5.30.2011

Dana Loesch and their cronies lying about Anthony Weiner

Recently, Andrew Breitbart, Dana Loesch, and their cronies over at the Axis Of Evil (Breitbart blogs) are at it again... this time the victim is the well-respected Progressive Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY9) for allegedly posted a lewd photo of his penis. Naturally, the spinners on the Right were screaming "the MSM is burying this story on purpose because he's a Democrat" excuse. Breitbart defending Chris Lee doing the same thing that he's accusing Weiner of doing. Projection much?

From Jed Lewison at Daily Kos:

On January 14, former Rep. Chris Lee sent a shirtless photo of himself to woman who had posted a personal ad on Craigslist. Nearly four weeks later, Gawker posted the picture along with reporting on the context in which it was posted and confirmation from the woman who received it that it was in fact legitimate. Less than four hours later, Lee resigned.

On Friday, a link to a photo of a man in tighty whities appeared on Rep. Anthony Weiner's public Twitter stream. The link was addressed to a female college student in Seattle who was one of Weiner's 45,000+ followers. It appears as though the tweet was not genuine. Weiner says the account was hacked, and the addressee says she has never met Weiner, but even before either of them had a chance to respond, Andrew Breitbart's website posted a screenshot of the tweet and the page to which it linked.

Breitbart's Axis of Evil members are treating this non-story as credible.

Congressman Anthony Weiner has recently been the target of an intrusion on his Twitter and Facebook accounts.

The parties involved appear to have spent about six weeks stalking the Congressman online, studying his followers, and when they got in they had a smear ready to go.

Unfortunately (for him) Breitbart was either involved in the planning, or he was the first and only media source to treat the ridiculous stunt as credible, and it blew up in his face.

We took this ‘scandal’, we ripped it to shreds, and then we rammed the jagged fragments right down Andrew Breitbart’s throat. This is what a healthy media would have done to him long ago, but they’re as rotted as any institution in this country. Without us they’d have gone for titillation and serving the long term goals of their corporate masters over honest reporting and the public good.

Here’s another thing the media won’t touch: Indict Breitbart. The crimes against ACORN in Baltimore City’s jurisdiction are crystal clear and the only reason there wasn’t a grand jury investigation long ago is the city’s battered financial condition.

Image: Daily Kos, via PJTV.

The Weinergate's makings may have started on May 11, 2011, via Dan Wolfe (@patriotusa76).

Image: Daily Kos


The massively stupid Big Hackulism Editor-In-Chief Dana Loesch defends the Right-Wing smear of Anthony Weiner, by trotting out the "faking a yfrog account" excuse.

Image: Daily Kos

So I think we can see what happened here.

1) Rep. Weiner's Facebook was hacked, giving the hackers access to post on his Twitter if the accounts were linked.

2) [edit] A link, supposedly to [/edit] The underwear photo was then tweeted out by the hackers, tagging the college girl but visible to all of Twitterville.

3) Meanwhile, the hackers have taken a screencap of another yfrog account with the photo posted to it, and then photo-shopped Rep. Weiner's name in at the top of the page.

4) They send this photo-shopped screencap to Dana Loesch as "proof" that Rep. Weiner indeed posted the photo.

4) Crazy old @patriotusa76 is meanwhile tweeting madly about the whole thing.

6) Breitbart wastes no time in publishing the story.

Two questions remain:

Who is @patriotusa76 and did he participate in the hoax?

and

Was Breitbart in on it, or did he fall for it?


Loesch crony and regular guest of The Dana Show, Dan Riehl falsely accused Weiner's representative of "lying" twice.

I've already wrote about why I think it's very likely that Representative Anthony Weiner's twitter account was hacked (though, obviously, the facts are still coming out). But here's some further evidence backing up the claim that Breitbart's bloggers are, predictably, doing an incredibly sloppy job covering the story and trying to use it to attack Weiner.

On Big Journalism, Dan Riehl claimed that Anthony Weiner's spokesperson "lied" twice to the New York Post. However, this claim of "lying" was based only on Riehl's preconcieved notions of what happened. Here's the first claim that Riehl says is a "lie:"

Again, the claim that it was a "lie" was based on the idea that the reference point was when the photo was posted. Again, an equally plausible reference point was the time that Weiner first saw the photo. In that case, Riehl has no evidence to justify his claim that it was a "lie" that Weiner joked about the tweet 15 minutes after seeing it.

The sloppy schmournalists at Breitbart's sites are always happy to accuse people of "lying" without bothering to look for alternative explanations. If they were actually committed to finding the actual facts, they would not be so sloppy.


Adam Shriver of the St. Louis Activist Hub has this takeaway:

On Friday night, a photo of an erection in shorts was posted on Congressman Anthony Weiner's twitter account, seemingly directed at a woman from Seattle. Weiner posted shortly after telling people that his account was hacked but, unsurprisingly, the goober's from Breitbart's websites are declaring that this is all-but-conclusive proof that Weiner is engaging in scandalous behavior. Unlike a recommended diary at Daily Kos, I don't think that Breitbart photoshopped the photos or that they weren't really posted on Weiner's account. However, I think there are pretty clear reasons to think that the account was hacked.

Basically, the "Weiner is guilty" crowd is arguing for the following idea: Weiner intended to DM (Direct Message) the picture, but accidently sent it publicly. The idea is that it is improbable but not impossible that Weiner would be so sloppy as to send a lewd photo publicly. But the problem with this theory is that EVEN if the message had been sent in a DM, it wouldn't have been private! The photo was posted to RepWeiner's yfrog account. Yfrog is an application that allows you to post photos. It does allow the option of direct messaging: however, any and all of the photos you post on it are publicly available. So even if Weiner sent a DM through his yfrog account, the photo would be available to the public.

Any honest, sane, ethical purveyors of information will wait for the full facts to come out to make declarations of what ultimately happened; which of course is exactly why the Breitbart bloggers are doing the exact opposite.

Gennette Nicole Cordova, the alleged recipient of the photos, issued a statement to the New York Daily News, home to Red Eye regulars and Conservatives S.E. Cupp's and Andrea Tantaros' columns:

Friday evening I logged onto Twitter to find that I had about a dozen new mentions in less than an hour, which is a rare occurrence. When I checked one of the posts that I had been tagged in I saw that it was a picture that had supposedly been tweeted to me by Congressman Anthony Weiner.

The account that these tweets were sent from was familiar to me; this person had harassed me many times after the Congressman followed me on Twitter a month or so ago. Since I had dealt with this person and his cohorts before I assumed that the tweet and the picture were their latest attempts at defaming the Congressman and harassing his supporters.

I am a 21-year-old college student from Seattle. I have never met Congressman Weiner, though I am a fan. I go to school in Bellingham where I spend all of my time; I've never been to New York or to DC. The point I am trying to make is that, contrary to the impression that I apparently gave from my tweet, I am not his girlfriend. Nor am I the wife, girlfriend or mistress of Barack Obama, Ray Allen or Cristiano Ronaldo, despite the fact that I have made similar assertions about them via Twitter.

There have never been any inappropriate exchanges between Anthony Weiner and myself, including the tweet/picture in question, which had apparently been deleted before it reached me. I cannot answer the questions that I do not have the answers to. I am not sure whether or not this letter will alleviate any future harassment. I also do not have a clear understanding as to how or why exactly I am involved in this fiasco. I do know that my life has been seriously impacted by speculation and faulty allegations. My reputation has been called into question by those who lack the character to report the facts.

The point of the story is this: that Breitbart, Loesch, O'Connor, Riehl, Nolte, and their ilk will lie about everything under the sun.

5.19.2011

Biased Loony CNN "Contributor" Dana Loesch: "Obama 'sided with the terrorists'"

Today on KTFK's The Dana Show, CNN "Contributor" and Axis of Evil ringleader Dana Loesch was accusing Obama of being "supportive of terrorists." This is not the first time she has accused Democrats of being "terrorist enablers."

From the 05.19.2011 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:


Loesch also happened to give the "Obama is a secret Muslim" meme some more undeserved credibility:

From the 05.19.2011 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:


Note to Liaresch: Obama is a Christian, through and through, and NOT a Muslim or Atheist. This nonsense is typical from a person who has a long rapsheet regarding Islamophobia.

Why in the hell does CNN give this imbecile a "contributor" tag and let her spew out inane bullshit unchecked? Maybe they ought to take it away from her, but I don't see it happening.

5.10.2011

Dana Loesch continues to embarass herself

CNN Contributor, dishonest hack, and leader of the Breitbart/Loesch Axis of Evil Dana Loesch has told a bunch of lies on the UMSL/UMKC issue, along with countless others.

Today on her radio show, Loesch was telling numerous dishonest lies.

CNN's Dana Loesch is trying to pretend away the deceptive editing practices at the center of the Andrew Breitbart campaign to "go after the teachers."

Yesterday, officials at the University of Missouri-St. Louis concluded that the videos Breitbart's site Big Government used to smear two of the university's labor studies lecturers were "highly distorted through splicing and editing."

Loesch rejected their findings on her radio show today
h/t: Media Matters



From the o5.10.2011 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:


James O'Keefe, an unethical man and a history of distortions, was on The Dana Show today to talk about the heavily edited tapes, of which he defended.

In 2009, O'Keefe stopped by Washington University in St. Louis to film the school administration's efforts to shut down a mock gulag erected on campus by the right-wing group Young Americans for Liberty. A couple of months later, Christofanelli penned a column in the campus newspaper defending "our gulag event."


From the 05.10.2011 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:




She has had a history of demonizing unions and public education for their own gains.

On Mother's Day Night, Dana Loesch and Frances Martel went on the Stage Right Show, hosted by Axis of Evil member Larry O'Connor, to discuss about motherhood and politics. From the St. Louis Activist Hub:

Dana Loesch "debated" Frances Martel on the Stage Right Show yesterday and called the woman she was debating, Frances Martel, a "bitch." Naturally, her obsessive fans will take this as evidence of how brilliant she is, since unoriginal name-calling is the pinnacle of tea party argumentation.


From the 05.08.2011 edition of breitbart.tv's Stage Right Show:


So, she is tarnishing any remaining value that she has by being an outright Breitfart bootlicker.

5.06.2011

Breitbart/Loesch Axis of Evil Ringleader Dana Loesch's week in lies

Breitbart/Loesch Axis of Evil Ringleader and Big Hackulism editor-in-chief Dana Loesch was on CNN this morning to talk about Osama Bin Laden. And, as usual, she went to her bread and butter: talk all over the other guests and lie to the American people.


Transcript from the 05.06.2011 edition of CNN Newsroom (9AM CDT Hour):

COSTELLO: Oh, but it's time for political buzz, a lightning fast conversation hitting the hot political topics of the day. Each of our brilliant political observers get 20 seconds to answer three probing questions.

Dana Loesch is a Tea Party supporter and conservative. Cornell Belcher was a Democratic pollster for the 2008 Obama campaign. And, once again, comedian Pete Dominick will lend his own unique perspective.

So, welcome to you all.

And the first question: have Democrats overcome the wimp factor?

Dana?

DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: One decision, which I applaud -- I applaud the decision of the president to send in a human ops team instead of bombing the compound at Abbottabad. But I think the way you can follow this up and show that Democrats have really made a really good turn is to stop the investigation into the CIA members who are interrogating detained terrorists. At the same time, while you're celebrating the victory of the death of bin Laden, which was achieved by those interrogations.

COSTELLO: Cornell?

CORNELL BELCHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You know, I'm going to first reject and then I'm going to ridicule the very premise of this. I mean, if we're defining being tough as going half-cocked into war that we can't afford and can't pay for, costing thousands of lives and putting our country in debt -- no, we're not very tough. If wimpy means, you know, a measured, thoughtful response when our national security calls for it, well, then yes, we're pretty wimpy on that. We're Peewee Herman if that's the way we're defining it.

COSTELLO: Pete?

PETE DOMINICK, COMEDIAN: Yes. I think how we define the toughness is how we well we kill people or how our president orders our military. Well, then, if we're going with that premise, President Obama just, what, a few weeks into his presidency ordered the same SEAL team to snipers, to kill the Somalian pirates, 30,000 troops in Afghanistan and then bin Laden. If that's how you measure tough, I think he wins.

COSTELLO: OK. Second question: Michael Moore says the shooting of bin Laden was an execution and we should call it that. Do you agree?

Cornell?

BELCHER: You know, who cares what Michael Moore thinks on this? Look, Bin Laden, he's a guy. He's a terrorist who killed thousands of Americans. He's killed people all over the world, not only Americans but Muslims as well.

You can call it whatever you want to call it. He needed getting and we got him.

COSTELLO: Dana?

LOESCH: Whose side is Michael Moore on, anyway? Is he upset that he wasn't able to exploit this for another mockumentary and then go back and make millions of dollars off of it? I'm trying to figure out whose side Michael Moore is on. I think this is triumph of good over evil. He needs to stop with the (INAUDIBLE). COSTELLO: Pete?

LOESCH: He has to. It's done.

DOMINICK: Well, I mean, I kind of agree with Michael Moore. I mean, I think obviously it was an execution.

We found out yesterday there was only guy with a weapon. It's disrespectful to Navy SEALs. They could have taken him down with a crossbow. It's a 54-year-old frail man. They could have choked bin Laden with his own beard.

I mean, it really -- we -- definitely, we executed this guy, for sure.

COSTELLO: Got it.

DOMINICK: Whatever they're supposed to do.

COSTELLO: Third question, the week is ending. We've had a few days to digest all of this. So, what does Osama bin Laden's death really mean?

Dana?

LOESCH: Well, I think we saw images all over the television. I think it's fantastic that everyone was able to unite and realize that this was the ultimate triumph of good over evil. We took out a figurehead of a terrorist organization and I think it sends a loud message that it may take a few years, but we'll track you down and we'll find you in whatever rat hole or overpriced concrete compound in which you live.

COSTELLO: Cornell?

BELCHER: This -- I hope it means this. I hope it means that Osama bin Laden and his sort of evil ways become a footnote in history. If you look at the "Arab Spring" that's taking hold all over the Middle East right now, you know, bombs and guns and killing is not the way forward for bringing about change. I think we've seen that in Egypt. That's what I hope this means, is that this is an end to this way of thinking because it's not the way forward.

COSTELLO: Pete?

DOMINICK: It means different things for different people. One thing for young Americans who were coming of age who feel like their innocence was lost. It means something different for military families, victims' families, of course. But I hope -- I hope it means a pivot point for this president to get out of Afghanistan. And I really believe that that is a possibility right now, and I hope that's what it means.

COSTELLO: Dana, Cornell, Pete -- thanks, as always. And we'll be back again Monday. We enjoyed it.

Osama bin Laden's death might have dealt a blow to al Qaeda. But overcoming our foreign oil addiction could finish them off. We'll take a closer look at that, coming up.

Over the past week, Loesch has made pathetic excuses, such as accusing Barack Obama and the Liberals of "politicizing OBL for their own gain."
I also give credit to Bush for standing by the interrogation practices which delivered the clue that the CIA and military used to track bin Laden to his million-dollar compound.

But for the left and its media to ignore the reason why the action is impossible is petty and demonstrates more allegiance to party than country. The biggest obstacle to killing bin Laden was the left themselves. Had we gone their way instead of staying the course, bin Laden would likely still be alive.
Hey Dana, even if the left stopped waterboarding, Osama Bin Laden would've been dead sooner or later.



Image: Media Matters For America

She also supported Bush's inhumane decision to support waterboarding:
From the 05.02.2011 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:



These same Right-Wing fools (including her) think that Bush 43 should get at least a significant portion of the credit. I think that Bush the 2x Election Thief does NOT deserve ANY credit in killing OBL.

Also earlier in the week, Loesch was making up more lies, such as that "Color of Change runs MSNBC," especially The Dylan Ratigan Show.

Color of Change, the group founded by admitted Marxist and 9/11 truther Van Jones, is chest-thumping all over Twitter essentially saying that they, not Dylan Ratigan, run “The Dylan Ratigan Show.”
Color of Change seeks to suppress conservative commentary across the board, period. They’re not interested in social justice issues as they market themselves to be, otherwise they would have been the first out of the gate with the Pigford story. They would have been the first to condemn the exploitation of black farmers for monetary and other gain by government officials and members of the Democratic party. Instead, they’ve taken the hard line against those farmers and against dissent of any form.

If this group has succeeded in overtaking a cable news network and fatalistically snuff out any non-progressive voice on a debunked race-baiting charge, it’s troubling for free speech and diverse thought, indeed.


She mentioned the repeatedly debunked falsehood on Pigford, by attacking the Black farmers who were victims of discrimination by the Federal Government and praising John Stossel (who infamously suggested repealing portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and her Axis of Evil parter Andrew Breitbart. Media Matters for America easily rebuts Loesch's lies on this subject:

John Stossel -- who believes that private businesses should have the right to engage in racial discrimination -- devoted another segment of his Fox Business show to attacking the Pigford lawsuit that provided recompense to black farmers who were victims of systemic discrimination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Stossel set the segment up as a debate between Al Pires, a lawyer who represented the black farmers, and serial liar Andrew Breitbart, who has attacked Pigford as part of his eight-month smear campaign against former USDA official Shirley Sherrod, who first came to prominence after Breitbart posted a deceptively-edited video of a speech she gave that falsely portrayed her as a racist.

Stossel and Breitbart didn't make any new claims about Pigford. Rather, they rehashed the same tired distortions that we've previously debunked -- that the case is a "scam" and the claimants don't deserve their money.

But the segment was notable for Stossel's refusal to acknowledge that there was real, systematic discrimination against black people by the USDA. Recall that back when Stossel argued that "private businesses ought to get to discriminate" on the basis of race and called for the repeal of part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he at least acknowledged that the government should not discriminate.


From the 05.05.2011 edition of FBN's Stossel:


And finally, Loesch and her cohorts (sadly, including supposedly reputable media sources) are still pushing the UMKC/UMSL falsehoods, including the incitation of violence.

5.03.2011

Dana Loesch makes up multiple lies in Tucson

At the Tucson Tea Party, Dana Loesch was spewing out numerous falsehoods, accusing the "Liberals are politicizing the Loughner incident." Wrong, Dana! People like her are the ones that politicized it.

She also said that "I'm not afraid of going into the lion's den [CNN] and debate Spitzer." Well, Dana, it is CNN that routinely allows you to spew lies unchecked. She accuses the media of "being Liberal." Give me a break!

She also accused the Democrats/Progressives/Liberals of being racist and sexist. Wrong again, Dana! It's your beloved Republicans that are the racists and sexists. She said that she left the Democratic Party over issues like these. She has accused the "Liberals of being violent." No, people like her are the ones inciting violence.

She talked about the falsehood-ridden UMKC/UMSL scandal, misleadingly accusing the professors of lying, and defending the edited tapes of Andrew Breitbart. She accused the professors for being "Commies."

She used her repeatedly debunked lie that "Conservatives create jobs." A lie, as they're the ones who are causing job losses.

She has repeated her usual "unions = thugs" garbage.

She claims that the "Teahadists are victims." No, YOU made yourself into a diva.

These are some of the main lies that Dana Loesch has repeated, and that's only the tip of the iceberg.


Dana Loesch Rocks the Tucson Tea Party, April 30, 2011 from Mike Shaw on Vimeo.

Tweets by @JGibsonDem