Donald Trump’s Disgustingly Sexist Reaction To The Anthony Weiner Affair

The media today is all abuzz about recidivist sexter Anthony Weiner. Clearly this guy has an addiction that is driving him into self-destructive behavior. There is a temptation among many in the press to make a joke of it, but the consequences have proven to be profoundly serious. His wife, Huma Abedin, announced that they will be separating. There is nothing funny about a broken family with an infant child. What’s funny is that the media gets more heated about quirky behavior that hurts no one, than they do about the sexual harassment by former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes, who left a trail of victims.


In response to this marital misery, Donald Trump has lived down to expectations and found a way to take the low road as usual. Rather than express his condolences, or any concern for the child, Trump seemed overcome with glee for what he perceives to be a positive development. One that is ripe with political opportunity. His first response to the sad news was that:

“”Huma is making a very wise decision. I know Anthony Weiner well, and she will be far better off without him.”

That is an utterly disingenuous comment. Donald Trump has absolutely no idea what is best for Huma or anyone else in that family. What’s more, he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about them. He regards Huma as a traitor with allegiances to the Muslim Brotherhood. She is also an accomplice to the imagined crimes of Hillary Clinton in his conspiratorial mind. It it simply absurd for him to suddenly pretend that he has her best interests at heart. But he had more to say that just made things even worse:

“I only worry for the country in that Hillary Clinton was careless and negligent in allowing Weiner to have such close proximity to highly classified information. Who knows what he learned and who he told? It’s just another example of Hillary Clinton’s bad judgment. It is possible that our country and its security have been greatly compromised by this.”

Try to follow Trump’s logic here. He asserts that Clinton “allowed” Weiner to have access to classified information. Weiner would have gotten that information from his wife, Huma, who is also a close aide to Clinton. So Trump believes that Huma, who has high-level security clearances from the government, is blabbing state secrets to her libidinous hubby.

The assumption Trump has to make to arrive at that conclusion is pure, unadulterated sexism. It is insulting to all women. He thinks that women who work in sensitive government jobs are untrustworthy gossips who divulge secrets in pillow talk. In his mind women are undisciplined chatterboxes with no sense of duty or patriotism. Would he be similarly worried for the country about Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann spilling the beans to their spouses?

The obvious contempt Trump has for the integrity of women is appalling. You would never hear him say anything similar about a man sharing government secrets with his wife. And if he does think that that is a credible risk, then you have to wonder what classified info he would be yakking to Melania?

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

It’s no surprise that the the media is getting its thrills from the tabloid sexcapades of a fallen congressman who has no power or position. But we should be far more concerned with the misogyny of the Republican nominee for president. If Donald Trump doesn’t think women can serve the nation honorably, then he has no business asking for their votes. Or for that matter, the votes of their husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons.

Rush Limbaugh’s War On The War On Women: Attacking Huma Abedin

I suppose it had to come to this. With most of the conventional media piling on Anthony Weiner – who had no extramarital affairs, and was not unfaithful to his wife – it has been left to Rush Limbaugh to sink to the most disgusting depths of personal vilification with his attack on Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin.

Rush Limbaugh
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

Limbaugh’s daily sermonette was dripping with contempt as he lashed out at Abedin for what he claimed was her effort to “normalize their depravity.” He said that Abedin was making it common and noble to stand by a misbehaving spouse, thereby enabling his misbehavior. And make no mistake, this is not Limbaugh complaining about Weiner. He is aiming his animus directly at Abedin:

Limbaugh: “Huma Abedin is doing everything she can to make sure that women are seen as steppingstones and doormats.”

It takes a truckload of gall for Limbaugh, a drug-abuser who is presently on his fourth wife, to pretend that he has any grounds for lecturing others on morality. Yet that is precisely what he did for much of his radio broadcast today. It is a typical Republican approach to ethics wherein they readily condemn their political foes for behavior they engage in at least as often.

What’s more, conservative hypocrites are all too ready to forgive those on their side of the aisle who stray. That’s why GOP scoundrels like Sen. David Vitter, Rep. Mark Sanford, and even former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, generally remain in their official posts while Democrats have the decency to resign and withdraw from public life for a while. And for some reason, the allegedly “family values” posers on the right frequently abandon their marriage vows, but still have the temerity to complain when Democratic couples succeed in keeping their families in tact. Limbaugh criticized that very aspect of the Weiners’ relationship, suggesting that by preserving their marriage Abedin was demonstrating poor character and weakness. These right-wing freaks actually root for divorce and broken families, but will surely condemn that as well should it occur down the road. Nothing irks them more than the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton stayed together, raised their daughter, and continue to support one another.

Not surprisingly, Limbaugh couched his obnoxious assault in starkly political terms. In doing so he managed to prove that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. He sneered that his interest in these matters was because “feminism is a political arm of the Democrat Party” (which is a plus for Democrats), and that Democrats condone the sort of activity that Weiner has engaged in. Of course, the truth is that no one is more critical of Weiner than his fellow Democrats and certainly not one has come close to condoning anything he did. But Limbaugh’s demented political perspective goes even further to entirely slip the bounds of reason:

Limbaugh: “I don’t want to ever hear another word about a Republican War on Women, because Democrat women are doing more to set women and whatever causes they might have back to the Dark Ages.”

Apparently, Limbaugh thinks that the “War on Women” has something to do with marital infidelity. Obviously it does not. When Democrats accuse Republicans of conducting a War on Women, they are referring to the GOP’s overt opposition to issues that women support and that directly impact their freedom and well being. Republicans, as a group, oppose equal pay for equal work; they voted against the Violence Against Women Act; they fought allowing women soldiers into combat roles; they resist laws mandating gender equality in the workplace; and they don’t trust women to make reproductive decisions about their own bodies. That’s what the War on Women is, not some personal melodrama. But Limbaugh can’t understand this. He complains that Democrats are “making a mockery of women” by staying in nurturing relationships with them instead of casting them aside. And then he let’s loose this tirade boasting that Republicans are somehow superior in their treatment of the women they regard as inferior:

“It’s not us using them. It’s not us chewing ’em up and spitting ’em out. It’s not us making fools of them. It’s not us disrespecting them. It’s not us doing any of this stuff. Not as a political party.”

Actually, Rush, it is you. It is you and your party that belittles and suppresses women. It is you who disrespect them. Ask the former Mrs. Giuliani, or the former Mrs. Sanford, or the several former Mrs. Gingrichs, or any of your own cast-offs, if they feel as if they were chewed up and spit out. Then ask Huma Abedin how she feels about you disparaging her character and passing judgment on her decision to work on and repair her marriage for the sake of herself, her husband, and her infant son.

Limbaugh began this broadcast saying that he “didn’t ever want to hear another word about a Republican War on Women.” Well, I don’t ever want to hear another word about Republican family values. At least not from neanderthals like Limbaugh who clearly do not value families.

[Update] Not to be outdone, Fox News hosted right-wing radio talker Michael Graham to bash Abedin. He rabidly pronounced that she is “even worse” than Weiner.

HA! NewsBusters Gets Blustered Over News Corpse Article

This is rich. NewsBusters, the uber-rightist attack dog for the conservative media, is very unhappy about my analysis of the cable news ratings earlier this week. I reported that MSNBC had scored a rare ratings victory over Fox News and that Rachel Maddow, in particular, had not only crushed her time period competition (Sean Hannity), but also beat Bill O’Reilly in the key 25-54 year old demographic. It was a newsworthy milestone and an important trend to keep an eye on.

Tim Graham, the Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center, could not contain himself and penned a column that took issue with my fanciful speculation about adding a new program to the MSNBC schedule with former Rep. Anthony Weiner as the host. Never mind that I explicitly offered the suggestion as a “long shot” and a “curiosity,” Graham built his whole column around the musing. In the meantime, he had nothing whatsoever to say about the the principle subject of my article: the fact that Fox was getting its butt kicked.

Graham and his glassy-eyed followers at NewsBusters really think that Weiner would be a lousy choice to host a new program. Maybe so, but he has a lot more intelligence and personality than most of the Fox News lineup. What’s more, he isn’t even the biggest perv in this group. Bill O’Reilly paid a huge settlement to a former producer for sexual harassment. Dick Morris was caught with a hooker who he paid to suck his toes. And Charles Leaf, a correspondent who reported for Fox, was arrested for having sexually assaulted a four year old girl.

Weiner, of course, did nothing illegal. Although it wasn’t very smart to tweet risque pictures of himself amongst consenting adults, it was a lot less repulsive than assault, harassment, and solicitation. Yet Graham and the FoxPods have forgiven O’Reilly, Morris, et al, but still think Weiner should be banished from the airwaves and, perhaps, from all public life.

That’s so typical of the sanctimonious, judgmental, conservative mindset that claims to revere family values but who elevate deviant freaks like Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump, John McCain, etc, whose multiple marriages are in stark contrast to the values they pretend to hold. They might want to hang on to their stones until they have vacated their glass houses.

How To Be A Media Magnet: Cutting Through The Clutter

The state of contemporary journalism is widely regarded as defective by consumers and critics representing a broad diversity of opinion. It seems that the media has no constituency defending its professional lethargy and its reliance on sensationalism and melodrama.

The past few weeks have provided comprehensive instructions on how to be an utterly frivolous and ineffective news industry. When Americans are desperate for information about pressing issues concerning jobs, the economy, health and Medicare, and national security, they are left wanting as the major news enterprises dump loads of salacious gossip, celebrity gaffes, and lurid tales of criminal miscreants. Just trying to be heard over the caterwaul of crapola that passes for news is an Olympian feat. If it isn’t a lewd lawmaker (Anthony Weiner) flooding the airwaves, it’s a murderous mom (Casey Anthony), one of thousands of murderers, but the only one that seems to garner any attention.

Recent surveys have shown that the media is not covering the issues that the people are most interested in. The audience has made its preference clear: they want substance, not sleaze. But the media tone-deafness was demonstrated exquisitely when all three cable news networks cut away from Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives, after she informed them that she would only be addressing questions regarding jobs and the economy, and not Rep. Weiner. As is becoming routine, a non-news personality summed it up best by playing a video clip of CNN’s Wolf Blitzer expressing his reluctance to cover the titillating trivialities of the day:

Wolf Blitzer: We’ve covered these kinds of stories, It’s not a pleasure for us. It’s not something we look forward to. I’d much rather be discussing economic issues, jobs, the future of Medicare, national security issues, than talking about this.

Jon Stewart: [Incredulously] What’s stopping you?!

In an effort to enhance the public’s access to the stories that actually impact their lives, I am offering this tutorial on how to get appropriate coverage of the critical matters that face our nation. It is not enough to be brilliantly articulate about a position or to make a coherent case for a policy. You must grab the attention away from the media whores and their enablers in the press corps. Here is how to do just that in a handy shareable infographic guide:

Now get out there and make some news.

Proof The Media Care More About Sleaze Than Substance

The big story this morning, despite the sputtering economy, painful unemployment, a presidential campaign, and multiple foreign wars, is of course, Anthony Weiner’s announcement that he is resigning from congress. The blatantly twisted priorities of the media were demonstrated when Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi commenced a press conference and immediately stated that she would be talking about jobs and Medicare, and not Mr. Weiner. On hearing this, all three cable news networks cut away.

Just to recap, Weiner is a congressman from New York who is not a member of the Democratic leadership. He was caught up in a “scandal” that involved embarrassing and inappropriate personal communications on Twitter, but no illegality or sexual conduct. He was never accused of misuse of office and his constituents overwhelmingly support him and do not want him to resign.

Nevertheless, the media has hammered at this salacious triviality while underplaying far more important matters that the public wants and needs to know more about. And when offered an opportunity to engage a leader in the House of Representatives on issues critical to our nation, the press turned away as if it were a distraction.

To those who spin this story as being about lying and not about sex, please inform me as to when a scandal about lying ever produced this much attention from media. What’s more, if we are going to start ejecting politicians from office because they lied, we are going to have a nearly empty Capital Building. And for those who recognize that this is about sex or broader issues of morality, then let’s commence the calls for the resignations of Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA), both of whom have been caught violating the law with prostitutes.

The Weiner announcement itself was turned into a circus by a heckler from the Howard Stern Show (whom Fox’s Martha MacCallum characterized as the “anger in the room”). But the embarrassment that is the American press corps is no less a clown act when you get down to it. Perhaps the Stern heckler is a poignant symbol of what the press has become.

People Want Substance – Media Dishes Scandal

A report published by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reveals the gaping divergence between the issues of interest to the American people and those covered by the media.

According to the survey, Americans were most interested in the economy (23%), but the press coverage of that issue amounted to less than half that (11%). Completely flipping those numbers around, only 13% of the country was interested in the Anthony Weiner story, but the press devoted 17% of their time to it – more than any other story.

When asked about the amount of coverage of various stories, 63% of respondents said that the Weiner story received too much coverage. Only 7% said that it received too little. Even a majority of Republicans (58%) said that there was too much press attention on Weiner. These numbers, by the way, were nearly identical to those regarding the Sarah Palin bus trip with 58% saying that it had been over covered, including 52% of Republicans.

If you ever wondered why the pressing problems of the day are not being resolved, or even seriously considered, it’s because the media so dependably ignores the issues about which the people are most concerned. And even when they do approach serious subjects they often trivialize them by focusing on tangents like Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, or distort them with partisan special interests like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Tea Party.

This is why the conventional media is losing ground daily to new media, where news consumers can seek out the information they want. And the folks at CNN, Fox, NBC, etc., can expect this trend to continue as long as they favor salacious trivialities over the issues that the American people regard as important.

A Smart GOP Would Cancel All MSM Debates and Stage Their Own

As I did a week ago with an article by Hugh Hewitt, my headline for this article is taken verbatim from one by John Nolte, editor-in-chief of Andrew Breitbart’s BigHollywood.

This article appeared on BigGovernment and it is great news. The rightist meme that Republican candidates should not participate in debates sponsored by those they deem the “mainstream” media is growing quickly. I can’t think of anything I would like to see more, with regard to the GOP debate season, than to not see them at all. If they actually had the guts to follow through on this threat it would be a great service to America.

Nolte’s primary argument is that candidates should not “willingly put themselves in a less than ideal situation.” That means not exposing oneself to probing questions that might have the disadvantage of revealing what you actually believe. He continues…

Nolte: Nothing is more important than getting our failed president out of office in 2012 and therefore nothing is more important than nominating someone who can win. This is why the number one quality we should be looking for among our otherwise superb field is someone who understands that when it comes to removing Barack Obama from office, the MSM is the existential threat of 2012 – not the President.

Nothing is more important to Nolte than unseating the current president – not jobs; not health care; not global warming; not terrorism; NOTHING!. And the most important quality that Nolte is looking for in a president is fear of the media – not experience; not leadership; not wisdom; not honesty; FEAR! That is the modern GOP in a nutshell (with an emphasis on the nuts). They have NOTHING to offer but FEAR.

Nolte wants the GOP field to stage their own “New Media” debates with folks like Jonah Goldberg and Rush Limbaugh asking the questions. Me too. Does Nolte think that this group won’t ask about issues like abortion or Medicare or the budget? If anything, I think they would be even more confrontational as they seek to elicit loyalty pledges from the candidates to establish their extremist bona fides. But in Nolte’s view, the purpose of the Republican debates should be to “make our side look as good as possible” and to “do as much political damage to President Obama as possible.” Oh yeah, he did throw in that they should also “help primary voters make a difficult choice.” How that would occur while in the midst of a GOP fluffing, Obama bashing festival is unclear.

It’s important to remember that it was Fox News CEO Roger Ailes who said “The candidates that can’t face Fox, can’t face Al Qaeda.” That was in response to Democratic candidates who refused to participate in a debate sponsored by Fox News. So what does that say about the candidates that can’t face NBC or CNN (who is co-hosting their next GOP debate with Tea Party Express)?

Now along with Hugh Hewitt, we have Andrew Breitbart’s web site calling for a media embargo by Republican candidates. Sarah Palin has previously made similar remarks. They may be surprised to learn that I agree with them completely. I hope they have the courage to follow through, but I doubt it. That kind of strength and integrity is not what the GOP is known for.

As an aside, I have been following the Breitbart’s BigGovernment web site since the Anthony Weiner story broke. It has now been 17 days and still…

EVERY SINGLE HEADLINE at the top of the page (with the exception of a plug for Breitbart’s lame book), is about Weiner. There is a word for the kind of psychosis Breitbart is exhibiting: Obsession.

Was Andrew Breitbart’s X-Rated Photo Release Really “Accidental”? [Updated]

Just when you thought that Andrew Breitbart could not become any sleazier, he is now accusing Anthony Weiner and his wife of releasing the news of her pregnancy as a PR stunt. That’s a stretch even for a scumbag like Breitbart. As usual, he has no evidence, not even an anonymous source. It is a wholly invented canard whose only purpose can be to smear the Weiner family and bring them more pain, and consequently bring more pain to his real target, the Democratic Party.

This is politics at its worst. Despite Breitbart’s disingenuous assertion that he didn’t want to hurt the Weiner family, he now says that “We have every right to find out to what extent he’s been misbehaving.” Since when? And if we have that right with regard to Weiner, should we also be stalking every other public servant to disclose their misbehavior? Should we see what Breitbart is up to when he’s not peeking through the windows of his ideological enemies?

If anyone is engaging in PR stunts, it’s Breitbart. When the latest and most graphic picture of Weiner was “leaked” to the media this week, Breitbart feigned outrage, insisting that he had nothing to do with it. Why should anyone believe that?

Here are the known facts: Breitbart took the photo with him when he went to the radio studio of shock-jocks Opie & Anthony. That’s the first curious thing. Why would he need to have that picture with him while visiting a pair of professional jerkwads who make a living off of rank controversy? Then, without any prodding, he handed the photo, which was on his cellphone, to others in the studio who passed it around amongst themselves while making juvenile wisecracks. That is not something someone concerned about the subject’s privacy would do.

Later, Breitbart alleged that a surveillance camera in the room captured the photo from his cellphone. That is a suspect assertion at best. It is simply not credible that a surveillance camera could have picked up the image from Breitbart’s cellphone and produced the detail on the leaked photo that went public. Most surveillance cameras are positioned high on the wall near a corner of the room so that they have a broad perspective of the area they are monitoring. Breitbart expects us to believe that one of those cameras, that are not generally high resolution devices, got a clear and detailed shot over somebody’s shoulder of an image on a small cellphone screen. That assertion needs to be challenged.

Additionally, Breitbart claimed that he only offered to show the photo after he was assured that there were no cameras in the room. That is a verifiable lie. Breitbart knew very well that the show was being videotaped. You can see the video of the show below.

Clearly this was taken on a hand-held device, not a stationary surveillance camera. Breitbart even looks directly at the camera on several occasions. So he obviously lied when he said that he thought there were no cameras in the studio. And his assertion that he was told that there were no cameras was also a lie. The video shows that he never asked for, nor received such an assurance.

In my estimation, Breitbart wanted this photo to be released but he didn’t want to take the heat as the sleazeball who released it. So he manufactured this cover story with a couple of radio publicity hounds who would gladly insert themselves into a national melodrama. Anthony Cumia even admitted as much in an interview on Fox News:

“When you take a chunk of meat into a lion’s den, someone’s gonna take a bite. […] I do kind of like attaching ourselves to an international story. It is the credo of the shock jock.”

This appears to be a deliberate scheme to extend and amplify the controversy, and it is just the sort of thing Breitbart would do based on his Legacy of Sleaze. There are so many pieces of Breitbart’s story that don’t fit, or are certifiably false, that one has to refer to his history of dishonesty and purposeful deception. Until Breitbart can satisfactorily explain these discrepancies, we should assume that he deliberately devised this scheme to release the photo with his shock-jock pals as accomplices.

[UPDATE] Stephen Colbert also noticed Breitbart’s ridiculous cover story about the “accidental” release of the photo. Colbert succinctly nailed the notion that Breibart was an innocent victim of unforeseeable circumstances:

“What happened to the sacred tradition of confidentiality between respected journalists and shock-jocks?”

Colbert also mocked the absurd claim that Breitbart didn’t know there were cameras in the studio by pointing out that no cameras were visible in the video of Breitbart that was taken by a camera across the desk from him.

Don’t Forget Andrew Breitbart’s Legacy Of Sleaze

With calls mounting for Anthony Weiner to resign, it would be prudent to take a look back at the public record of his accuser. It is Andrew Breitbart whose behavior is most repulsive and destructive. He is a liar and a hypocrite and causes far more harm than a horny congressman who never actually engaged in any sexual misconduct. If anyone should resign and skulk away in shame, it’s Breitbart.

[The following News Corpse article was originally published by Alternet]

Andrew BreitbartPublic apologies are often the source of captivating and prurient entertainment. There seems to be a genetic compulsion in the human DNA to observe our heroes, celebrities, and, of course, adversaries, fall from grace and beg forgiveness. This week we saw what may be Rep. Anthony Weiner’s curtain call but, like any good melodrama, he was upstaged by an ambitious and vainglorious rival, Andrew Breitbart.

After commandeering the podium at Weiner’s press conference, Breitbart declared “I’m here for some vindication.” He portrayed himself as a media-contrived victim of character assassination and challenged the reporters in the room substantiate their alleged assaults on his reputation.

“The media says ‘Breitbart lies, Breitbart lies, Breitbart lies, Breitbart lies.’ Give me one example of a provable lie. One. One. Journalists? One. Put your reputation on the line here.”

For some reason, no one in the room responded. It’s almost as if the press were clueless stenographers, unfamiliar with Breitbart’s past, and were incapable of providing a substantive rebuttal.

This is actually fairly typical of the modern press corps. Another example occurred when the New York Times asked Breitbart about the Weiner affair on Saturday and he attempted to strike a non-partisan tone saying that…

“I am as offended when John Ensign acts like an idiot, when Chris Lee acts like an idiot.”

Really? What the Times failed to note was that Breitbart’s BigGovernment blog did not publish a single story about the travails of either Ensign or Lee. Not one single story. How offended was he? Compare that to his obsession with Weiner that produced 17 separate stories and consumed every single headline (except for the plug for his lame book), and that was four full days after the story broke.

For those who are interested, including members of the press who were struck dumb at the press conference, here is a brief compilation of Breitbart’s reportorial resume, replete with dishonesty and deliberate disinformation. Feel free to offer these in response to Breitbart’s future challenges. We will await his profuse and heartfelt apologies.

1) ACORN: Breibart’s web site was the central agency for disseminating videos that were later shown to have been heavily edited in order to convey a fictional scenario that smeared a social service organization that had for years been assisting low income citizens with financial advice and voter registration. Every investigation of the affair exonerated ACORN and affirmed the deception of the videos. Breitbart’s henchman, James O’Keefe, is currently being sued by former ACORN employee, Juan Carlos Vera.

2) Shirley Sherrod: In this episode, Breitbart was responsible for slandering a USDA employee as a racist. Lately he has been defending himself by saying that he had included the “redemptive arc” of her story that revealed her innocence. But let’s not forget how he originally portrayed the situation:

“In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions. […] In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer.”

That is a pretty clear accusation of discriminatory behavior on the part of a federal employee. And it is also a lie. Sherrod did not discriminate against the farmer, as Breitbart later acknowledged, and the story she told was of an incident that occurred 20 years before she held a federal post. Nevertheless, Breitbart’s reaction at the time was another demonstration of his paranoid Narcissism as he whined, “As difficult as it probably was for her, it’s been difficult for me as well.” Poor guy. Sherrod is currently suing Breitbart.

3) Clinton Plotting a Tea Party Attack: Breitbart published a story with no evidence, about an alleged conspiracy that never came to pass:

“Big Government has learned that Clintonistas are plotting a ‘push/pull’ strategy. They plan to identify 7-8 national figures active in the tea party movement and engage in deep opposition research on them. If possible, they will identify one or two they can perhaps ‘turn’, either with money or threats, to create a mole in the movement. The others will be subjected to a full-on smear campaign.”

Also never coming to pass…a retraction. This story bubbled up through the media like much of Breitbart’s fiction, eventually getting coverage from Fox Nation.

4) Jason Mattera’s Punking of Grayson and Franken: Jason Mattera, who later became editor of Human Events, was employed to run a couple of “ambush” interviews that were posted on Breitbart’s web site. One interview targeted Rep. Alan Grayson and castigated him for his support of bill that funded a program to prevent child abuse. The other interview was directed at Sen Al Franken who was attacked for supporting student health and school safety. In both cases Mattera twisted the purpose of the legislation into something unrecognizable and patently false. Expect more of this because, as Breitbart says in his book, Righteous Indignation, “Ambush journalism is the most valuable kind of journalism.”

5) University of Missouri Labor Class: In another phony video sting, Breitbart published a video of the proceedings of a class on the history of labor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. As usual, the video was a deceitful mash-up that misrepresented the professors and students as supporting violent labor activity. The twist here is that it was Breitbart’s one-time friend Glenn Beck who published an accounting of the video deception and vindicated the professors. As a bonus intrigue, the party from whom Breitbart got the UM video is identified only as Insurgent Visuals. That, however, may be a ruse to disguise Breitbart’s long-time partner in crime, James O’Keefe.

6) Beck’s Back Alley Snitch: Speaking of Glenn Beck, in happier times when the two weren’t feuding, Breibart was the source for numerous Beck offensives. He provided Beck with scandalous material on Van Jones who, at the time, was a White House adviser on environmental initiatives. Beck lauded Breitbart, saying…

“You know where the great journalists of our time are? Andrew Breitbart. […] You were the only one, besides watchdogs, that were really aggressively working behind the scenes with us on Van Jones.”

The same thing occurred with Yosi Sergant, communications director for the National Endowment for the Arts. Breitbart went after him and provided the data to Beck, who said…

“This is again another Breitbart story, where the NEA communications director reached out and said, hey, listen, we have to be very careful with our language here.”

In both cases the information provided by Breitbart was vague and/or untrue, but both Jones and Sergant were jettisoned — just as Sherrod was — by a nervous White House for violations that were either false or greatly exaggerated.

7) Democrats Plotted to Blame Tea Party for Slaughter: Breitbart’s site featured an article that made the sensationalist claim that Democrats devised a plan to blame the Tea Party for the tragic shooting in Tucson, AZ. The allegation consisted of a single, unidentified source who merely offered his own opinion that the massacre could be pinned on Tea Partiers. There was no allegation of a conspiracy or even of any discussions of such a plan by anyone connected to the Democratic Party. But that didn’t stop Breitbart from posting the story with an irresponsibly provocative headline.

8) The Abbie Boudreau Affair: In one of the most bizarre adventures by the James O’Keefe gang, they set out to lure CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau into a floating love nest to embarrass her in some manner that was never really explained. While Breitbart did not act as the agent for this prank, he did provide a platform for O’Keefe to publish his defense after having been outed by an accomplice. O’Keefe managed to take a situation in which he appeared to be a revolting pervert and make it worse by saying about Boudreau…

“She would have had to consent before being filmed and she was not going to be faux ‘seduced’ unless she wanted to be.”

Considering the fact that he never sought the consent of his previous video victims, why should we accept his assertion that he was going to start seeking consent now? Even more troubling is his implication that his intended victim “wanted” it. O’Keefe is resorting to the disgusting defense that rapists offer about their victims. And Breitbart permitted this to be published on his site.

9) GEICO Gecko – Tea Party Crasher? Breitbart’s BigGovernment blog posted a mind-numbingly stupid article that accused Ricky Gervais, the actor/comedian and voice of the GEICO Gecko of disparaging the Tea Party in a profanity-laced voice-mail. The only problem is that Gervais had nothing to do with it. It was an actor (D.C. Douglas) who worked for GEICO a couple of years prior. But it wasn’t enough to smear Gervais with insinuations, Breitbart also posted a picture of the Gecko atop a table that was adorned with a poster of President Obama sporting a Hitler mustache. What that had to do with the story is anyone’s guess. It just appeared to be a gratuitous slap at the President while falsely slandering Gervais.

10) Racism: Breitbart is obsessed with the theme of racism. He is convinced that the charge is thrown around cavalierly, and mostly to insult Tea Partiers and himself. He embarked on a campaign to prove that congressman and civil rights hero, John Lewis, was lying when he said that he had been the victim of racial epithets when attending a congressional rally. He regards the Shirley Sherrod incident as an example of the racism demonstrated by the NAACP. But when discussing allegations of his own prejudice, Breitbart said this to radio host Adam Carolla:

“Can I prove that I’m not a racist toward Hispanics? Did you ever see Moscow on the Hudson? Remember Maria Conchita Alonso in that? The things I did to myself as a teenager prove that I’m not a racist.”

So Breitbart’s proof that he is not a racist is that he used to masturbate to pictures of a Latino actress. That defense would also work pretty well to prove that colonial plantation masters weren’t racist either because they routinely raped their slaves. Breitbart’s repulsive pride in his perverse view of racial open-mindedness tells us much about him. And he is certainly in no position to assess the veracity of people like John Lewis.

This should be a good starting point for the press in case they ever get the chance again to respond to Breitbart’s call for evidence of his dishonesty and low character. Here’s hoping that they are listening and that no one presumes to use the Weiner affair to rehabilitate Breitbart’s deservedly sleazy reputation. Just because Breitbart lucked into being correct (like a broken clock) doesn’t mean that his long-established pattern of deception should be dismissed. Just because Charles Manson didn’t kill Marilyn Monroe doesn’t mean that he’s innocent of every other crime attributed to him.

Breitbart deserves no accolades over this. His reputation cannot be rehabilitated after one lucky scoop sent to him by a Twitter stalker. And he still owes the many people he deliberately harmed an apology. Weiner, at least, was man enough to own up to his mistakes, eventually. Will Breitbart ever do the same? Not likely.

Andrew Breitbart Is Offended (And Offensive)

The New York Times interviewed Andrew Breitbart about the Anthony Weiner affair on Saturday. He attempted to strike a non-partisan tone saying that…

“I am as offended when John Ensign acts like an idiot, when Chris Lee acts like an idiot.”

However, the Times failed to note that Breitbart’s BigGovernment blog did not publish a single story about the travails of either Ensign or Lee. Not one single story. How offended was he?

Compare that to his obsession with Weiner that produced 17 separate stories and consumed every single headline on his masthead (except for the plug for his lame book), and that was four days after the story broke.

Obviously Breitbart was not as offended by the sexcapades of Ensign and Lee as he was about Weiner. He was lying as usual. And as usual the Times, our so-called liberal mainstream media, was clueless and unable to set the record straight. That’s how Breitbart gets away with being a dishonest slug and propagating his horse manure brand of pseudo-journalism.

[This is partially excerpted from an article I wrote for Alternet:
10 Reasons Andrew Breitbart Should Apologize (Or Just Shut Up and Go Away)]