(If you can’t see the MP4 video above, click below.)

Today at right wing propaganda outlet Breitbart.com, there are no less than 14 front-page articles (there may be more by the time you read this) attacking Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel in every possible way; I haven’t seen the Breitbrats this worked up since last November.

And they’re also up to the same old tricks again, misrepresenting an opinion piece in the Boston Herald as an official editorial: BOSTON HERALD TO OBAMA: WITHDRAW HAGEL. (h/t: Mark.)

Breitbart “News” says:

Monday night, the Boston Herald ran an editorial calling for President Obama to pull Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel…

But here’s the page at the Boston Herald: Prez Should Pull Hagel’s Nomination. It’s clearly labeled as an Op-Ed in their Opinion category, and it’s by Peter Brookes, who is not a Boston Herald editor but … wait for it … a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Is this just the usual no-standards Breitbart sloppiness, or are they deliberately misrepresenting the op-ed? It really doesn’t matter, because for all their thrashing and lying and smearing, Chuck Hagel is going to be confirmed as the next Secretary of Defense: Chuck Hagel Clears Senate Hurdle Toward Confirmation.

The Senate voted 71-27 on Tuesday to end debate on Chuck Hagel’s nomination to become secretary of Defense, ending a Republican campaign that forced Democrats to fight for every step toward confirmation, which is expected later in the day.

I think the Breitbrats may actually have helped Hagel get the SecDef job. Between them and the McCarthy-like ranting of Ted Cruz, the right really made themselves look like deranged buffoons… and all over someone who is basically a mainstream Republican. (Or what used to be mainstream, anyway.)

After being exposed as hacks without standards this week (again), the gang at Breitbart.com went completely ballistic, posting one article after another bashing Chuck Hagel in a crazed, desperate attempt to scuttle his nomination for Secretary of Defense.

Currently on the front page at Breitbart.com, we find no less than 13 anti-Hagel articles. They really went all out:

Hagel 2007: U.S. Acting Like ‘Schoolyard Bully’; ‘08 Candidates Too Hard on Iran
House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman: Hagel Pick ‘Impossible’
Rubio: Hagel Bad for Israel, ‘Temperament,’ ‘Judgment’ Issues
As Demand for Transparency Heats Up, Polls Turn Against Hagel
Graham Asks Hagel About ‘Apartheid’ Comment on Israel
Hagel 2007 Speech: North Korea ‘Moving in the Right Direction’
Hagel Blocks Access to University of Nebraska Archive
In ‘Friends of Hamas’ Story, Media Fail to Pursue Full Disclosure From Hagel
Liberal Democrat Lanny Davis: Cruz ‘Absolutely Correct’ to Call for Hagel Disclosure
GOP Senators Urge White House to Withdraw Hagel Nomination
CNN: ‘Private Grumbling’ Among Democrats About Hagel
Hagel Declined to Sign Schumer Letter in 2007 Asking Arab Allies to Recognize Israel

But then, after all this hard work smearing and vilifying:

Republicans Set to Cave on Hagel

I’m just glad someone is providing this kind of quality inadvertent humor on the web for free. Don’t ever change, Breitbrats.

DERP

Yoda may have had The Force on his side, but Jim Hoft, the legendary Dumbest Man on the Internet, has something much more powerful: The Fail.

And today he’s workin’ that Hoft magic again, as he whips out an infamous, long-debunked fake photograph of John Kerry and Jane Fonda purportedly at an “anti-war rally:”

More Bad News for Generations X, Y and Z… It Looks Like You’re Stuck With an Aging Infrastructure, Too | the Gateway Pundit.

The Snopes entry for this hoax is dated 2004, and it includes the two photos that were merged together to create the fake. But as you can see, it’s still being recycled as truth in the closed environment of the Wingnut Echo Chamber.

Keep up the good work, Jim!

But wait, the derp continues! LGF contributor Gus points out:

Oops. Another mistake that he made. Jane Fonda was born in 1937 while John Kerry was born in 1943. Ding, ding, ding. Neither of them are baby boomers.

Hoft has now closed comments and apparently deleted all the existing ones for his post.

Today’s wingnut outrageous outrage of the day comes to you by way of the ever-confused Todd Starnes of Fox News. It involves the exclusion of the word “God” in “Presidential Proclamation — Patriot Day and National Day of Service and Remembrance, 2012.” This was followed up by an even more hysterical pseudo-religious rant from the ever-seething Pat Dollard.

Behold the announcement from Todd Starnes:

“Does not mention God!” Fear the atheism! This of course led me to wonder: what would a Republican do? What did George W. Bush do during his 8 long years as president?

Todd Starnes - Obama Derangement Sufferer

The answer was rather quick to find at Wikipedia in the Patriot Day entry.

It turns out that George W. Bush did not mention God for his “Presidential Proclamation—Patriot Day and National Day of Service and Remembrance” for 5 of 8 such proclamations — meaning that the majority of these proclamations did not include the word “God.”

He mentioned it in the initial proclamation in 2001, and in the years 2004 and 2005.

George W. Bush does not mention God in 2002.

George W. Bush does not mention God in 2003.

George W. Bush does not mention God in 2006.

George W. Bush does not mention God in 2007.

George W. Bush does not mention God in 2008.

Starnes also says, “President Obama’s proclamation marking the September 11th terrorist attacks did not include any mention of God. The president also failed to note how Americans sought solace in their religion in the aftermath of the Al-Qaeda attacks.”

On his last year in office you will find that Bush did exactly the same — in addition to not mentioning God 5 times while in office.

I offer the following alternative headline.

Sept 10, 2008 BREAKING: Bush’s 9-11 Proclamation Does Not Mention God

President Bush’s proclamation marking the September 11th terrorist attacks did not include any mention of God. The president also failed to note how Americans sought solace in their religion in the aftermath of the Al-Qaeda attacks.

Let’s put it up on the screen:

H/T:

Obama’s 9/11 proclamation does not mention God, and that is relevant because all pollsters are Soros flunkies. patdollard.com/2012/09/obamas…

— Jesse Taylor (@jesseltaylor) September 10, 2012

This last 7 days has been a real banner week for the blogging heirs of Andrew at Breitbart.com; one stunning non-story after another, each one billed as a BOMBSHELL EXCLUSIVE, getting progressively more ridiculous in a crescendo of Obama-hating wingnuttery, building to a denouement of derp.

I think we should commemorate this unbroken string of total failures, so here are LGF’s picks for the 7 most absurd, irrational, yet inadvertently hilarious Breitbart-related posts of the week:

Breitbart.com Publishes Ludicrous ‘Not-Birther’ Article (Wink)
“We’re not Birthers!” said Joel Pollak, but Breitbart.com’s audience got the Birther message loud and clear.

Literary Agent on Breitbart Bombshell: ‘A Simple Mistake’
Literary agent completely destroys the Breitbart Not-Birther BOMBSHELL EXCLUSIVE. Wingnut audience could not possibly care less.

Week in Review: A Right Wing Fail-a-Ganza
Breitbart.com went ballistic over Elizabeth Warren’s “plagiarism,” called for her to be fired, and said she would “throw her daughter under the bus” to save herself … after the plagiarism story was already debunked.

Fear the Vetting! Breitbart.com Editor Joel Pollak’s Latest Bombshell Exclusive
BOMBSHELL! Barack Obama graduated from Columbia University! Why is that a bombshell again?

Breitbart Blogger Dan Riehl on the Trail of a Bombshell Obama Photoshop Phraud
The Phabulous Photoshopped Phootball Phraud.

Fear the Vetting! Breitbart.com Bombshell Exclusive: We Don’t Have Obama’s SAT Scores!
Another BOMBSHELL SCOOP, as the Breitbart gang revealed that they did NOT have Barack Obama’s SAT scores, and didn’t know what they were, but if they did have the scores, George W. Bush’s would be higher.

Vetting Themselves: Breitbart Gang in Yet Another Ridiculously Massive Fail
“Barack Obama, the First Tea Partier!” What more do you need to hear?

If you think the proper answer to Mitt Romney’s abuse of his dog is to point out that Barack Obama ate dog meat as a child in Indonesia, you might be a wingnut.

Seriously, right wing bloggers. This is the most pathetic example of “I’m rubber, you’re glue” politics I’ve seen yet. You’re kidding, right?

Of course, they’re not kidding. They think equating a child eating dog meat to a grown man torturing and abusing a helpless animal is perfectly logical.

Received this morning through the LGF contact form, from an admirer who used the email address “youRsuchAnIdiot@Dumbass.com” and the subject “show us a dog’s view from Obama’s dinner plate:”

Hey dumbass why don’t you show us what it looks like when a dog is prepared for dinner. Obama ate dog. He even stated it in his book. LMAO Liberal dumbass!

Related:
Video: What It’s Like for a Dog in a Kennel on the Roof of a Car on a Freeway

Finally, an explanation for why I now support Obama. You see, I too have eaten dog meat in Indonesia. #obamaateadog #ObamaDogRecipes

— Charles Johnson (@Lizardoid) April 18, 2012

DERPDemonstrating the incredibly high journalistic standards of Breitbart.com, today Dan Riehl manages to screw up a simple fact in the very first sentence of his latest inept attack on President Obama: NH Gov: Three Years In, Obama Still Unqualified for Presidency.

New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu (R) and other local Romney supporters greeted V.P. Joe Biden when he arrived in N.H. …

The governor of New Hampshire is John Lynch, a Democrat.

John Sununu has not been governor of New Hampshire since 1989.

The article to which Riehl links refers to Sununu, correctly, as “former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu (R).” Did Riehl even read it?

(h/t: P.J. Nicolatore.)

Amazingly, this may not be the stupidest thing Dan Riehl wrote today; from Twitter:

How am I supposed to get worked up about the so called war on women, when these people have been waging war on men for 3 damned decades?

— DanRiehl (@DanRiehl) April 13, 2012

Here’s a classic example of the kind of dishonest tactics used all the time by the right wing demagogues at Breitbart.com, who are increasingly looking like clueless fumbling idiots without their founder Andrew.

Yesterday on Twitter, Breitbart.com “Investigative Writer/Researcher” Mandy Nagy (aka @Liberty_chick) was busily tweeting insults and personal attacks at me, instead of responding to my challenge that she produce proof for her claims that racist comments were being “planted” by liberals at their websites.

In the course of this diversionary blizzard of nonsense, she attracted the attention of the lovely people who stalk me around the web, one of whom tweeted something so ugly that she felt compelled to retweet it:

RT @OldLineTexan: @Gus_807 I have daughters about @Liberty_Chick age, and I wouldn’t want an aging creep like @Lizardoid stalking them….

— Mandy Nagy (@Liberty_Chick) March 29, 2012

Yes, that’s right — Ms Nagy was apparently amused by a tweet calling me a stalker. Posted by a stalker.

I responded by copying her retweet here, just to have a record of it:

RT @Liberty_Chick I have daughters @Liberty_Chick age, and I wouldn’t want an aging creep like @Lizardoid stalking them. #StalkerCharles

— Charles Johnson (@Lizardoid) March 29, 2012

Here’s where it turns into a truly massive fail. Because this morning when I checked Twitter, I found Ms Nagy raving at me again, demanding a “retraction” and claiming that she never called me a stalker:

@Lizardoid Retract that immediately, please. I NEVER wrote that you were “stalking” me.

— Mandy Nagy (@Liberty_Chick) March 30, 2012

When I looked through her timeline to find her retweet of the “#StalkerCharles” post, imagine my total lack of surprise to find that she had deleted it. She was demanding a retraction from me, when she knew very well that she had indeed posted exactly what I said she did — and she tried to hide it by deleting the retweet. Amazing.

But unfortunately for Ms Nagy, she left a trail of evidence a mile wide. Here’s a screenshot of her retweet:

And this Breitbart.com “investigative researcher” apparently was not aware that even if you delete a tweet, it can still be accessed through Twitter’s oEmbed endpoint (as documented here). And here’s the link to the XML version of the tweet she deleted. A screenshot of the data:

Click to enlarge

To sum up, Ms Nagy retweeted a post that I was “stalking” her, then deleted it, then demanded a retraction, knowing full well that she had tried to hide the evidence. She was lying, and she got caught.

Just one more massive fail for the mini-Breits, in what’s becoming a new tradition for them. Never thought I’d say it, but these people make Andrew Breitbart look like a genius.

I must retract the accusation that Ms Nagy deleted her retweet, and apologize to her; for some reason it did not show up in her timeline when I wrote this post, but it’s clearly visible now. Tweetdeck was offline most of the day to fix a bug; it may have had something to do with that. But in any case, I was wrong about the deletion, and I do apologize for that.

I do not, however, retract the accusation that she was lying about not calling me a “stalker” — she obviously did do that. And I do not withdraw my challenge to her to back up her claim that racist comments are “planted” at Breitbart.com; that’s a larger issue that remains.

New York magazine’s Joe Coscarelli spoke to Breitbart.com “editor” Joel Pollak about their utterly ridiculous EXCLUSIVE BOMBSHELL INTERVIEW with “U2’s Bono” (who turned out not to be Bono).

Pollak says, “We went through a vetting process on this and appropriate questions were raised and appropriate answers were given.”

Which, if true, is actually even more pathetic than if they hadn’t, because the guy really doesn’t even look much like Bono, and not only that — he has no Irish accent. They can’t even tell an obviously fake Bono from the real one, but they’re going to “vet” the President?

“We went through a vetting process on this and appropriate questions were raised and appropriate answers were given,” Breitbart.com editor Joel Pollack assured us this afternoon by phone. “But the videographer then asked us to take it down, so we did.” But Pollak said he would “neither confirm nor deny” that mistaken identity was the reason for the scrubbing.

Again, the Breitbrats prove that they’re pathologically unable to admit they screwed up, big time. Or should I say, Big Hollywood Time?