’s editor-at-large.

“I know this sounds pathetic, but I’ve never been to a rock concert” —Ben Shapiro, June 17, 2011

Ben Shapiro — known variously as “Virgin Ben,” “Tali-Ben,” or simply “Genocide Ben” — has constructed for himself a biography that makes him look like some sort of prodigy wunderkind. One thing Ben wants to stress is that he was 16 years old when he started college at UCLA.

“I’m twenty-one years old, a heterosexual red-blooded American male, a graduate of University of California at Los Angeles, a student at Harvard Law School, a nationally syndicated columnist, a bestselling author…and a virgin. And I’m proud of it.” —Ben Shapiro, “Porn Generation”

Ben Shapiro’s most useful talent is that he makes Joel Pollak look sane, cool and relaxed. Shapiro’s job is to fidget nervously while holding his tongue, like his bladder’s about to explode through his nose — providing needed contrast to Pollak.

As boy-wonder prodigies go, Ben Shapiro sure picked a shitty career path. A real prodigy would’ve pursued a mad artistic or science dream, or cashed in by taking a job in finance or management consulting; but Ben chose to be a lowly Republican errand boy instead, taking an almost masochistic pleasure in making as much of an ass of himself as is humanly possible.

“There are at least 100,000 child pornography websites available on the Internet. Also available: incestuous porn, bestial porn, and with extreme commonness, ‘virgin’ porn — for those guys who like to pretend that their fetish girls really haven’t done anything before taping a hard core sex video. ‘Schoolgirl’ porn is especially typical — from ‘first-time lesbian’ schoolgirls to ‘organ’ schoolgirl porn. The ‘college roommates’ idea is also big; lesbian porn between co-eds is insanely popular. The idea that the porn industry doesn’t push men to look at fifteen- to eighteen-year-old girls as sex objects is ridiculous.” —Ben Shapiro, “Porn Generation”

Some of what Ben Shapiro publishes is fascinating for the sheer Freudian freakshow entertainment value. Some are downright bizarre and raise all sorts of obvious questions, as in “How did Harvard let a deranged lughead like the author of this piece into its esteemed law school?” For example, this Ben Shapiro-authored attack on the Supreme Court. It’s a piece of pure meatheadery, beginning with the headline, “When Justices Become Dictators.” It begins:

“This week, the Supreme Court of the United States once again proved that it is a feckless, dictatorial and altogether ridiculous body. Its latest spate of decisions reveals legislative usurpation, disingenuous deference and silly inconsistency. But, of course, what else should we expect from the court that tells us our Constitution protects pornography but not political advertising, sodomy but not the Ten Commandments, and mentally disabled murderers but not private property?”

Prose that deranged and clunky wouldn’t grade a “C” in your average Californian community college expository writing course. But apparently Harvard Law School’s admission committee read that and thought, “We have our new Oliver Wendell Holmes!” Either that, or Harvard Law has a quota for fringe-right nutcases like Shapiro.

That’s the black comedy side of Ben Shapiro’s punditry. But there’s a darker side to Shapiro’s writing that reveals him as much worse than a mere silly nutcase. Ben Shapiro is on record advocating genocide against Palestinian Arabs in Greater Israel. Advocating genocide is considered a war crime — Nazi journalists were hung in Nuremberg for advocating genocide, and Hutu media personalities who advocated genocide in Rwanda have also been charged with genocide.

Yet that didn’t stop Harvard Law School’s Ben Shapiro from penning a column, “Transfer Is Not A Dirty Word,” calling for ethnic cleansing — which is legally classified as genocide and a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

Here is Ben Shapiro, editor-at-large at Breitbart, advocating genocide:

“Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It’s an ugly solution, but it is the only solution. Any time the Jews get wise and threaten mass expulsion of Arabs, the Arabs pull out their big stick, equating Nazism with Zionism… Their spokespeople cry ‘Genocide!’ And the Jews cower in fear that they could be equated with their parents’ murderers. The Jews don’t realize that expelling a hostile population is a commonly used and generally effective way of preventing violent entanglements. It’s time to stop being squeamish. Jews are not Nazis. Transfer is not genocide. And anything else isn’t a solution.”

Actually it is genocide. And it’s the reason why Ben Shapiro came to be known as “Genocide Ben.”

Here, then, is Andrew Breitbart’s true legacy: His two leading heirs, Joel Pollak and Genocide Ben Shapiro, stepping in as the new faces of Breitbart.com to unveil the Obama student video that Andrew himself promised would bring down Obama’s presidency, just as he helped bring down ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, Andrew Weiner, and a handful of tweedy NPR executives.

But without Breitbart’s privileged Brentwood demeanor to make the smearing appear vaguely respectable, the Breitbart.com operation is being pushed further into the margins of its own conservative movement, as evidenced when CPAC banished this year’s Breitbart hate seminar to the unofficial margins of the CPAC convention, which already had enough hate and racism on its agenda.

Last Refuge Of A Daily Caller Scoundrel

What’s most fascinating about Breitbart’s legacy is that these two central characters — Joel B. Pollak and Ben Shapiro — are the best they have to offer. Look at the layer below them in the Breitbart media group, and it’s like pulling up the rotted, vermin-infested floorboards in a rotted old swamp shack —where degenerates and quasi-fascist maniacs permeate the entire Breitbart culture. Here you get a look at the late Andrew Breitbart’s true personal sensibility, through the pathological tendencies of his chosen heirs. The minions who comprise the Breitbart community include:

• John Nolte, Breitbart.com editor and blogger. Has repeatedly called for murdering teachers and mothers. During Occupy protests in November 2011, Nolte tweeted, “Teachers who take kids to protests without parents’ permission should be murdered.” In April 2012, he responded to an HBO comedy show gag involving a young girl by writing, “whoever this little girl’s stage mom is… she should be murdered.” When police violently cracked down on Occupy protests, Nolte was sexually aroused: “Dirty, filthy #OWS hippies getting what they deserve from cops = MY PORN”; “Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes. Dirty, filthy hippies arrested with bruises and gashes…”; “sniff sniffThere’s just something about a police baton swung towards the skull of #OWS that sniff chokes a man up. #ItsSoBeautiful”.
• Jeff Dunetz: Breitbart.com blogger nicknamed “Yid With Lid,” Dunetz, has accused practically everything alive or dead of “anti-Semitism”, from Media Matters and George Soros, to President Obama, and even corporations like Delta Airlines.
• Kurt Schlichter, Breitbart.com columnist. Advocated mass-murdering peaceful American protesters on board a flotilla sent to Gaza to protest Israel’s blockade; urged conservatives to arm themselves and prepare for war against the left because “Leftists want us dead. D-E-A-D.”
• Ali Akbar, Breitbart columnist and head of Breitbart.com-associated outfit the National Bloggers Club, is a convicted felon who was jailed and put on probation for four years for credit card fraud, vehicle burglary, and intent to commit theft.
• Brandon Darby, FBI informant who infiltrated young anarchist protest groups and ratted them out, leading to arrests and jail time for his former friends. Darby also spied on an Arab-American school teacher and peace activist, Riad Hamad, whom Darby claimed had asked him to launder money for Middle East terrorists. Not long afterwards, Hamad’s corpse was fished out of a lake, his arms bound and his mouth duct-taped; police ruled it a suicide. After Darby outed himself as an informant, Andrew Breitbart brought him into his close circle of friends, and had Darby accompany him in public demonstrations in support of the Koch brothers.
• James O’Keefe, convicted of attempting to illegally spy on a US Senator and forced to pay large settlements to victims of his manipulated videos which destroyed the livelihoods of several people.
• Lee Stranahan: Breitbart.com blogger who spent years peddling photographs specializing in many of Genocide Ben’s favorite fetishes, including bondage and S&M, and Ben’s fave,schoolgirl lesbian fetishes. Stranahan covered the Steubenville rape trial for Breitbart.com, tweeting out his belief that the rape of the 16-year-old schoolgirl was not “brutal” and that many women tell him that their rapes are not “brutal” but merely “non consensual.” During the Trayvon Martin murder trial hearings last summer, Stranahan outed the name of a witness who claimed she’d been sexually abused by Martin’s killer.

If there’s one thing Breitbart’s heirs can be thankful for, it’s that there’ll always be an endless stream of degenerate right-wing failures looking for an asylum they can call home. And Breitbart.com will be there to welcome them in, weaponize them for the wealthy right-wing, and turn them on the rest of us.

H/T: AlterNet

Two Republican members of Congress introduced legislation on Friday that would limit the amount of ammunition the government is able to purchase at a given time. The bill is a response to far-right conspiracy theories that the government is “stockpiling” ammunition, either to wage a war against the American people or to dry up the ammunition market so average citizens can’t buy bullets.

Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) will put forth the Ammunition Management for More Obtainability Act (or, AMMO) Act in both the House and Senate. The bill would require executive branch agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to maintain ammunition levels below the average monthly amounts that the agencies had before Obama took office.

Last week, another Republican representative, Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) brought up the “stockpiling” conspiracy in a hearing with DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano, who said it was “inherently unbelievable that those statements would be made.”

The theory comes from fringe websites like Alex Jones’s Infowars, but have been given a platform by Drudge, a site that commonly peddles unfounded conspiracy theories. Even some far-right sites have taken it upon themselves to debunk the claim that DHS is “stockpiling” weapons. Brietbart.com described the theories as “based more on panic than fact.”

h/t: Annie-Rose Strasser at Think Progress Justice

Shocking news. The right wing media misled their readers again.

That “Sandy Hook father” who was testifying on “the Hill” about his anti-gun safety legislation stance is not actually a Sandy Hook father, was not actually testifying on the Hill, and while he wrote to at least one right wing media outlet to correct their incorrect reporting, few (if any) have made the corrections.

Mark Joseph Stern at Slate reported:

On Sunday, roughly a week after Stevens spoke at the hearing and the same day the clip in question was posted, the Examiner reported matter-of-factly that Stevens’ daughter, Victoria, “attended Sandy Hook Elementary school, scene of the mass shooting in December.” The following day, Brietbart.com stated plainly that she had “survived the crime at Sandy Hook.” On Tuesday, the Daily Caller did the same, explaining that she had “survived the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary shooting.” We heard a similar story from Townhall.com, as well as from a spate of other conservative sites.

Stern noted that several of the articles went live after the correction was made by the father. The father emailed The Examiner to ask that they correct the article so as not to be like the left (insert cognitive dissonance here). See, his daughter does not attend Sandy Hook and was not present at Sandy Hook during the tragedy.

Yet, the Breitbart writer asserted, “Stevens’ daughter Victoria attends Sandy Hook, and was there on Dec. 14 when Adam Lanza committed his heinous crime.” No corrections were made anywhere except on the Town Hall article, written by their “news editor”, who corrected where the testimony took place, but left her wildly inaccurate title, “Sandy Hook Father: ‘My Child Is Safer at Home Where I am Armed’” standing with no correction.

Stern points out that the misleading video was posted on Youtube by the same people who are pushing the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory, which should have been a clue to Breitbart et al. But they’ve never rebuffed an opportunity to climb up onto the cross of persecution.

Watch the video titled “SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS”, upon which Right wing media hung what’s left of its credibility:

Let’s see. This same right wing media claimed that MSNBC deceptively edited the heckling video of Neil Heslin, an actual Sandy Hook father, testifying in favor of gun control. They claimed that the person who interrupted him was responding to an “invitation” to speak (also known in the civilized world as a rhetorical question).

This meme has now become fact.

Follow me down the rabbit hole of desperate false equivalence wherein you must pretend you don’t understand what “testimony” is and also never learned to raise your hand in school. Since MSNBC can’t play the entire tape of testimony, they have to make edits. They made a choice to include the last part of the father’s testimony before he was interrupted.

Right before MSNBC begins the clip, the father says “It’s not a good feeling to look at your child lying in a casket or looking at your child with a bullet wound to the forehead. It’s a real sad thing.” Then he paused, clearly struggling, before rhetorically asking, “Is there anybody in this room that can give me one reason, or challenge this question, (and this is where MSNBC picked it up) why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons.”

This is when he was so rudely interrupted. Still thinking what a great time this would be to impose NRA talking points on him? It’s obvious why the right didn’t transcribe what the father said in their claims of misleading editing, because then they would have to include the part about his child in a casket with the bullet in his head, and that wouldn’t sell the right’s attempt at painting themselves as the victim very well. Imagine if MSNBC had included that part — the accusations of politicizing the tragedy would have echoed off of the imaginary mountains of right wing persecution for months to come.

The father used the rhetorical question as a form of address. He looked around the room the way people do when testifying and wanting to make a point to all present. He was most likely referring to the testimony given by or via the presence of the anti gun safety legislation supporters in the room. You’ll have to forgive him if he wasn’t perfect at it; he’s under a bit of strain, having just lost his child in a horrific tragedy. This was not meant as an “invitation” to insensitively hurl NRA talking points at him. Really.

The same people who spent last week screaming about an allegedly unfair edit on the heckling of Heslin by MSNBC did not bother to correct their obscene attempt to use Sandy Hook for their own agenda. They incorrectly identified a man, who has been lucky enough to not have to see his child’s face ripped apart, as a Sandy Hook father. Stevens is not a Sandy Hook father. According to Stern, the right did this in many cases after the father wrote to the Examiner with the correction. Their articles still stand days later, uncorrected.

It’s easy to go all wild west tough guy when you haven’t had to identify your child in the morgue and you’ve been spared seeing just what kind of damage bullets can do to the human body.

h/t: Sarah Jones at PoliticusUSA

Dana Loesch, who claims to be the “Editor-in-Chief of Big Journalism” (this explains a lot), is suing the parent company of Breitbart.com. Apparently she was unaware that working for a crazy conservative media outlet would naturally involve “indentured servitude in limbo.” Hey, Dana, where you been, girl?

Dana claims her relationship with Breitbart LLC went “tragically awry” after they refused to let her work for the company or any other company, forcing her into “indentured servitude in limbo.”

Yes. This is what we expect from the authoritarians. That’s kinda what they stand for, Dana. That’s what all the fuss is about, re the war on women, unions, etc. Just a tip for the future.

The rabidly anti-union Dana wants at least $75,000 in damages and to be set free! Doesn’t she realize that as a conservative, she stands for “tort reform” which means making it harder for anyone to sue big companies? She is, after all, mere labor. Is Dana waging a class war against the job creators at Breitbart? Oh, she doesn’t like the job, they don’t treat her well? She isn’t trying hard enough. She feels entitled. Pfft.

This afternoon, there was news reports confirming that St. Louis’ leading psychopath and Teabagger loudmouth Dana Loesch has sued Breitbart.com. STLtoday.com (Loesch’s former employer) has the scoop:

ST. LOUIS   •   Conservative talk radio host and commentator Dana Loesch sued the owner of the conservative website Breitbart.com Friday, claiming that although her relationship with the news and opinion aggregating website had gone “tragically awry,” Breibart.cοm LLC refused to let her work for the company or anyone else, forcing her into “indentured servitude in limbo.” 

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court here, seeks at least $75,000 in damages, as well as a judge’s declaration that her contract had expired.
When Loesch tried to terminate her work agreement in September, Breitbart refused and extended the agreement by a year, the suit says. 

Breitbart.cοm LLC refuses to allow her work to be published and “sabotages” her attempts to find work elsewhere, the suit says. 

Loesch’s lawyers and a Breitbart representative could not be immediately reached for comment.

Loesch’s last Breitbart.com article was on 09.13.2012, via Big Peace.

(Cross-posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)

Breitbart.com: “The War Begins Now.” A Breitbart.com post titled “#War More Years” by editor Ben Shapiro belittled the Americans who supported the president and wrote:

The answer here isn’t to end the war against liberalism - a philosophy that will bankrupt the country in the long run and steal its constitutional soul in the short run. The answer is to fight back.

[…]

The fight does not end with retaking the Republican Party, though. It extends to the palace guard for liberalism - the media.

[…]

We will not heel. We will not stop. The defeat of Barack Obama would have launched the beginning of America coming together. But apparently, liberal America prefers to battle for the soul of the country.

And so we battle.

Democracy works. We still believe in democracy. We still believe in the power of ideas. But the only way to win in the battle of ideas is to fight the bullies, as Andrew did. Democracy is not blood; that’s a miracle. But the civil war for the heart and soul of this country is real.

We’ve made gains; perhaps we will even win the popular vote. In any case, the election of 2012 was not the election of 2008. But the battle has only just started.

The war begins now.

#War [Breitbart.com, 11/6/12]

NY Post Compares Obama To Caesar After Re-Election. The New York Post tweeted a post-election front page, showing the president wearing a toga and a wreath with the headline: “Hail ‘O’ Caesar”:

[Twitter, 11/6/12; New York Magazine, Daily Intel, 11/7/12]

Wall Street Journal: Obama’s Successful Campaign Was The “Definition Of Winning Ugly.” A Wall Street Journal editorial claimed that Obama caricatured Mitt Romney’s position “even by the standards of modern politics.” But, the Journal claimed, Obama’s strategy “worked with brutal efficiency — the definition of winning ugly.” The Journal also claimed that Obama benefitted from a “long run of extraordinary good luck” and pinned some blame on Republican appointees who helped Obama such as Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke and Chief Justice John Roberts:

[Obama] said little during the campaign about his first term and even less about his plans for a second. Instead his strategy was to portray Mitt Romney as a plutocrat and intolerant threat to each of those voting blocs. No contraception for women. No green cards for immigrants. A return to Jim Crow via voter ID laws. No Pell grants for college.

This was all a caricature even by the standards of modern politics. But it worked with brutal efficiency—the definition of winning ugly. Mr. Obama was able to patch together just enough of these voting groups to prevail even as he lost independents and won only 40% of the overall white vote, according to the exit polls. His campaign’s turnout machine was as effective as advertised in getting Democratic partisans to the polls.

Mr. Obama also benefitted from his long run of extraordinary good luck. Hurricane Sandy devastated the Northeast a week before Election Day, letting him rise for a few days above the partisanship that has defined his first term. The storm changed the campaign conversation and blunted Mr. Romney’s momentum. The exit polls show that late-deciders went for the incumbent this year when they typically break for the challenger.

The President owes a debt as well to a pair of Republican appointees in government—John Roberts and Ben Bernanke. By joining four liberals on the Supreme Court in upholding ObamaCare in June, Chief Justice Roberts provided a salve of legitimacy to the President’s deeply unpopular health-care law. It also helped him unify his party around something to protect in an otherwise aimless second term. [The Wall Street Journal, 11/7/12]

Fox’s Todd Starnes: Time To Impeach Obama. Fox News Radio reporter Todd Starnes wrote that Republicans should begin “impeachment proceedings” after Obama’s re-election:

[Twitter, 11/6/12]

Fox Regular Trump: “We Should Have A Revolution.” Regular Fox News guest Donald Trump tweeted twice that America needs a revolution after the president’s re-election. Trump later deleted the tweets.

[Media Matters, 11/7/12]

Fox Host Brian Kilmeade: “We’re The Shallowest Country In The History Of Man.” Discussing exit polls that found voters approved of Obama’s handling of the response to Hurricane Sandy, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade attacked people who said their votes were swayed by Sandy:

STEVE DOOCY: (co-host): The October surprise turned out to be something named Sandy.

HEATHER NAUERT (Fox News host): Yeah, who would have thunk that, right? Well, 42 percent of those people we spoke with said the response to the storm was an important issue, and 15 percent said it was the most important issue. So this may have become —

GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): I can’t believe those numbers.

NAUERT: Yeah. This may have become a national issue in fact.

KILMEADE: Then we’re the shallowest country in the history of man. One photo-op, walking over a two-by-four, and all of a sudden, he’s handling a storm, which by the way hasn’t been handled well. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/7/12, via Media Matters]

Washington Times Columnist Ted Nugent: “Pimps Whores & Welfare Brats” Now Have A President To “Destroy America.” Washington Times columnist and NRA board member Ted Nugent tweeted in reaction to the president’s re-election that “pimps whores & welfare brats & their soulless supporters” won the election:

[Twitter, 11/7/12]

WND’s Farah: “We Have Allowed Our Fellow Americans To Pronounce Judgment On The Nation.”WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah wrote in his column following the election that Obama’s re-election shows Americans “have turned away from” God and the founders:

For those of us who fundamentally reject Obama’s policies, things are going to get very rough for the next four years. We have allowed our fellow Americans to pronounce judgment on the nation.

That’s what Obama represents to me - God’s judgment on a people who have turned away from Him and His ways and from everything for which our founders sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

[…]

When you turn away from the ways of God Almighty, this is what you should expect, if you are a student of the Bible and history. [WND, 11/7/12]

NRO’s Steyn: “If This Is The Way American Wants To Go Off The Cliff, So Be It” In a blog post for National Review Online titled, “Live Free … Or Die,” conservative columnist and guest host of The Rush Limbaugh Show Mark Steyn wrote about Obama’s victory in New Hampshire and concluded: “If this is the way America wants to go off the cliff, so be it.” [National Review Online, 11/6/12]

h/t: MMFA

Right-wing bloggers are falsely claiming that Joe Biden is “lying” about having played football at the University of Delaware. Contrary to their claims, several newspapers have interviewed people who knew Biden while he played freshman football at Delaware.

Gateway Pundit, National Review Online, and the Daily Caller picked up a post from Breitbart and claimed that it was evidence that Biden didn’t play football at Delaware and is “lying” about it.

More than 20 years of reporting debunks this claim. For instance, a 1987 Washington Post article retrieved from the Nexis database quoted Biden’s father, Joe Biden Sr., saying that he made his son leave the team because of poor grades after his freshman season. A 1987 Los Angeles Times article reported that Biden’s college roommate said the same thing (via Nexis):

“He probably never studied as hard as other people did,” recalled Biden’s roommate at the University of Delaware, Donald Brunner, now a senior vice president with J. P. Morgan. Brunner and Biden both played football as freshmen, but Biden then quit the team, Brunner said, under pressure from his father, who thought that he was devoting too much time to sports and not enough to books.

In 2008, The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware, published an article about Biden’s high school and college football days. One of Biden’s teammates at Delaware, Jack Istnick, recounted a story from practice (article available for purchase here):

Every now and then, the freshman players would help the varsity practice.

One day, Biden and Jack Istnick were shagging punts for the varsity so it could work on its kick-coverage teams. This was done at full speed with full contact. The ball was kicked to Biden, who got “absolutely leveled,” Istnick said, “mainly because I didn’t block anyone.”

“The [freshman] coach, Scottie Duncan, looked at me and looked at Joe lying on the ground and said to me, ‘Don’t you like him?’ “

The Breitbart post uses an ellipsis-laden quote from a September 8 speech Biden made at Ohio University as evidence that he lied specifically about having played in a football game there in 1963:

“I came … I was a football player … I came here in 1963 … and we beat you Bobcats, 29-12,” Biden said.  

BIDEN: Well, I want to tell you, I came — I was a football pl— I came — I came here in 1963. And I had to go back — I just double-checked my memory. You know, you get my age, you’re not so sure [unintelligible]. You know, your glory days look more glorious than they really were and all that.

So, we went back on the Internet, and I just want you to know I came here in — on October 19, 1963, and we beat you Bobcats, 29-12. Now, wait a minute, now, wait a minute. And that’s why I was so happy, I was so happy that when the Bobcats went to Happy Valley, they learned what a bobcat was. Because now, I’ve got bragging rights. Y’all beat Penn State, and so I can say, “Well, they beat Penn State, and 500 years ago, we beat them once.”

[video break]

BIDEN: The last time I was here, I want to make clear to the press, I didn’t get arrested, but I almost did. Because back in those days — you students won’t appreciate this — men weren’t allowed anywhere near a woman’s dorm. And I got invited into a dorm. I thought I was walking into the — into the — into the waiting room. I got brought into the hallway. And I got escorted out very quickly by an Athens policeman. But — so — true story, unfortunately.

h/t: MMFA

Labor Day, a time where labor union groups celebrate their hard-workingness and widely considered the symbolic end of the Summer season, is a time to celebrate the labor movement in America.

Dana Loesch (like the rest of the RWNJs and the #TCOT Brigade), on the other hand, wants to use Labor Day as a way to scapegoat and trash on unions and even take cheap shots at the OWS movement.

Big Government: 

Even though Labor Day was created to honor all workers, it seems St. Louis public sector workers believe that the holiday is theirs exclusively. The theme that St. Louis labor used for their Labor Day Parade was borrowed from the criminal Occupy movement: We are the 99%.  

In reality, they are the 11% considering that just that small number of the workforce is unionized labor, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But hey, math. You wouldn’t know it watching them march through the streets; it seemed the goal of the parade was to attack private sector workers. It was a blatantly political event, with support for Democrat candidates evident throughout the parade and parade-goer signs repeating the “you didn’t build that” refrain which has cost President Obama support from small business owners. 

I’m not sure why non-union private sector workers are demonized by big labor when they private sector is burdened with the responsibility of their own overhead plus the cost of the public sector. When union bosses like Trumka, Stern, and Hoffa Jr. support the policies of an administration that has caused 41 straight months of +8% unemployment and a devalued American dollar, it’s difficult for the private sector to meet the demands placed upon them — especially when they were deliberately excluded from having any say whatsoever in the negations. Union bosses and politicians game the system to foster resentment towards the private sector when they can’t meet the demands made of them by the same bosses and politicians. 

The Mayor has been very tolerant of the criminal Occupy movement in St. Louis, even after they vandalized numerous historic structures and even vandalized the homes of city employees as retribution for the city ending their hipster camping demonstration downtown. 

Being in a union is patriotic, and being a teabagging liar is not.

(Cross-posted from DanaBusted.Blogspot.com)

Oh, the embarassment! CNN “contribtuor” and Akin apologist Dana Loesch is falsely implying that the “Democrats want to control women.” From Big Government:

Democrats are desperate to change the subject from their losing battle on Medicare to government control of health. GOP Senate Candidate Todd Akin made a ridiculous comment regarding his opinion on rape and abortion after which Democrat incumbent Claire McCaskill and the DNC claimed that Akin wants to control women’s bodies. This coming from the woman and party who championed Obamacare, a law that will legitimately control all women’s bodies, and men’s bodies, too.  

Under Obamacare women’s decisions on their health will be overseen by a litany of bureaucrats.  

Claire McCaskill invited Uncle Sam into the doctor examination rooms of millions of American women by championing Obamacare. This isn’t her opinion, it’s not “misspeech,”she made it law. 

This, of course, is a big fat 5-star lie by Loesch. In fact, the PPACA benefits women.

Eric Boehlert, Loesch’s primary nemesis, takes down both her and fellow contributor Erick Erickson down a few pegs, via MMFA:

Thanks to Erickson and Loesch, CNN today is associated with a radical position on the Akin story that outflanks anything even Fox News commentators are saying about the controversy.  

This is the price CNN continues to pay for wanting so badly to be connected with representative of the right-wing press. Perhaps in search of shields to protect itself from the incessant whines about “liberal media bias,” CNN’s decision to legitimize the strange views of Loesch and Erickson remains a deeply misguided one. 

Akin’s comments about women not really being in danger of becoming pregnant during a rape because their bodies instinctively “shut that whole thing down” were so outrageous that many conservative commentatorsquickly condemned him, even demanding Akin step down as the Republican candidate challenging Democrat Claire McCaskill. 

More on Loesch’s deliberate falsehoods on the “war on women” and attacks on women:
LGF: Dana and Chris Loesch Defend Akin’s ‘Legitimate Rape’ Comments 
Dana Busted: Clueless moron Dana Loesch defends Todd Akin’s “Legitimate Rape” comment 
Dana Busted: Anti-choice liar Dana Loesch criticizes Lisa Brown’s Vagina Monologues speech
Dana Busted: Loesch on KFTK’s The Dana Show: “Progressive Women Suffer From ‘Fake Leg Syndrome.’” 
Dana Busted: GOP flunky Dana Loesch continues to misleadingly accuse the Dems of “pushing a ‘war on women’”
Dana Busted: Loesch defends Kleefisch and Walker from possible recalls
Dana Busted: Loesch visits Chicago, still baselessly claims the “Democrats have a war on [conservative] women” 
Dana Busted: Loesch visits Madison, Wisconsin, and lies her butt off 
Dana Busted: Dana Loesch STILL falsely accusing the “Dems of starting the War on Moms’ 
Dana Busted: Loesch falsely trumpets the “Democrats have declared war on [conservative] mothers” 
Media Matters for America: Dana Loesch’s constant smears against Sandra Fluke 
Dana Busted: Loesch falsely accuses the Dems of “playing political games with VAWA” 
Dana Busted: Big Journalism’s Loesch falsely accuses Jan Schakowsky of “validating misogyny” 
Dana Busted: Loesch defends the sexist Oxycontin Smuggling Hypocrite’s attacks on Sandra Fluke 
Dana Busted: Outright moron Loesch still lying about Sandra Fluke 
Dana Busted: On her radio show, Loesch ridicules college-aged women for supporting access to contraception
Dana Busted: Anti-choice whacko Dana Loesch defends Virginia’s horrid extremist Ultrasound Law
Dana Busted: Loesch’s recent lunacy continues on trucking
Dana Busted: Loesch lies on ABC’s This Week on everything
Dana Busted: Anti-Choice liar Loesch: “Liberals only care about breast cancer to push their pro-abortion agenda”
Dana Busted: More anti-choice propaganda from Dana Loesch 
Media Matters: Loesch and guest Katz bash Michelle Obama 
Media Matters: On The Dana Show, Loesch Claims “Democrats Use Women As Prostitutes For Votes” 
LGF: CNN and KFTK’s Dana Loesch Equates Mandatory Trans-Vaginal Ultrasound to Having Sex 
Media Matters: Limbaugh, Loesch join chorus blaming MoveOn for activist beating

(Cross-Posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)

On her Big Government blogpost at Breitbart.com, Paul Ryan cheerleader Dana Loesch is falsely claiming that “Obama, not Ryan, cut Medicare.” We know that’s a flat-out lie, as Ryan’s proposed budget plan DOES gut Medicare. 

Big Government:

The Obama campaign went after Congressman Paul Ryan over the weekend, claiming that he wanted to push old people off of cliffs by gutting their Medicare. The problem with that false narrative comes by way of Cutter Shambles, the Deputy Campaign Manager for Obama’s reelection effort:  

Cutter demonstrates a rare bit of honesty here: President Obama did gut Medicare with his health care law. It was part of the fuzzy math employed to make Obamacare look less expensive than the real price tag. Sacrificing seniors for headlines.  

Democrats apparently think we voters have forgotten their debunked scare tactics from 2011. Their inability to evolve their rhetoric from this point shows how desperate the campaign is and how scared they are after the Ryan announcement. 

(Cross-Posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)

Dan Riehl is a right-wing blogger who posts regularly at Breitbart.com. Today on Twitter, he attacked Salon.com editor at large Joan Walsh with references to oral sex:

Riehl regularly says ugly things:

Conservative Blogger Riehl: Cain Is A “Jive Talking Huckster”

Right-wing sexism: Meghan McCain attacked as a “self-indulgent set of mega-breasts”

Riehl: “I’d have taken a coat hanger” to Media Matters

Dan Riehl: “Isn’t It Time To Euthanize Reid’s Wife?”

h/t: MMFA

Let’s face it, conservatives are becoming more desperate and delusional every day. They hate their nominee for president and, in order to avoid the unthinkable prospect of President Obama’s reelection, they are literally hallucinating as they report on campaign events.

The Fox Nation posted an article they sourced from Twitter (that’s right, the anonymous news pros at Twitter) that featured a photo taken at Obama’s rally in Ohio yesterday. The headline reads “Not The ‘Overflow’ Crowd Obama Hoped For.” However, the photo contradicts the headline by showing thousands of supporters in the stadium’s stands. While it does not appear to be a full house, it is clearly well-attended. Officials estimated the crowd to be approximately 14,000. It should also be noted that the Twitter photo appears to have been taken prior to the start of the rally as other photos show the area in front of the stage to be packed with supporters.

h/t: NewsCorpse