Twitter’s hashtag home for right wingers, #tcot, has dropped their beloved Confederate Flag (even though it was INVENTED BY DEMOCRATS HURR) to rend their garments and cry bitter tears over the TYRANNY OF AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE!!!
Here it is, folks — the hit piece on Dana Loesch Chuck C. Johnson has been threatening to post all day; he finally worked up the guts to go through with it: BUSTED: The Real Dana Loesch: A Hypocrite and a Fraud Lying About Andrew Breitbart and Me.
Hilariously, this whole brouhaha was started when Chuck and Dana got in a pissing match over who was really the inheritor of dead Andrew Breitbart’s “legacy.”
Yes, that’s right — they’re squabbling over who’s the sleaziest bottom feeder of them all. Pardon me while I put on some more popcorn. Can they both win?
Here’s a recording of right wing hero Cliven Bundy on libertarian Peter Schiff’s show, saying “the statement was right.” And he’s “wondering.” That’s all he was doing, “wondering” if “the nigra” was actually better off picking cotton as a slave. He was just, you know, asking questions.
Meanwhile, at the Bundy Ranch Facebook page, Bundy’s followers are still trying to claim his words were “twisted” and “taken out of context.”
There are new rumors going around about Cliven. We all know that with the media, words are taken out of context, meanings are twisted, and they can take anything and turn it into what they want it to be. Cliven is a good man, he loves all people, he is not a racist man. He wants what is best for everyone.
Wingnut demagogue Dana Loesch was one of Bundy’s biggest admirers, lavishing praise on him since the standoff began, but now she’s desperately making excuses. Apparently, Bundy’s main failing was that he wasn’t media savvy enough to keep these racist opinions to himself: On Cliven Bundy’s Remark.
I hope no one is surprised that an old man rancher isn’t media trained to express himself perfectly. He seems to be decrying what big government has done to the black family — which big government has negatively affected not just the black family, but all families regardless of ethnicity — so perhaps he included that in his remarks against big government?
Good grief. This is one of those very clarifying moments for the right wing. Nobody can deny all the signs were there long before Bundy outed himself as a throwback racist. Racism is an integral part of the libertarian far right, but the smart ones usually try to hide it, as Dana Loesch admits; Cliven Bundy is not one of the smart ones.
But the argument Bundy made about “the nigra” being better off under slavery is an absolutely standard mainstream right talking point; we’ve posted many examples of it here at LGF. The main difference between the standard conservative line and Bundy, though: Bundy used a word that clarified the real meaning, and turned the dog whistle into a high decibel air horn.
Tommy Christopher points out that breitbart.com indentured servant Dana Loesch has become persona non grata (unofficially, of course) at CNN, after her comments applauding US soldiers who urinated on corpses, and her underhanded sabotage of other CNN contributors. (I have a feeling, knowing CNN, that the sabotage was more important than her disgusting comments about peeing on dead people.)
Loesch’s ascendancy, aided by the rise of the Tea Party and the star power of Andrew Breitbart (as well as her own hard work and penchant for provocation), hit several other stumbling blocks this year. Following pressure from critics over her remarks about U.S. troops who were videotaped urinating on Taliban corpses, Loesch’s appearances on CNN dried up, although the network insists there was no connection.
In August, at the height of Rep. Todd “Legitimate Rape”Akin’s notoriety, Loesch tweeted Akin advising him not to appear on fellow CNNer Piers Morgan’s program, then “reached out to the campaign to confirm” Akin had canceled his appearance, and would appear on her radio show instead. Former Mediaite Managing Editor Colby Hall called foul, and Morgan defended Loesch on Twitter, but Loesch hasn’t been on CNN since then. Media Matters noted that, in an August CNN online article, Loesch is cited as a “conservative radio host,” and not a CNN contributor.
The network confirmed, in November, that Dana Loesch is still a CNN contributor, and multiple sources at CNN say there is no organized blackball, that booking decisions are made by the executive producers of each show, but that poaching Akin might not have endeared her to those EPs.
The incident with Piers Morgan and Todd Akin isn’t the only case in which Loesch or her husband have attacked and/or sabotaged other CNN personnel; in March, hubbie Chris called CNN host Soledad O’Brien an antisemite, and breitbart.com published dozens of articles viciously attacking her.
Tonight we have word of big trouble on the far right, as the Breitbrats begin fighting in earnest over the empire that Breitbart built: Talk Radio Host Dana Loesch Files Suit in St. Louis Against Breitbart.com.
I’ve been wondering why Loesch’s wingnut screeds haven’t been appearing there lately — now we know.
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.
The suit says that difficulties managing the Breitbart “media ‘empire’” or ideological conflicts or both had spiked the working relationship, creating a “increasingly hostile” work environment. When Loesch tried to terminate her work agreement in September, Breitbart refused and extended the agreement by a year, the suit says.
Here’s the legal document filed by Dana Loesch:
When the news from Libya broke, the right wing blogosphere immediately went into frantic conspiracy theorizing mode, circulating false rumors like hyperactive weasels with fully functioning human brains, including a ridiculous story that the Marines guarding the Cairo embassy were forbidden to carry live ammunition by the State Department.
This conspiracy theory is a blatantly obvious attempt to blame President Obama for something, or anything, even if they have to just make it up out of thin air: Wingnuts Falsely Claim Obama Administration Forbade Marines From Carrying Live Ammo.
Marine Liaison Alex Cross sent out this official response to the weasels’ rumors:
From: Cross, Alex Maj OLA, LA-41B
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:55 PM
To: Cross, Alex Maj OLA, LA-41B
Subject: Marines in Libya and Egypt
Ladies and Gentlemen-
The following information is provided regarding Marine involvement in the recent actions in Egypt and Libya:
-The Ambassador did not impose restrictions on weapons or weapons status on the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group (MCESG) detachment. The MCESG Marines in Cairo were allowed to have live ammunition in their weapons. The Ambassador and Regional Security Officer have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. Reports of Marines not being able to have their weapons loaded per direction from the Ambassador are not accurate.
Meanwhile, even though this idiotic false story has been officially debunked since yesterday, CNN contributor and breitbart.com editor Dana Loesch has failed to update her hysterical post to reflect the actual facts: STATE DEPT DENIED MARINES FROM CARRYING LIVE AMMO AT CAIRO EMBASSY.
When someone on Twitter pointed out that Loesch’s article was completely false, this was her response:
@aas3rd Are you illiterate? It was a story reporting the claims. Remove your lips from the Boil Lancer’s backside.
DERPMany people have been amused lately at “Gateway Pundit” Jim Hoft’s seething hatred of Todd Akin, most beautifully expressed in his post He May Bring Down the GOP – But Todd Akin Honey Badger Don’t Give a Sh*t.
Why would Jim Hoft, a birther who occupies the outer fringe of unfettered Obama hatred, spend his time bashing the uber-conservative Akin rather than following his usual schtick of race-baiting and science-denial?
Part of the answer can be found in Hoft’s immediate pushing of Missouri Republican Ann Wagner to take Akin’s spot in the primary:
We are hoping
@annwagner4senate jumps in if Akin quits @aceofspadeshq
Now that GOP operative Mary Matalin suggested today on ABC News that Republicans will run Ann Wagner as a write-in candidate against Akin, Hoft’s attacks on Akin take on a new significance, and I thought I’d share some of the backgroud with people who don’t have the pleasure of knowing the details of Missouri’s crazy GOP politics.
First of all, Ann Wagner is the ultimate GOP insider. She was an Ambassador to Luxembourg under President Bush. She was the chair of Roy Blunt’s 2010 Senate campaign. She was a finalist in the voting for RNC Chair. In other words, she’s exactly the “Republican Establishment Type” that the tea party claims to rage against.
However, when Wagner decided to run in Missouri’s 2nd district (vacated by Todd Akin when he decided to run for Senate), the leadership of the St. Louis Tea Party was split between Wagner and Ed Martin, a guy who had been with them since their first rally and even served on their leadership board. In particular, most of the grassroots leaders of the tea party supported Ed Martin, but Jim Hoft and Dana Loesch immediately jumped to the Wagner camp and started launching attacks on Ed Martin.
After Hoft started launching attacks on Martin, things got heated up. I flagged a number of the tea party’s criticisms of Hoft at the time. First, they pointed out the dishonesty of Hoft claiming that Ed Martin had attacked first, considering that Dan Riehl had written a hit piece on Martin on Big Government. Hoft also absurdly tried to suggest that Ed Martin was more connected to Roy Blunt than was Ann Wagner (who was the chair of Blunt’s Senate campaign). They even suggested that Illinois Republican operative Chip Gerdes had claimed to have written Riehl’s original attack article as a “warning shot.”
As mentioned at the top, Hoft was quoted in the first hit piece against Ed Martin that came out last August on Big Government. That piece, supposedly written by Dan Riehl, sparked a firestorm among Tea Party conservatives in Missouri. Upon questioning, Chip Gerdes, another paid political consultant, stated that he wrote the piece as a ‘warning shot’ to Ed Martin because of comments that Martin made on a Christian AM radio station.
St. Louis Tea Party founder Bill Hennessy also criticized Hoft in the comments:
I, too, am disappointed by Jim Hoft’s inconsistency and deception.
Inconsistency: Jim approved of Dan Riehl’s Big Government hit piece on Ed Martin some months ago—the one that rehashed old Carnahan distortions that 24th State shot down in 2010.
Deception: Jim knows that St. Louis Tea Party researchers, not the Ed Martin campaign, performed the research and supplied it to Daily Caller. I was present when Jim was told. By pretending otherwise, Jim seems to intentionally deceive Gateway Pundit readers.
After this post, the escalation continued, and someone sent me leaked emails showing just how crazy the discussion had become:
That is absolutely the case. These four (plus a Mr Mom stay at home blogger) have gone rogue, cut off all communication within the STLTPC core, disabled email accounts, stolen intellectual property, and LIED…all in the name of a candidate. Sad. Oh, also, Chris Loesch has requested an immediate cease of use on his logos…which include the St Louis Tea Party logo and the SOB (pirate looking) logo. So, if you have these up on any of your sites, please replace them with something else. He has never been compensated for the use of these.
And this, ultimately, led to Hoft and the Loeschs taking their ball and going home, officially kneecapping the St. Louis Tea Party they had used for fame. Hilariously, throughout the whole ordeal, Loesch and Hoft pretended to be “neutral” between the candidates while constantly attacking Ed Martin. They acted as tools of the GOP establishment, and inconsistently with the rebellious image they tried to cultivate for the tea party.
Sound familiar? It should, because this is exactly what they’re doing now for Ann Wagner. The establishment doesn’t want people like Todd Akin, who honestly express the views of the Religious Right fringe that make up the Republican Party base, to be front and center in the discussion, and Hoft and Loesch, for all of their unhinged hatred, are content to be tools for the establishment.
Dana Loesch was one of the first to get out there and defend Rep. Todd Akin (R-12th Century), and today on her radio show she ranted at the Republican Party for not following her lead and supporting the beleaguered caveman from Missouri.
Proving that there is nothing too dumb to defend for a member of the Breitbart Brigade, former tea partier, receiver of massive government subsidies, and conservative speaker Chris Loesch took to Twitter to claim that Todd Akin’s absurd comments about rape were “medically correct.”
In case you’ve been temporarily living under a rock, here’s what Akin said again:
‘First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,’ Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. ‘If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.’
Akin later claimed (implausibly) that he “misspoke.” But Chris Loesch didn’t think he misspoke. Chris Loesch thought Akin proved how “brilliant” he was.
A small sample of teh crazy from Loesch’s Twitter feed:
They are slamming an anti-abortion guy for stating a medical fact to support his stance? Oh wait, they are really just twisting his words.
Conservatives should know better than to buy leftist spin. I’m shocked at what I’m seeing. Context people!
@sevenlayercake what he said was medically correct. And nobody has the full video, he gets cut off. Sorry, don’t believe the spin.
@sevenlayercake I can buy a poor choice of words case. The guy is deeply caring & quite brilliant though. Deserves benefit of the doubt.
@jennyjinx So you don’t know that a woman’s body can self terminate a pregnancy due to physical or emotional stress? It is defense.
There’s plenty more where that came from.
I guess we should expect Liberty University to award Loesch with an honorary Ph.D. in Biology any day now.
So a guy upset about the Battle of Chik-Fil-A recorded a video of himself going through the drive-through line to get a free cup of water and express his displeasure about the company’s policies:
Yes, the guy was rude. And it was wrong of him to take out his anger on an employee who had nothing to do with the company’s policy. On the other hand, his rudeness didn’t really exceed what is seen in fast food restaurants every day, other than having a political angle, and it was mostly directed at the company, rather than the employee (although he did say, “I don’t know how you can live with yourself working here…you’re better than this.”).
Anyway, that didn’t stop the Angry Right from posting the guy’s personal info all over the internet:
Yesterday, the company where the guy worked, Vante, released a statement saying that he had been let go. The Angry Right, of course, cheered.
Dana Loesch, who less than a month ago tried to get a conservative Missouri prosecutor disbarred for disagreeing with her on Twitter, wrote the following:
While part of me wants to fist pump and revel in this schadenfreude, another part of me hesitates to celebrate. Sure, Smith is a doucher of epic proportions, but this was an individual on his own time acting like a doucher, not while representing the company. Companies don’t own their employees’ thoughts and opinions off the clock, unless, of course, that is your previously agreed upon arrangement.
The firing of Smith doesn’t change Smith’s personality or epic rudeness. It won’t prevent him from blasting another female employee at a business whose CEO disagrees with his political views. As far as feeling celebratory, I think I’m in the clear, as conservatives didn’t call for Smith’s head like we see on the left with groups like Color of Change. No one pressured Vante. Vante, a private company, made this decision themselves and, as a private entity, have every right to do so. I support this right. The community didn’t make the decision to fire Smith – they did. This is the difference between the true belief in free speech as demonstrated by conservatives and the beliefs of progressives.
I’m amazed Loesch seems to feel at least a little bit of remorse about getting a guy fired, but the italicized portions of the text are absolutely ridiculous. After going out of their way to post the guy’s personal information all over the web, and having people explicitly tell others to call the company and complain, they’re now trying to pretend that the company “made the decision themselves” and that conservative pressure had nothing to do with it? In fact, on breitbart.com, you can see commenters who left the company’s contact info on the page:
Of course companies always make their own decisions, but making decisions after being pressured is exactly the same as the campaigns Loesch calls fascist if they’re done by liberals.
The guy was rude. But certainly not any more rude than the way many tea partiers behaved in 2009. And there’s no way the guy would be fired for that level of rudeness in his personal life if the issue hadn’t been a political hot potato. While cheering for the “free speech” of Chik-Fil-A’s funding of anti-gay causes, the Right has managed to get a guy fired for having views they don’t like. And they’re proud of that.
The fired CFO now says his family is being threatened after his home address was made public by enraged right wingers: Interview With Adam Smith: Fired CFO Says He’s Received Threats and Wasn’t Give Chance to Explain Himself.
We had an exclusive conversation with Smith where he shared his side of the story. Here’s a taste of what he said (we’ll be releasing more later):
- He has lost his job as Chief Financial Officer at Vante. (Smith claims that he was not given a chance to really explain himself before being terminated)
- His family has been threatened with violence and death. (At one point, his email account was getting 3 messages a minute, mostly vulgar and threatening)
- Because his home address was made public, he cannot live in his house. (And Mr. Smith is a married father of four – two of his children are adopted, special needs kids.)
- Smith said that his original intent was to follow guidelines laid out in an online video, which included quoting a scripture.