Not So Breitbart: This Web Site Smells Worse Than Its Decomposing Founder

At Breitbart News they are apparently beginning to feel the heat as they continually come up empty in their faux investigations. The site has become a parody of a right-wing disinformation center that produces more laughter than news. Consequently, they are steeping in the stench of desperation which only results ever more pathetic excuses for journalism. Yesterday they posted three standout hysterical failures that only prove what a bunch of losers Andrew left behind to sour his legacy.

Breitbart-Obama's SAT1) Exclusive: The Vetting – Did Obama Have Lower SAT Scores Than George W. Bush?
This article by Charles C. Johnson may be exclusive because no one else would run a story so thoroughly devoid of substance. The fact that the question in the title is never answered is consistent with the rest of the phony series allegedly “vetting” President Obama. The article opens by bragging that…

“Breitbart News has established that Obama’s grades and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores may have been even lower than those of his supposedly less capable predecessor, George W. Bush.

Breitbart News has learned that the transfer class that entered Columbia College in the fall of 1981 with Obama was one of the worst in recent memory, according to Columbia officials at the time.”

Unfortunately, Breitbrat Charlie established nothing with regard to Obama’s grades. He merely engaged in wild speculation based on flimsy data that doesn’t affirm his contention. He provided zero evidence that Obama’s grades were low, or that his class was “the worst in recent memory.”

Based on his own source it is entirely possible that Obama’s grades were far higher than the average for his class. There is no stipulation that he was average or below. That is completely made up by the Breitbrats. And the claim that the class was “the worst” is equally false. The only thing their source said was that “On paper at least, the quality of the students accepted [as transfers] has declined.” It does not say that it declined to the worst and it says nothing about Obama’s placement.

This feverish attack on Obama’s intelligence by the morons at Breitbart News culminates in an absurd comparison between Obama and George W. Bush. At Harvard Obama held the prestigious post of editor of the Harvard Law Review and he graduated Magna Cum Laude. Bush barely graduated with a C- from Yale, and that was probably due to his father being a legacy and U.S. Congressman. There is simply no comparison of intellectual capacity between an accomplished honors student like Obama and a slacker riding his family coattails like Bush.

Breitbart-Ailes/Stewart2) Roger Ailes: Jon Stewart Told Me He’s a Socialist
The headline in this article is a rehashing of scurrilous insults that Fox News CEO Roger Ailes first threw at the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart back in December of 2010. At that time Ailes told interviewer Howard Kurtz that the executives at NPR were Nazis, that there was a cabal of left-wing rabbis, and that Stewart was both an atheist and a socialist. It was an utterly unhinged tirade that exposed Ailes as borderline psychotic. And now, Breitbrat John Nolte posts this screed attacking Stewart as an “elitist millionaire socialist” who…

“…would like to be the ‘benevolent’ overlord who tells us what’s best for us, especially in areas of speech, an area Stewart is desperate to control.”

Is Jon Stewart really a tyrant-in-waiting who, perched on his throne at the all-powerful Comedy Central, is desperate to control free speech? One shudders at the omnipotence of this unholy overlord. But how can this be if, as Breitbrat John says, he is also an “establishment toady” protecting Obama/Goliath? There aren’t very many historical examples of toady dictators.

Nolte goes on to describe Stewart as “talented, but … pathetic.” His hatred of Stewart goes back a long way. He has posted numerous disparaging articles about him, some of which take aim at his ratings, even though Stewart’s late night program beats the highest rated shows on Fox News in prime time.

Like the rest of the delusional right, Breitbrat John suffers from a sort of wingnut tunnel vision that causes him to think that Stewart is a liberal mouthpiece who never employs his satire to take down Obama or other Democrats. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I previously documented, Fox has posted at least 29 articles praising Stewart’s segments that bash the President and liberals. So the schizophrenic right still manages to shovel hate-filled screeds at Stewart, even as they celebrate his satirical bipartisanship.

Breitbart Vetting Journalists3) Their Rules, Not Ours: Time to Vet Private Lives of Journalists?
This may be the most ignorant and disturbing thing I have seen yet on Breitbart News. They are overtly threatening journalists with a campaign of slander and personal attacks on reporters who they don’t happen to like. Their razor-thin justification for such abhorrent behavior is that some reporters have published stories about ultra-wealthy Romney supporters who are trying to buy the election. Breitbrat John Nolte accuses reporters of trying to “intimidate and frighten” poor, defenseless, right-wing millionaires, so in retaliation he threatens to dig into the personal lives of journalists that have no relevancy to their work. He warns…

“What should we know about their personal lives, their finances, their personal mistakes, their traffic violations, and any run-ins with the law?”

The obvious answer is: Nothing! None of that information has any relevance to what reporters publish. If Breitbrat John has a problem with the content of an article he might try rebutting the assertions it presents. However, when you have no case to make against the substance, you attack the messenger. Nolte clearly does not have the mental acuity (or facts) to defend his positions, so he is launching a personal campaign against journalists who have a constitutional right to publish. If anyone is engaging in intimidation, it is Nolte and his fellow Breitbart thugs.

Nolte argues that the wealthy subjects of some news pieces are private citizens and exempt from scrutiny. In fact, they are openly public and taking prominent roles in bankrolling the campaigns of politicians and issues in an attempt to steer government in the direction of their conservative agenda. What could be more public than that? What’s more, the Breitbarts have no problem whatsoever attacking supporters of liberal politicians like George Soros and Bill Maher, so that just highlights their brazen hypocrisy.

To top it all off, the Breitbrats posted an item today at the top of their page (which real news organizations reserve for important stories) that features a photo of President Obama wearing colonial attire. The occasion was a 4th of July Celebration and parade where participating office-holders were requested to dress up. The Breitbrats virtually wet themselves with glee as they spun this “vetting” into some sort of expose of Obama as “The First Tea Partier.”

Breitbart - Obama First Tea Partier

First of all, I think the first Tea Partiers were in Boston about 240 years ago. And they were a decidedly unruly bunch who occupied the property of the one-percenters and destroyed their private assets in a protest over the unfair control of powerful business interests.

The article accompanying the photo went to great lengths to imply that Obama was hypocritical for criticizing the Tea Party for their costumes and symbols. Except for one thing: Obama never criticized the Tea Party for their costumes or symbols. To be sure, many liberals did so, but there is a stark difference between the left’s mockery of Tea Partiers and what the Breitbrats are attempting to do here. Obama made a public appearance in costume one time at a special event that requested it. The Tea Partiers do it every weekend for no particular reason. So the complaint on the part of the Breitbrats is like complaining if someone showed up at an annual Halloween party in costume, as opposed to a pack of nuts that spend every weekend dressing up in the park.

I won’t pretend to guess what Andrew Breitbart might have thought about these matters, but I can’t imagine that anyone would be proud of the sloppy and juvenile ravings that are emanating from the web pages he used to oversee.


5 thoughts on “Not So Breitbart: This Web Site Smells Worse Than Its Decomposing Founder

  1. There is one more thing about Beritbrat articles that deserves mention, the way they would go to any lengths to defend Romney against any perceived slight by anyone, even if they have to pretty much gin up from scratch both the slight and the outrage.

    This is something I like to call ROS, Romney Outrage Syndrome.

    When Wash Po (their current favourite target for ROS) published the Romney bullying incident, Beritbrats launched into the fray with Sharpiro posting about how the whole thing was a media conspiracy aimed at redefining Romney as “anti-gay” and timed to coincide with Obama’s statement of support for gay marriage (which this site pointed out as pure bull since no one could have anticipated Obama would make that statement at that time).

    Looking through the Wash Po article, one would find that the only time they referred to Lauber, Romney’s victim, as homosexual was at the beginning when they wrote about the incident. They referred to him as someone who was “allegedly homosexual”. It isn’t surprising that anyone with an appearance and manner as that described of Lauber would have been speculated as such in a boys school during that period of time, and that was most likely the case for him. The rest of the article NEVER brought anyone else’s sexual orientation into play, nor did they hint in any way that Romney did what he did because of an inherent dislike of gays, indeed they made no conclusion or implication as to the motive. I could have just as easily speculated that Romney did what he did because he was against people with long hair or that he did it because he didn’t personally like Lauber.

    But to Beritbrats, that’s “redefining”.

    Indeed Shapiro’s other article on vetting Obama (released at the same time as the ROS one) comes closer to redefining him when he asserted about how Obama doing drugs in his youth was somehow relevant to his character today.

    Yet another example of ROS would be in an article that follows up the above by portraying Lauber as the bad guy (yep blame the victim) who was breaking the school rules by having his hair that way and was eventually expelled for “smoking”, and juxtaposing him with upholder of school rules Romney who did what he did to uphold the school dress code and was a model student who would never get into trouble (as per the account of a teacher who “couldn’t see him as getting into trouble”).

    Missing from the piece is the fact that regardless of whether Lauber was breaking the school rules or not, Romney had neither right nor mandate to forcefully cut his air against his will while having others hold him down.

    Yet another ROS article I can recall is the one where Wash Po (again!) talked about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, an incident whereby a Mormon militia murdered a number of people travelling through the area. This incident has been acknowledged by and apologized for by the Mormon church. The article states that this MAY detrimentally affect Romney’s chances among voters who can trace their ancestry back to the victims of the massacre, but also states other factors that do not make this an open-and-shut case.

    What do the Beritbrats do? Launch into a tirade about how Wash Po is “othering” Romney and trying to stir up hatred against the Mormon faith.

    Of course Wash Po never attacked the Mormon faith, unless you consider it from Beritbrat’s point of view where speaking of a dark incident that is related to a religion is “stirring up hatred against that religion” (in which case, talking about Jesus being crucified by the Jews is would also be stirring up hatred against Jews). Far from othering Romney Wash Po stated a factual incident which may have an impact on voter decision due to his Mormon faith (which is also a fact), hardly different from the same commentary by the right back in the early days of the race about how Romney’s religion disadvantages him as he can’t readily identify with his predominantly Christian base the same way his rivals of the Christian faith could.

    It’s not like Beritbrats don’t know the meaning of “othering” or how to do it either. They have called Obama a “Marxist”, “Muslim”, “Kenyan”, “Commie”, “Socialist”, “Facist”, “Anti-Israel”……. and so on without ever proving that any of those labels hold true. THAT’S othering.

    Mark my words, when an article that involves Romney goes up, expect Beritbrats to sing his praises while heaping vile screed on any of the perceived antagonists of him.

  2. Haha. Anyone who doesn’t understand how the old boy system works should be forced to watch this very entertaining short documentary by Jamie Johnson (of J&J) who interviews his trust-fund baby friends (and subsequently is sued by some of their parents) Bloomberg, Trump, Vanderbilt among others for a film called “Born Rich”. The privileges of the wealthy are as absolute in the country as they ever were in prior empires, and any suggestion there is some derogatory comparison between the work and effort Obama had to do and the coasting that GWB enjoyed is just completely delusional.

    Enjoy the film – it’s a classic!

    If you really like it there’s another link to his uncle’s book and film, “The Fierce People” here;

  3. The macro mind of the right wing is showing itself to be a paranoid, delusional, schizophrenic mashup of completely out of control psychotics.

  4. I say four more years of Obama. Maybe The Administration can find ways around the 1st Admendment and put this website out of our misery. Socialism is on the march in America and all opposition should be driven into poverty. El Socialismo o La Murete!

  5. Socialism is on the march in America. And all we need is four more years!!!

Comments are closed.