Just when you think they can't possibly sink any lower, they surprise you. The "story" Breitbart links to from that other cesspool, The Washington Examiner. So yeah, nothing there.

Anyway, I'm sure this latest "discovery" that the gays are evil (and Hitler was a leftist neener neener!) will make Niall Ferguson very happy.

This weekend, a friend of mine with two kids in college told me their family will be hit with a 20 percent pay cut because of the sequester. They were grateful to still have a job, but 20 percent is a huge cut to take when they're covering two college tuition bills and trying to get by. They had just started to climb out of their 2008 hole when the sequester took effect.

These are real people. Hard-working, middle class working people who pay taxes, pay their kids' college tuition, and are about ten years away from retirement.

Forgive me in advance for this rant, but I have had enough of the idiotic conservatives who think they can cover up their responsibility for this unnecessary sequestration by whining about White House tours, like this brainless Breitbot did on Sunday. My friends don't give a damn about White House tours and they don't begrudge the Obama family having Secret Service protection at all because they would expect our country to protect the person we have elected to run it.

It's not White House tours, you stupid, cynical conservatives. It's your fetish with "shrinking government" and serving your billionaires while decent, church-going, hard-working people take arbitrary pay cuts because conservatives are too full of their own hubris to pay attention to how they are destroying the country.

When teachers are laid off and federal employees are furloughed so they lose the equivalent of one months' pay, the economy will be destroyed. I understand that you selfish fools want to lay this at the feet of Obama and the Democrats, but I will make sure that doesn't happen if I have to shout from the top of every mountain in the country with my own mic.

I have had it with the mocking tone and the trivial focus, and not just from Breitbots, either. Where is the DC press on this? Where is the mainstream media? Have they bothered to even talk to one single person who is affected by this? Have any so-called "thought leaders" considered what this is doing to the economy?

That video at the top is about real people suffering because of this. Real people with real jobs who aren't billionaires and don't have the luxury of taking pay cuts. Like my friend, they're angry.

WHITNEY METZGER: This isn't a political game. And it's very frustrating to see so many politicians in Washington turn it into that.

CATHY LEWIS: Ten of the 11 members of Congress from Virginia voted against the bill that would have avoided sequestration. Metzger says trimming the staff now allows Davis Interiors to retain a smaller, but still highly skilled work force.

Keeping those skilled workers in the area when work is becoming more scarce is a concern shared by the region's leaders who, some say, haven't done enough to diversify the economy.

Craig Quigley says the potential loss of 12,000 good-paying jobs and more than $2 billion dollars in the local economy may be a wakeup call that's finally too loud to ignore.

CRAIG QUIGLEY: The day has arrived. OK? The federal spending in Hampton Roads is going down. So, we can accept a lower level of economic vitality, no growth, flat economy. Is that really what we want?

Or do we want to get serious finally about diversifying the economy, finding something to supplement, not replace -- I don't want to go to zero in federal spending, but I want to supplement it and reduce it as a percentage of the gross regional product, so that we are not totally drug-dependent on that.

Screw the teabaggers, the Brietbots and the merry gang of stupid pretend conservative media outlets. Especially, screw the sequester. I don't care if we have to be out in the streets with torches and pitchforks. Enough is enough. The billionaires have had their fun. Now let's please let the adults in the room fix this mess before it destroys the economy and the country right alongside it.

Also, to those cheering the across-the-board defense cuts, you should understand that the sequestration flavor of defense cuts is a bitter one for the economy. It takes a bite out of everything from shipbuilding to database development, IT services and routine maintenance of facilities. It doesn't take a bite out of security contractors' fees like Xe, and it won't stop drones from being built. So if you want actual cuts to defense that make sense, start making noise and putting pressure on Congress to do it right, to lose the budget-cutting fetish and actually do something that makes sense for the economy, stimulates growth and gets us back on track.

Are we really at a point where we have to take up collections for people who want their kids to get a college education without landing in a ton of debt, who want to hold onto their house and maybe even save something for retirement? Or maybe we could just tell the conservative echo chamber to take a long hike on the Appalachian trail and get something done for a change.

Because no "concern" about the Obama family is too petty for the Breitbart crew, they published the first daughters' spring break location to make the case that White House tours are being cancelled while the girls vacation in high style. No, I won't link to it, nor will I mention where they're staying, but it's clear they want to suggest that the Obama girls are living the high life -- while other children are deprived of their White House tour.

As Media Matters reports, there is a generally understood rule that journalists do not disclose the location of the children of presidents when they're not with their parents, because their security should not be placed at risk.

The Washington Post's Paul Farhi reported at the time that this is part of a longstanding and informal agreement between successive administrations and the White House Correspondents' Association, and that "traditional news organizations have long abided by such arrangements":

Presidential administrations have long been protective of the first family's minor children, and reporters in Washington have mostly observed the taboo on stories or photographs of them outside official and semi-official events. The ban on such coverage has existed through many administrations by informal agreement with the White House Correspondents' Association, which represents the interests of journalists who cover the president.

But Breitbart's Matt Boyle disregarded such tradition and related security concerns when he posted an "exclusive" report on Breitbart.com detailing where the Obama daughters were vacationing for spring break. Boyle said that the White House declined to comment and that the Secret Service told him they don't "confirm or deny trips for anyone under the agency's protective detail, including Sasha and Malia."

These small considerations are considered trivial to the Breitbots, who are very, very determined that we all become outraged over the very idea that Sasha and Malia might have a spring break like normal children. They resent the fact that the girls do have a security detail, all the while whipping up the outrage that makes it necessary. Funny how that works. I don't recall right (or left) wing media outlets dogging the Bush daughters like that.

I'm shocked -- SHOCKED -- that Breitbart News would run with an echo-chamber created story about a group that doesn't exist at all, never existed, and has nothing to do with anything in the real world. Cenk pointed out five days ago that the mythical 'Friends of Hamas' story appeared to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated rumor started somewhere in the bowels of DC.

It turns out that it started over at the New York Daily News when reporter Dan Friedman asked a Congressional staffer whether or not they had any evidence that Chuck Hagel was fraternizing with shadowy terrorist groups the way Ted Cruz seemed to intimate.

On Feb. 6, I called a Republican aide on Capitol Hill with a question: Did Hagel’s Senate critics know of controversial groups that he had addressed?

Hagel was in hot water for alleged hostility to Israel. So, I asked my source, had Hagel given a speech to, say, the “Junior League of Hezbollah, in France”? And: What about “Friends of Hamas”?

The names were so over-the-top, so linked to terrorism in the Middle East, that it was clear I was talking hypothetically and hyperbolically. No one could take seriously the idea that organizations with those names existed — let alone that a former senator would speak to them.

By now, everyone should know that Republicans have no sense of humor, especially when it comes to terrorists! They're all about killing terrorists, destroying them, or else using them to strike fear in the hearts of every American.

That didn't stop the smartest-guy-in-the-room Breitbot Ben Shapiro from running with the story after he called the White House for confirmation and got the cold shoulder. Dave Weigel:

Following that, I checked with Ben Shapiro, the Breitbart.com editor and reporter who originated the "Friends of Hamas" meme in a short February 7 article titled "SECRET HAGEL DONOR?: WHITE HOUSE SPOX DUCKS QUESTION ON 'FRIENDS OF HAMAS.'" In it, Shapiro reported that "Senate sources told Breitbart News exclusively" of Hagel's "Friends of Hamas" problem.

"Have you found any more proof that this group exists?" I asked Shapiro.

"The original story is the entirety of the information I have," he said.

Shapiro appears to be resting his unwarranted certitude on the butt of his claim that he was merely repeating what he had heard from an anonymous Senate source. That didn't stop the entire right wing online universe from exploding with accusations and inflammatory articles, spreading the meme that Hagel might have received - gasp! - funding from terrorist groups.

Why Breitbart is taken seriously by anyone, I do not know. How many bogus stories do they have to blast out before they're no longer accorded any credibility by anyone, left or right? It seems the key to their success is merely to rest on form over substance, as Shapiro did today.

Shapiro, as you might expect, did not do that thing where he writes a correction/apology for putting up an wild-eyed article about a rumor that most vertebrates would at least treat with some degree of credulity. Instead, he's now accusing Friedman of lying about being the source. Shapiro's new take is as cleverly "caveated" as his last -- he gets to say that the source for his story didn't hear about the story from Friedman, but that doesn't necessarily mean Friedman wasn't on the end of the chain of whispers.

What Shapiro did is simple. He played an extended game of telephone and then did what gossips do: repeated the rumor with very careful language so it appeared to be fact. And then, because Breitbart's target is always the White House or damned libruls who support the guy in the White House, they called the White House with a stupid question which received the response it deserved. Whoever took the call hung up on Shapiro (according to Shapiro, of course), and so he ran with the whole White House doesn't deny Friends of Hamas thing.

See, a failure to deny something that doesn't exist means it exists, right?

I guess as long as stupid Senators like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz actually take whiners like Shapiro seriously in spite of their history, we're going to be writing these posts letting everyone know of the latest Breitbarting. I'm sure Andrew Breitbart is smiling on his young protege for asking himself WWBD* and then running with it, truth be damned.

*WWBD - What would Breitbart do?

[h/t Scarce]

By now everyone has seen this propaganda piece put out by the NRA claiming that the Obama girls have armed guards at their school. There's only one problem: That claim isn't true. Shame, shame, NRA, for living in such a deep silo you actually relied on a Breitbart.com report without any fact checking.

Buzzfeed:

"[The] school Obama's daughters attend has 11 armed guards," the longer ad's narrator says, citing an article from Breitbart.com.

But a fact-check by the Washington Post found that not to be the case. The Postcalled the school, Sidwell Friends, where Obama's daughters attend and asked if the school had armed guards. The school responded that none of their 11 security members carry any firearms.

But where did the myth of armed guards at Obama's school come from?

A quick search found that the first post about it came from the Weekly Standard's blog. A post by Daniel Halper said that the school — attended by both Obama's and David Gregory's children — had 11 armed guards on staff, citing the 11 members of the security team. The error by the site presuming the security at the Quaker school was armed led to the NRA's two incorrect ads.

Well, yes, it led to them. But the NRA cited an article at Breitbart.com in their longer propaganda piece. Here's the screenshot:

Continue reading »

This segment with Piers Morgan is precisely why I called Breitbrat Ben Shapiro a twerp. At the ripe old age of 28, he has all the answers and thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. He's perfectly comfortable calling someone a bully for disagreeing, and worse yet, claiming they're standing on the graves of the children who were killed at Sandy Hook in order to score political points. That's something a twerp says to get someone to try and start a fight with them.

As much as I am not usually a Piers Morgan fan (because he was mean to kids when he was a judge on America's Got Talent), in this case, I actually wish he had let some of that meanness show. However, he still did a pretty good job defusing the "on the graves of the children at Sandy Hook" when he suggested the erstwhile Mr. Shapiro tell Gabby Giffords how she and her husband are dancing on the graves at Sandy Hook, too.

Bullies dancing on the graves of little children

In this first segment, Shapiro serves a little whine about how Piers and the liberals "bully" anyone who doesn't agree. Ben, old boy, I can't help it if facts have a liberal bias that will snap your head back like you've been punched. When Piers enumerated the last several mass killings and forced you to admit they were committed with an assault rifle, you may have felt bullied, but if you were, it was because facts have a way of shattering illusion.

Shapiro, undeterred, argues that more murders take place with guns than assault weapons, and smirkily asks Piers why he doesn't care about as much about Chicago's children killed with handguns as the children killed with assault weapons.

Screw that, Shapiro. You don't think we'd like to limit handguns? Well, I would. But that's chasing after unicorns. We aren't so stupid that we think there's a prayer of a ban like that. I'll take reinstatement of the assault weapons ban as a start, rather than none at all. Piers was having none of it too.

That didn't stop Shapiro from making that leap and claiming that the "left" wants an outright gun ban. Screw the constitution, just ban them all! That's the caricature of the left Shapiro tries to pass off on the audience.

But wait, there's more.

Shapiro is getting ready to play the "government tyranny" card. Strange how that card only gets played when a Democrat is in the White House, isn't it? And of course, it plays straight into the wingnut fears and paranoia about how that scary black dude in the White House is going to emasculate the entire country by taking away their guns -- and then...what?

Continue reading »

Oh, ouch. Former Big Government.com and Breitbart acolyte Dana Loesch has filed a suit against Breitbart.com, claiming they are preventing her from working anywhere.

Via STLToday.com:

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.

There were inklings of discord in happy lalaBreitbartland earlier this year when Buzzfeed reported that Loesch was "drifting away."

According to Loesch's radio website, Breitbart was never anything she did:

Dana has appeared on Fox News, CBS, regularly on ABC, and is a frequent guest on HBO’s “Real Time” with Bill Maher. She is a regular guest host for Glenn Beck’s radio and television programs and has also filled in for Michael Savage. She was added to Talkers Magazine‘s top 100 “heavy hitters” in 2012.

I have to say, the extension of her agreement for an additional year is sort of ironic. On the one hand, she gets paid to do nothing and on the other, she can't get paid more for doing what amounts to nothing when she does write.

CPAC ought to be fun to watch this year, don't you think?

Update: Buzzfeed has the lawsuit posted on their site. After reading it, I can't help wondering if she got a taste of the man-boot after Breitbart wasn't around to backstop her anymore. I've noticed that women writers don't seem to last over there. That's what happens when you hang out with a group of people that has no respect for women. They treat you disrespectfully.

Oh, Breitbart's minions aren't having a very good night. You'd think they'd be running all over the place celebrating their beefcake candidate's debate, but instead they're just bashing Joe Biden for laughing at laughable things.

Even Karl Rove haz a sad, and I include the most classic reply ever for your amusement:

I bet you do, honey. RT @karlrove: I miss Jim Lehrer.

— rob delaney (@robdelaney) October 12, 2012

Chris Bowers describes their delicate fee-fees thus:

Conservatives are delicate & fragile, like tender flowers or a pure white colt. They get easily upset when someone snaps at them. #VPdebate

— Chris Bowers (@ThisBowers) October 12, 2012

Michelle Malkin is very busy calling Joe Biden names (Smirky Malarky McSmirk?) while complaining about Martha Raddatz and Biden interrupting Paulie-poo. Awwww. Pot, meet kettle.

Martha Raddatz, Joe Biden forget their manners: Don't interrupt! bit.ly/Os7LLu

— TwitchyTeam (@TwitchyTeam) October 12, 2012

Meanwhile, over in the "people CNN should fire but won't" side of the camp, Erick Erickson is busy blaming Martha Raddatz, who did a pretty good job of keeping the filibusters on both sides down to a minimum. I hated her question about raising the Medicare age, but otherwise she did all right.

Wow, Martha Raddatz really is in Obama's camp it seems.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) October 12, 2012

But not to worry, because Erickson has also pronounced this debate "inconsequential." Funny how that goes.

On and on it goes. I had lots of weird sock puppet-ish accounts turn up in my twitter replies, too, denying facts right and left, claiming Joe Biden was lying (he wasn't), and the like. Ryan's online army was ready for battle, except...evidently they just weren't prepared for a laughing Biden. Really.

"The laughter certainly was not something that we expected," Mitt Romney campaign spokesman Michael Steel told Yahoo News after the debate. "On the policy front, I think it was precisely what we expected. I didn't hear any new attacks really. There were a few statistics that were more of a reach than usually, but pretty typicalof the vice president in the limited amount that we've seen him in public in the past few months."

Worst. spin. ever.

They're not talking about Ryan. They're talking about Biden. And bashing the moderator. That means we win. Sorry guys, but tonight you'll just have to cry in your pretzels and keep making excuses. Biden made mincemeat out of your guy. Live with it.

[h/t David]

Just after the attack on the Libyan consulate in Benghazi, Breitbots started the usual right wing whining intended to paint the president as a lily-livered weakling who was somehow intentionally undermining national security. Their specific complaint was that there were no Marines guarding the Benghazi compound. This is not unusual, as I explained last week, but never let the right wing pass up an excuse for faux outrage, especially if Politico bangs the drum right alongside them.

For the benefit of the erstwhile Jake Tapper, here is an excellent article about overseas security, who's responsible for providing it, and why there weren't any Marines guarding the consulate. Hint to Jake: Marines don't guard people or property when stationed at embassies. They guard information. The hired help guards people and property:

Private Security Contractors: Although the host country is responsible for maintaining security outside the embassy, the U.S. State Department will typically employ private guards at the perimeter. Those guards are often residents of the country, or third-country nationals, who are responsible for initial screening measures such as checking cars for weapons or bombs. The State Department also employs companies to provide highly trained protective security details to diplomats. "Diplomats will often have private security details that are ex-military, such as former SEALs," says Doug Brooks, president of the International Stability Operations Association (ISOA), a group representing private contractors.

But in 2009, amid growing criticism for its heavy reliance on private security contractors like Blackwater Worldwide, the State Department moved to hire government specialists to beef up diplomatic security. One of the four Americans killed in this week’s attack has been identified as a former Navy SEAL, but he was in the region on a mission to track weapons, not to protect the consulate.

If Jake bothered to read C&L and our comments, he would already have known this and could have gotten Ambassador Rice to nod in agreement rather than pretending he's Andrew Breitbart incarnate to grill her on the non-existent need for Marines to be guarding every embassy and consulate in the universe.

Just sayin', Jake. The Google is your friend.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

Acting as the appointed Brietbart concern troll, CNN's Dana Loesch descended upon the Wisconsin Recall post-mortem panel to innocently inquire as to why it is that union dues and membership dropped ahead of the recall. In Loesch's world, those evil unions were punished by working people for spending their money on "Democrat candidates."

With feigned concern, Loesch asked why it is that 36 percent of union households voted for Walker in the recall election, and whether the steep decline in union membership after Walker's union-busting law went into effect could possibly be responsible for that, along with everything wrong in the world, and also "dispirited" someones, though I'm not entirely clear on who she thinks is dispirited.

Because you know, she's so concerned. And so genuine.

This question came toward the end of the panel, where participants had concluded that two major factors played into the recall. Harry Weisbren sums it up this way:

Two main points emerged during the discussion: that the power of Wall Street and the 1% to subvert our democracy by buying elections is getting exponentially worse, and that the Democratic party failed to understand the broader occupation-inspired movement growing in response to this dynamic.

And it was Harry himself who took Loesch out to the woodshed to set her straight. At just over 2 minutes in, he gives her the answer she's looking for to her question about whether ordinary people feel dispirited:

WEISBREN: I think the ability of the 1 percent billionaires to spread political propaganda - to have expensive television commercials - is an unparalleled power that we've never seen before. It is able to manipulate people to vote against their own interests and it's a specific plan to subvert democracy by making democratic discourse something you can literally buy.

This attitude that money is speech, that corporations can take over the voices of working families and drown them out is something that is shameful and I think the attitude that union dues are the same as checks from Wall Street is pathetic, frankly.

Continue reading »