The far right religious fanatics of “Live Action” are pushing yet another “hidden camera” hit job on Planned Parenthood today, a hit job so obvious and inept that Planned Parenthood caught on to Live Action’s sneaky activities more than a month ago.

This time, the heavily edited video is supposed to be proof that Planned Parenthood encourages women to abort female fetuses: Terribly Dumb Sting Operation Claims It Captures Planned Parenthood Endorsing Sex-Selective Abortion.

Erin Gloria Ryan of Jezebel.com points out that Live Action leader Lila Rose (who has called for abortions to be “done in the public square” and thinks Planned Parenthood is in league with Satan the Evil One) is simply lying again.

Lila Rose, Live Action’s leader who is terrified of sluts, told The Daily Caller that this is just a tiny thread in a giant fetus sweater that she’s about to unravel.

First of all, the statistics and studies indicate that we are adding to the growing problem across the world of sex-selective targeting of unborn girls for abortion. We are going to be demonstrating - starting with this video from Texas - that the abortion industry in the United States is aiding and abetting this horrific problem.

Sounds pretty legit, right? Except it appears that Rose performed a complicated and risky fact-selective abortion in making that statement — it’s pure, steaming bullshit.

Statistics do not indicate that the US has a problem with sex-selective abortions, nor do they indicate an increasing gender discrepancy in the American birth rate. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the sex ratio — the number of baby boys born per 1,000 baby girls — has actually been decreasing slightly but steadily over the last 30 years. In 1983, 1,052 boys were born for every 1,000 girls born in the US; in 2009, 1,048 boys were born for every 1,000 girls. This is only indicative of a “growing problem” if by “growing problem,” Rose means “growing anti-abortion rights talking point.”

Further, so few abortions in the US occur after the 20th week that even if every single one of them were the result of sex-selection, only 1.5% of pregnancy terminations would occur at a time when sex selection was even possible. Additionally, 77% of Americans surveyed think that sex selective abortion is wrong — they’re hardly clamoring to abort in the 23rd week because they want a Jr instead of an -ette.

And finally, as Planned Parenthood pointed out in its statement following the release of this video, even if sex-selective abortion were a problem in the US, interfering with women’s access to safe, legal abortion isn’t going to fix anything — leading health organizations “do not believe that curtailing access to abortion services is a legitimate means of addressing sex selection, and are clear that gender bias can only be resolved by addressing the underlying conditions that lead to it.”

If these fanatical anti-choice loons are so sure they have God on their side, and their cause is so righteous, why do they lie so often?

Of course, all the right wing blogs jumped right into line and started helping promote Live Action’s scam, because it’s what they do. One example of many: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, who does that wingnut inverted projection thing again, and dubs this the “real war on women.”

The right wing blogosphere is having yet another anti-Obama freak-out today; this time they’re ranting at Obama for doing something they would enthusiastically applaud if it were the policy of a Republican president: Secret ‘Kill List’ Tests Obama’s Principles.

This is an interesting article about the targeted assassinations of Al Qaeda leaders, and the Obama administration’s “kill list.” Finally, the far left and the far right have found something upon which they can agree, albeit for very different reasons.

WASHINGTON — This was the enemy, served up in the latest chart from the intelligence agencies: 15 Qaeda suspects in Yemen with Western ties. The mug shots and brief biographies resembled a high school yearbook layout. Several were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years.

President Obama, overseeing the regular Tuesday counterterrorism meeting of two dozen security officials in the White House Situation Room, took a moment to study the faces. It was Jan. 19, 2010, the end of a first year in office punctuated by terrorist plots and culminating in a brush with catastrophe over Detroit on Christmas Day, a reminder that a successful attack could derail his presidency. Yet he faced adversaries without uniforms, often indistinguishable from the civilians around them.

“How old are these people?” he asked, according to two officials present. “If they are starting to use children,” he said of Al Qaeda, “we are moving into a whole different phase.”

It was not a theoretical question: Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.

In possibly the most pathetic illustration yet of the Republican Party’s descent into madness, Mitt Romney says he needs the support of whacked out Birthers like Donald Trump.

“You know, I don’t agree with all the people who support me and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in,” Romney said. “But I need to get 50.1% or more and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”

For several weeks on Twitter, the wingnut army has been staging a massive freak-out about a strange persecution fantasy; they imagine that they’re being sent to a “Twitter Gulag” by a conspiracy of left wing activists, who somehow control Twitter with their diabolical liberal super-powers.

What’s really happening is that sites like Michelle Malkin’s Twitchy.com are organizing and openly calling for right wingers to spam liberals on Twitter, with abusive tweets and lame-brained insults. They even call it “hijacking,” in a rare outbreak of honesty. For example: Hijack Alert: Describe Obama in Three Words Takes Off | Twitchy.

Obviously, their stupid and/or nasty comments are offending people, who then presumably use Twitter’s “Block and Report” feature to complain to Twitter support — and as a result, abusive right wingers’ accounts get suspended. This is what they’re whining about with their absurd self-pitying “Twitter Gulag” nonsense. The same people ordering wingnuts to harass and spam liberals on Twitter then turn around and scream like colicky babies when accounts are suspended because of harassment and spam.

It’s a self-perpetuating fake outrage of huge proportions.

To point this out, last night I tweeted:

Here’s an idea! If right wingers don’t want their Twitter accounts suspended, maybe they shouldn’t do stuff like this: lgf.bz/LVXjes

— Charles Johnson (@Lizardoid) May 28, 2012

The link goes to the Twitchy.com article linked above, calling all wingnuts to hijack a liberal conversation.

Today I face the wrath of Twitchy: #TwitterGulag Denier Charles Johnson Advocates Suspension of Conservatives’ Twitter Accounts | Twitchy.

A no-frills open thread for a Sunday afternoon…

Adam Serwer, writing about Huslter Magazine’s despicable portrayal of conservative S.E. Cupp, made a great observation:

Where conservatives look at the Hustler “parody” as indicative of liberal contempt for conservative women, feminists see a larger problem about how women are treated that affects everything from health insurance to how much you take home on your paycheck. To have condemned Limbaugh for his sexism in the same unconditional manner would have been a distraction, because the real problem isn’t sexism, it’s liberals. For feminists, sexism is the problem, period.

David Waldman put it like this:

Another way of putting it is that once again, liberals think we’re all in this together, but conservatives say its all about me

The problem with this outlook among certain conservatives, aside from the fact that it’s despicable hypocrisy, is that cheering or allowing sexism against progressive women is bound to encourage sexism against everyone, including conservative women. The kind of guys who lash out with sexist attacks against women for having liberal views are the kind of guys who will lash out with sexist attacks against conservative women for other reasons.

As an example, consider Dan Riehl’s sexist attack on Joan Walsh, where he said:

I don’t mind Joan Walsh getting low, but if she’s going to open her mouth, wish she’d do something I might actually enjoy for once!

Riehl later justified his view by saying Joan Walsh deserves to have creepy sexual things said about her because she says stuff that Riehl disagrees with:

Joan Walsh owes an apology, she isn’t entitled to one. And she owes too many more than this one for me to care. Don’t like it? ‪#SuckIt‬

This, of course, is the “logic” of sexism. Or maybe worse, as Tommy Christopher points out:

…I would also add that there is an extra dimension to attacks like Riehl’s, and Flynt’s attack on S.E. Cupp, and the attacks by Playboy Magazine on conservative women that landed me on this site in the first place. The combination of a sexual ‘fantasy’ with unmasked hostility carries with it an inherent lack of consent that carries these attacks beyond objectification, beyond dehumanization, and into violation.

Tommy Christopher reached out to Breitbart.com to comment on the despicable behavior of their blogger. The site, however, like typical conservative tribalists who don’t care about women if those women commit the “sin” of being liberal, refused to respond. In fact, aside from a condemnation from Larry O’Connor and mild encouragement to “just stop” from Mike Flynn, the site’s editors refused to say anything remotely critical of Riehl’s comments.

And guess what? Encouraged by the silence of Breitbart.com, Riehl went on to make a sexist comment to a conservative woman who criticized him for his comments! Who would have thought that just because he makes sexist comments to women for being liberal, he’d also make sexist comments to other women for having the audacity to criticize him? Oh, that’s right, everybody. Here’s what he said:

guess a H J is out of the question 2 RT @aprildgregory: wht the Hell kind of man R U? Telling a woman 2 suck U is utterly detestable.

— DanRiehl (@DanRiehl) May 27, 2012

So there you have it. Breitbart.com encourages sexist attacks via tacit consent, and this leads to sexist attacks against fellow conservatives. Even according to their own warped tribalistic code of ethics, they fail at life.