Behold: A Burnsian Masterpiece!

  Charles C Johnson Gawker Defamation Lawsuit by Milo Yiannopoulos

See also here and here.

I really hope James O'Keefe, like Johnson, will rely exclusively on his buddy Burns for legal advice.

What are they up to now? John Burns Edition

Remember John Burns, the guy who teamed up with James O'Keefe to falsely accuse Washington University of oppressing free speech, then tried to sabotage a marriage equality rally, then heroically lost a public transportation ballot initiative in humiliating fashion by claiming the Republican Mayor of Chesterfield personally ordered police to shut down a tea party protest, oh, and who helped O'Keefe come up with a plan to sexually humiliate a CNN reporter?

What's he been up to?

He's been lawyerin for Chuck C. Johnson, that's what!

O'Keefe Sex Boat Plan References "Crazy" Ideas From John Burns

A recently leaked document at Breitbart Unmasked apparently shows the full 13 page "plan" to isolate CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau on a sex boat with James O'Keefe as part of a "joke." I previously reported that St. Louis's John Burns, a guy who worked with James O'Keefe to try to smear Washington University in a "campus gulag" hoax and sabotage an LGBT rally, and who also led the St. Louis tea party's disastrous campaign against public transportation, was mentioned by CNN as being in on the planning of the efforts to "seduce" Boudreau.  The document, authored by Ben Wetmore, says that he had to spend thirty minutes rejecting "crazy" ideas from Burns.  Here's the text:

I already spent 30 minutes defending the idea and trying to battle crazy permutations from Burns.  The more people you tell about an operation, the more it 1) opens it up to unknown future problems, 2) good ideas have to defend against bad ones, 3) people running their mouths to Hartsock, CNN and other people who will cause additional unknown complications.  

Considering that the plan was basically to demand that Boudreau go alone on a boat full of sex toys and video recording devices along with O'Keefe where O'Keefe would try to "seduce" her, it's hard to imagine what ideas from Burns were considered "too crazy" for this group.  As you can infer from the above, the document is also not very complimentary of Christian Hartsock, an employee of Breitbart.com:

Considering the complex dynamic with Hartsock, that he will see this CNN connection as his "big break," and that he's notorious for having loose lips, he certainly can't be trusted to keep this in confidence, and will speak to either people his age or perhaps even to CNN directly to curry favor.  He should be given the vaguest details, and if he's very upset about the potential complication to his future, reminded that future operations will be newsworthy as well.

Gateway Astroturf Initiative Badmouthing Tea Party To Other Conservative Groups, Claiming They Have "Alchohol Problems"

Jen Ennenbach, one of the co-founders of the new Gateway Astroturf Initiative (aka GIGLI), previously wrote the following about the St. Louis Tea Party:

For a movement that screams ”transparency, transparency, transparency!!!!” I certainly see none here. I see: Executive Director who was recently seated to the Board which stroked her ego; an unemployed lawyer, Benjamin Smith Williams (aka Ben Evans), who holds his Bar in New York, not Missouri, but still likes to act as legal counsel here; a loose cannon, John Burns who has been out of the Tea Party movement for over a year; another huge-headed blogger who likes to distort truth and is too chickenshit to put his name to half of what he publishes (Darin Morely); Co-founder Bill Hennessy, standing by silently, but driving this all behind the scenes.

But it looks like what she's saying about them behind their backs is even worse. Here's a message from Ennenbach to C. Steven Tucker, a leader of the Chicago Tea Party:


So very classy of Loesch's group to publicly pretend to be staying above the fray while privately smearing their former friends.

Tea Party Civil War? Email Accounts Disabled! Logos To Be Discontinued?

From the batch of emails forwarded to me.

Doug Edelman:

For the record, the TEA PARTY isn’t slamming Jim Hoft. 4 individuals are.

Jen Ennenbach (the former St. Louis tea party spokesperson):

That is absolutely the case. These four (plus a Mr Mom stay at home blogger) have gone rogue, cut off all communication within the STLTPC core, disabled email accounts, stolen intellectual property, and LIED. . .all in the name of a candidate. Sad. Oh, also, Chris Loesch has requested an immediate cease of use on his logos. . .which include the St Louis Tea Party logo and the SOB (pirate looking) logo. So, if you have these up on any of your sites, please replace them with something else. He has never been compensated for the use of these.

Also, someone might want to clue John Burns into the fact that my email has changed since he disabled my old address, so I'm not receiving his rants, except through forwards from others.. . .but hey, he's not rational right now, how could we expect him to think straight?

Sounds pretty bad.

Former Tea Party Spokesperson Says Tea Party Was Co-Opted By Ed Martin!

Jen Ennenbach, who for a long period of time was described as the "tea party's spokesperson," said on Twitter that the St. Louis Tea Party has been "hijacked" and "co-opted" by Ed Martin operatives with over-inflated egos:

As much as my natural inclinations tempt me to believe this is true, it doesn't entirely make sense. The tea party members criticizing Ann Wagner and others have not been speaking on behalf of the group, but have been making clear they're only speaking for themselves. Is Ennenbach criticizing them just for expressing their own opinions?

Dan Riehl Responds to St. Louis Tea Party Allegations

As I noted previously, members of the St. Louis Tea Party alleged that political consultant Chip Gerdes ghost wrote a blog post for blogger Dan Riehl on Big Government attacking congressional candidate Ed Martin. Here's what they wrote:

As mentioned at the top, Hoft was quoted in the first hit piece against Ed Martin that came out last August on Big Government. That piece, supposedly written by Dan Riehl, sparked a firestorm among Tea Party conservatives in Missouri. Upon questioning, Chip Gerdes, another paid political consultant, stated that he wrote the piece as a “warning shot” to Ed Martin because of comments that Martin made on a Christian AM radio station. If Gerdes is writing hit pieces for Ann Wagner and publishing them under Dan Riehl’s name, what else has he written?

I asked Riehl on Twitter how many of his posts had been written by political consultants and this is how he responded:

I then pointed out that I was merely quoting the tea party:

His response:

So Riehl is on record denying the claims by Burns, Moore, and Evans that political consultant Chip Gerdes wrote a blog post for him. It seems like the burden is now on them to provide evidence to back up their claims; otherwise there's no particular reason to take their word over anyone else's.

St. Louis Tea Party Leaders Slam Gateway Pundit!

Obviously, I have no love for Ed Martin. And I'm on record as being critical of the St. Louis Tea Party for claiming to be principled while supporting Roy Blunt over Chuck Purgason and Ed Martin over John Wayne Tucker. But I have to say I actually do have some sympathy for the core group that, unlike Dana Loesch and Jim Hoft, is at least attempting to move forward by holding true to their ideals and opposing the GOP establishment. Though I think they're wrong in believing that Ed Martin is a principled conservative, it is at least clear that they felt like voting for Blunt was merely an imperfect step towards their ultimate goal, and that they would have to try to more actively oppose the crony capitalism of the modern Republican party in the future if they really wanted to live up to their ideals.

On the other hand, Dana Loesch, who voted for Mitt Romney in the 2008 primary and explicitly said that she liked RomneyCare before realizing that it was more profitable to be a "tea party spokesperson" on national television, is unsurprisingly abandoning Ed Martin in favor of Roy Blunt's 2010 campaign manager, GOP insider Ann Wagner. And Jim "Gateway Pundit" Hoft, writing on Loesch's website Big Journalism, also recently launched an attack on Ed Martin. However, members of the St. Louis tea party leadership Michelle Moore, John Burns, and Ben Evans wrote a recent post dismantling Hoft's attacks on Martin. You can read the full post here, but I'll share a few highlights:

• First, they point out that Martin didn't turn the race ugly; he was actually the target of an attack from Dan Riehl earlier in the year on Breitbart's Big sites (where Loesch is an editor).
• They reiterate Darin Morley's point that it was ridiculous for Hoft to try to imply that Ed Martin is more connected to Roy Blunt than is Ann Wagner.
• They criticized Hoft's attempts to pretend that Wagner's husband is no longer involved in advocating on behalf of Enterprise Rent-a-Car:

  As everyone in the Tea Party knows Ray delisted himself in preparation for Ann’s campaign; however, he is still Enterprise's Government & Public Affairs Vice-President. In that capacity, he oversees Enterprise's lobbying and he helps determine where their campaign funds go. Again, Jim knows this, but deliberately ignores it in the post.

• They point out that Chip Gerdes, a familiar creepy scuzzbucket for readers of this blog, said that he wrote Dan Riehl's original attack on Ed Martin as a "warning shot:"

  As mentioned at the top, Hoft was quoted in the first hit piece against Ed Martin that came out last August on Big Government. That piece, supposedly written by Dan Riehl, sparked a firestorm among Tea Party conservatives in Missouri. Upon questioning, Chip Gerdes, another paid political consultant, stated that he wrote the piece as a “warning shot” to Ed Martin because of comments that Martin made on a Christian AM radio station.

• They also question where Hoft got his data and whether he even did his own writing:

  If Gerdes is writing hit pieces for Ann Wagner and publishing them under Dan Riehl’s name, what else has he written?...We ask: Where did those figures come from? Dan Riehl and Dana Loesch have written on Twitter and in Tea Party emails that hundreds of thousands of dollars were given to Ed Martin by Ann Wagner’s Enterprise connections. This has been proven false. Who gave Jim the data and where is it? Let’s see some research.

The biggest criticism of the tea party, though, is that Hoft attributed their research to Ed Martin, even though he should have known better. St. Louis Tea Party founder Bill Hennessy, who wasn't one of the authors of the post, suggests that Hoft "intentionally deceived his readers" in the comments:

I, too, am disappointed by Jim Hoft's inconsistency and deception.

Inconsistency: Jim approved of Dan Riehl's Big Government hit piece on Ed Martin some months ago--the one that rehashed old Carnahan distortions that 24th State shot down in 2010.

Deception: Jim knows that St. Louis Tea Party researchers, not the Ed Martin campaign, performed the research and supplied it to Daily Caller. I was present when Jim was told. By pretending otherwise, Jim seems to intentionally deceive Gateway Pundit readers.

Cordially,
Bill Hennessy

So, there are a lot of questions there, but my biggest one is this: will Hoft even acknowledge the criticisms? We all know he ignores arguments from almost anyone who disagrees with him, but will he be equally afraid of debate with his fellow members of the tea party? They also suggest that Loesch should give them a platform on her radio show or on Big Journalism to respond, and I think they have a strong point.

MO-02: Ed Martin and Ann Wagner Attack Each Other Though Discredited Right-Wing Blogs

This is too funny. Ed Martin and Ann Wagner are all nicey nicey when they participate in debates and campaign events related to the GOP primary in Missouri's Second Congressional District. Martin, if you recall, even asked Wagner to sign a pledge to avoid personal attacks and focus on the issues. Of course, what that means for Martin is to use anonymous attacks and smears from supportive bloggers to attack his opponents, which is what he would do anyway.

Martin's campaign apparently sent an attack over to Tucker's Carlson's trashy site, The Daily Caller, claiming that Enterprise Rent-a-Car is trying to buy a seat in Congress via Wagner. The Caller claims that Wagner's husband, Raymond, is, "Enterprise’s government and public affairs vice president and a registered lobbyist." They further point out that Wagner has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from Enterprise or Enterprise-related employees. Finally, for added effect, the author of the Daily Caller post linked to a Wall Street Journal article claiming Enterprise was among different rental car groups that had specifically asked for a bailout from the government.

In response to the Daily Caller carrying out a Team Martin hit job, Team Wagner responded with a post from Jim "Gateway Pundit" Hoft on the equally disreputable blog Big Journalism. Shockingly, for perhaps the first time in his long career, Hoft manages to locate a couple of actual facts to support his case. It turns out that the day after the Wall Street Journal article came out, the Post-Dispatch reported that Enterprise did not want any bailout money, specifically citing the WSJ report as incorrect. So, once again, we see an apparent example of Ed Martin's campaign pushing bogus charges to smear his opponents.

As for the other stuff, Team Martin might have a point. It's true, as Hoft says, that Wagner's husband resigned from being a registered lobbyist for Enterprise when her campaign started. But that technicality means very little; our government is full of examples of revolving door politics where lobbyists quit their day jobs to work for the government crafting rules to promote the industries they just left. So it's hard to imagine that Wagner would not do the bidding of Enterprise in congress, given her fundraising network through the company and her husband's close connections, at least if she follows the example of most other congresspeople.

Also, this has seemingly turned into a battle between the tea party members who have been successful (in publicity terms) and those that haven't. Jim Hoft and Dana Loesch have apparently taken sides with Wagner, and appear to be hoping to increase their influence on the national Republican party by abandoning Ed Martin and cozying up to a very connected fundraiser and political player. On the other hand, tea partiers who have comparatively not been very successful (Jonathan Burns, Ben Evans, Darin Morley, Bill Hennessy) are sticking with Martin out of loyalty and a false belief that Martin actually represents conservative values. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Tea Party's John Burns Involved in O'Keefe's Smear of Heroic New Jersey Teacher

John Burns of the St. Louis Tea Party is a part of James O'Keefe's crew of dishonest videographers. He and O'Keefe collaborated on a hoax at Washington University where they claimed they were being oppressed after setting up a display without getting the necessary permits (the fact that it was a hoax, by the way, was revealed by an intern at the right-wing Show Me Institute). O'Keefe and Burns later attempted to disrupt an LGBT rally in St. Louis by interfering in the rally and writing "free abortions" on one of the signs. And as reported by CNN, John Burns was also part of the crew that was planned O'Keefe's failed attempt to sexually humiliate a CNN reporter.

Now, in the wake of revelations from Glenn Beck's website that O'Keefe deceptively edited a video attacking an NPR executive, I thought it might be worthwhile pointing out another shameful O'Keefe project John Burns was involved in. I wrote back in November about an innocent victim of a Breitbart/O'Keefe smear campaign. Loesch and others had claimed that the video showed that New Jersey teachers union members called students "the n-word" and focused their attacks on a teacher named Alissa Ploshnick. Actually Ploshnick did not call a student "the n-word:" rather, she described that another teacher had done so while telling a story about how difficult it was for teachers to be fired. Nevertheless, she was initially suspended from her job after O'Keefe's smear video came out. It turned out that Ploshnick was a heroic teacher who had previously thrown herself in front of a van to protect her students.

Ploschnick, at the time, commented on the deceitful manner in which O'Keefe's collaborators operated:

"I felt like I was raped,’’ says Ploshnick referring to the moment she learned that what she thought was a private, even flirtatious, talk with a "nice" young man who bought her drinks was really part of a political scam to discredit her union in an web videotape called "Teachers Gone Wild.’’

"Give me a smile and say hello and I’ll do anything for you,’’ says Ploshnick. "I’ve always done it. It’s hard to reteach your heart and your brain.’’

I recognized John Burns' voice in the video speaking to Ploschnick, and I also thought this person looked remarkably similar to Burns:

I emailed the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) back in November, and told them I thought I knew who one of the people who deceived Ploshnick was, and they asked me to pass along photos and video, which I did. When I asked if it was Burns, they confirmed that he was one of the O'Keefe agents involved.

My email:

The response:

(note: I've blacked out the names here, but am happy to provide the original emails to the press)

This seems to reveal a disturbing pattern for Burns. In one instance, he was involved in helping O'Keefe plan how to isolate a CNN reporter, whom they referred to as a "bubble-headed-bleach-blond", on a boat full of sex toys where O'Keefe would try to "seduce" her. In another instance, Burns and another guy buy drinks for and flirt with a teacher, while egging her on to say things that would damage teachers. These incidents call Burns' character into serious question.

In the Media Matters discussion of O'Keefe's misleadingly edited NPR tapes, they asked, "Why Would Anyone Trust What O'Keefe Says About His NPR Video?" Given the local tea party's close collaboration with O'Keefe and Breitbart, and their own history of shamelessly distorting and inventing facts, I think we can ask something similar for St. Louis: "Why would anyone trust what the St. Louis Tea Party claims about their edited videos?" There's no question that the local tea party will continue to release misleadingly edited videos. However, there is a major question looming about how much integrity our local media will show in carefully evaluating the claims and doing a thorough investigation before reporting on willfully distorted videos.

Surprise! John Burns' White Victimization Rant on Big Journalism Attracts Racist Commenters

John Burns, leader of the St. Louis tea party's failed campaign against public transportation and James O'Keefe's fellow conspirator on a plot to sexually humiliate a CNN reporter, is back with another White Victimization rant. In January, Burns claimed that Wash U students deciding not to give Bristol Palin $19,000 was just like segregation. Today, he's back claiming that Attorney General Eric Holder said that "Whites Can't be Victims of Racial Injustice Because They Haven't Suffered Enough."

The problem for Burns' analysis? Holder didn't say anything of the sort. Here's Holder's quote from Politico:

The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.

"Think about that," Holder said. "When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that (note: Burns dropped this when he reprinted the quote)…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people," said Holder, who is black.

For anyone with a rough knowledge of the case, the context of Holder's remarks is pretty clear. What happened in Philadelphia was an isolated incident instigated by a clearly crazy dude, King Samir Shabazz. It was disturbing, as the actions of insane people often are. But it was not in any way similar to the systematic efforts to disenfranchise black voters back in the 60s. Those were actions designed to prevent an entire group of people from voting: the recent incident was a crazy guy acting crazy.

But Burns, as usual, isn't interested in what Holder actually said. Rather, he just invents thoughts, attributes them to Holder, and then gets morally outraged by them. For example:

So the obvious takeaway from this is that some racism is worse than others. Some racist injustice is worthy of prosecution, other racism is not. Apparently, whites simply haven’t suffered enough. They don’t deserve legal protection. So, any injustices committed against white people should be swept under the rug. It’s not worth Eric Holder’s time.

Of course, Holder didn't say anything like this, and there's no reason whatsoever for a sane person to believe that he would. And then there's this:

During the healthcare debate, Holder likened opposition of Obamacare to opposition to civil rights. Not civil rights in the sense that, “all Americans share civil rights,” mind you, but “Civil Rights” as in the struggle for black legal equality in America during the 40’s-60’s. Translation: those who oppose Obamacare are racists. Such language is naked race-baiting and scapegoating.

Actually, that's not at all what Holder said:

It's not surprising that opponents, having lost in Congress, have taken to the courts. We saw similar challenges to laws that created Social Security and established new civil rights protections. Those challenges ultimately failed, and so will this one.

So Burns is just inventing quotes from Holder in order to play the "White Victimization Card." And sadly, the readers at Breitbart and Dana Loesch's site eat that crap up. Even more distrubing than Burns' White Victim fantasies are the blatantly racist comments that followed. There were commenters calling for Obama and Holder to be "swinging from a tree:"

There were commenters who expressed support for White Nationalism:

And there were all kinds of other vile, disgusting, racist comments:

If Big Journalism is really worried about racism, they might want to start banning some of the knuckle-draggers who regularly comment there.

John Burns: Not Giving Bristol Palin $20,000 is Exactly Like Segregation

The tea party narrative of victimization is reaching new, unprecedented heights. If you recall, John Burns of American Majority and the St. Louis Tea Party tried to disrupt the free speech of LGBT activists, was involved in James O'Keefe's plot to sexually humiliate a CNN reporter on secret camera, and led a campaign against public transportation based on incessant lies that ended with a ridiculous publicity stunt where they claimed that the Mayor of Chesterfield was "harassing" them.

Burns also has a bizarre obsession with Washington University. He, along with James O'Keefe and Joseph Basel, secretly videotaped Washington University employees and then selectively edited the tapes to try (and fail) to convince people that the campus has an agenda against conservatives. He then accused the university of "malicious, retaliatory action" when the university asked his group to pay for the cleanup of hammer and sickle graffiti they sprayed around the campus as part of their gulag display. In paranoid rantings, he claimed that college administrators have "Stockholm syndrome" and that conservatives on campus have to be prepared for the university to come after them with "guns and night sticks and handcuffs..authorized to do violence against you." Considering his obsession with the belief that conservative free speech is somehow being oppressed it's also quite ironic that he has stated that one of the goals of the tea party is to purge all liberals from academia.

Anyway, since Dana Loesch has been made editor of Big Journalism, she uses the site as an opportunity to dole out Andrew Breitbart's money to her friends, no matter how disreputable those friends are. Enter John Burns. Burns, in an absurd rant, claimed that the decision by students at Washington University to not pay Bristol Palin $19,000 is exactly like the violent repression against African Americans that took place during the civil rights movement. Interspersing his Big Journalism post with photos from the civil rights movement, here's what Burns had to say:

So the message is, “Don’t bother coming, Bristol, or we’ll shout you down and riot because WE DON’T WANT YOU HERE!” This seems eerily similar to Southern intimidation and oppression of blacks during attempts to desegregate. It’s reminiscent of a scene from Forrest Gump, where a young black girl is harassed by a young white student and knocks her books out of her hands.

He continues:

Let’s not kid ourselves, here. what has transpired at Wash U is nothing short of bigotry and hate. These students weren’t protesting Bristol because she’s some evil mass murderer. No, they’re protesting her because they hate her. Yes. Hate. They hate everything Bristol represents, and they hate the fact that proponents of abstinence and others that share Bristol’s family-oriented culture suddenly have a beautiful, popular advocate – who can dance! They hate the fact that she makes being a goody goody look attractive and desirable.

It's pretty amazing how idiotic Burns' assessment is, though it is entirely in keeping with his paranoid hatred of academia. The issue with Bristol was, from the beginning, the belief on the part of the students that (1) there was nothing to indicate that she was qualified to speak on the subject of abstinence to a college audience and (2) she certainly wasn't worth the $15,000+ that she was going to be paid. I can say unequivocally that students, and particularly liberal students, disliked Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales far more than they disliked Bristol Palin. In fact, I doubt most students actually dislike her. But there's a reason that Bristol was disinvited and Rove and Gonzales weren't: and that is that it's obvious to any clear-thinking person that she's not qualified to speak to a college audience about this issue. In fact, I've heard from multiple students that the College Republicans were opposed to paying Bristol Palin that much money to speak.

Burns also, as I predicted yesterday on Twitter, broke out the absurd conservative talking point: ZOMG, it was originally reported that Bristol would get $20,000 but it's actually less money!!!!! Actually, it sounds like it was $19,000, since the cost of the other panelists is less than $1,000. From the student newspaper:

On Tuesday evening, Treasury voted to approve SHAC’s $20,000 appeal to bring in Palin and the three other members of the panel.

According to SU VP of Finance Eliot Walker, SHAC will now have to return the $20,000 and resubmit an appeal to fund the new panel. If the group’s new appeal is less than $1000, as Walker said is expected, SHAC can take its request straight to Walker for approval, as opposed to going through another round of a Treasury vote.

So yeah. Only $19,000 from Bristol as opposed to $20,000, while the other three speakers cost a maximum of $1,000 combined. Great argument there.

Burns also falsely reported that Van Jones was paid $20,000. First of all, Van Jones is actually an expert in his field and is an amazing speaker. But second, Burns is completely wrong as usual. Jones's usual speaking fee is $20,000, but the Student Union Treasury only allocated $5,000 for his talk at Wash U, and refused to allocate an additional $2,500:

“The speech was only $5,000 because we were able to call in a personal favor.”

The tea party might be finding ways to propel their absurdist rhetoric to new heights, but it's comforting to see that their lack of commitment to facts remains the same.

h/t Eric Boehlert

Loesch Employs Misogynist Ben Wetmore

Not that long ago, James O'Keefe and his gang of fools were thoroughly disgraced when they were busted trying to execute a plan to "sexually seduce" CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau. They had planned to isolate Boudreau on a boat where O'Keefe would try to "seduce" her as part of what they claimed was a joke. CNN described the plan as follows:

James O'Keefe, best known for hitting the community organizing group ACORN with an undercover video sting, hoped to get CNN Investigative Correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session, those documents show.

The original CNN report went on to say that they had obtained a 13 page document detailing their plan, which stated that O'Keefe would start the video as follows:

My name is James. I work in video activism and journalism. I've been approached by CNN for an interview where I know what their angle is: they want to portray me and my friends as crazies, as non-journalists, as unprofessional and likely as homophobes, racists or bigots of some sort....

Instead, I've decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I'm going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I'm going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath.

Please sit back and enjoy the show.

Everyone with a functioning brain was shocked and offended at O'Keefe's behavior. The Breitbart gang, however, argued that O'Keefe "hadn't approved" the plan that had been sent out, and that "of course he wouldn't have actually gone through with that;" at least, not before making modifications. I don't think anyone actually believes that, but let's just say that you did. That still wouldn't get the author of the 13-page plan, Ben Wetmore, off the hook. He proposed the despicable plan, and assessments of his character don't hinge on whether O'Keefe would have approved of it or not. Wetmore infused the document with misogynistic language like, "This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine."

So, with that in mind, someone please explain to me why self-proclaimed "conservative feminist" Dana Loesch is giving Ben Wetmore work on Big Journalism, the site she edits?


Wouldn't a "conservative feminist" not want to reward someone who sexualized a female CNN reporter and planned to place her in a (real or mock) sexually humiliating situation? Shouldn't Wetmore be banned from writing self-righteous rants about the ethics of journalism? Of course, Loesch also blamed a woman for having her head stomped on by a Rand Paul supporter, so maybe this shouldn't be surprising.

Also worth noting, the St. Louis Tea Party's John Burns was also included on the initial planning emails for the plan to harass Bourdreau. Sadly, no one in the St. Louis media (with the exception of Chad Garrison) has asked Burns about his role in the incident. But Loesch is also giving Burns work on her site as well, as evidenced by his mind-blowingly dumb post claiming that the media was "racially profiling" Jared Lee Loughner.

Why You Should Expect Dirty Tricks

Just want to remind people of what the St. Louis Tea Party tried to pull during the vote on a 1/2 percent sales tax increase for public transportation back in April. John Burns mysteriously decided at the last minute to hold an anti-transit rally in Chesterfield and then claimed that the Chesterfield Mayor, who happened to be the leader of the pro-transit campaign, was "harrassing" the tea party:

Lt. Steven Lewis, spokesman for the Chesterfield police, said this morning that the department "does not allow anyone to stand at that intersection" for safety reasons.

Even Boy Scouts are barred, Lewis said, because the intersection is so prone to accidents. "It's not a political statement," Lewis said. "It's about safety."

Burns disagrees, and contended that the police action was tied to the fact that Chesterfield Mayor John Nations is chairman of the chief pro-Prop A group, Advance St. Louis. Nations, alleged Burns, "instructed the police to shut us down. We were not obstructing the view of any motorists. Not at all. What City Hall did was totally wrong."

John Burns is now employed by American Majority and is leading several efforts for the St. Louis tea party. Don't be surprised if they scream about some manufactured controversy early in the day tomorrow.

St. Louis Media Fail: Still No Comments From O'Keefe's St. Louis Accomplice

Mediaite has posted some new details from James O'Keefe's plot to sexually humiliate a CNN reporter, including a video clip from CNN's Right on the Edge special (which, ironically, would have ended up being a complete puff piece were it not for O'Keefe's disgraceful plot). Emails forwarded to CNN show fairly conclusively that O'Keefe's claim that he wasn't aware of the plan was false.

Given that this is a story with national significance, it's amazing to me that the local St. Louis media, with the exception of Chad Garrison, has failed to report on the local connection or get a quote from O'Keefe's St. Louis tea party collaborator John Burns. The original CNN report indicated that John Burns was in on the planning emails, and was asked for advice about the plan by O'Keefe:

CNN was forwarded an e-mail, sent from O'Keefe's e-mail address, to the executive director of Project Veritas, Izzy Santa; and two conservative activists, Ben Wetmore of New Orleans and Jonathon Burns of St. Louis, Missouri, dated after the call with Boudreau.

"Getting Closer," the e-mail states. "Audio attached conversation with Abbie. What do you think of her reaction guys. She said she could do it Monday, Tuesday. Ben, you think I could get her on the boat?"

Burns and O'Keefe first collaborated in St. Louis by building a gulag on the Washington University campus and releasing highly edited video claiming that the Wash U administration was trying to shut them down because they were conservative. These claims were later proved false by a blog post from a student member of the Young Americans for Liberty. They later collaborated on an attempt to sabotage an LGBT rally, writing "Free Abortions" on signs according to several eyewitness reports and refusing to follow the instructions of the event organizers to comply with police requests.

I have a hard time understanding why local media would pass on the opportunity to contribute to a story of national significance. If they could get a quote from Burns about his role in the plot or about additional details, it would surely be picked up in future national reporting on this story. Furthermore, Burns is the St. Louis Field Representative for American Majority and was claimed to be the head of the St. Louis tea party's block captain program. St. Louis residents deserve to know what role, if any, John Burns played in this nefarious plot. And if those two appeals to the role of journalism in society aren't enough, this clearly is a juicy story, full of scandelous details. There really is no excuse for the local media to not be covering this.

Tea Party Activist In On Plan to "Seduce" CNN Reporter To Speak At Rally Tomorrow

John Burns, the St. Louis Tea Party activist who was included in planning emails on Jame O'Keefe's plot to "seduce" CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau by isolating her on a boat full of sex toys and pornography, is scheduled to speak tomorrow at a Southern Illinois Tea Party rally in O'Fallon, Illinois.

According to the original CNN report, Burns (along with Ben Wetmore and Izzy Santa) was sent an email by O'Keefe asking if they thought he could lure Bordreau on to the boat:

"Getting Closer," the e-mail states. "Audio attached conversation with Abbie. What do you think of her reaction guys. She said she could do it Monday, Tuesday. Ben, you think I could get her on the boat?"

Izzy Santa, it turned out, had a conscience and warned Boudreau about the plot. Burns and Wetmore, obviously, did nothing to stop it.

The tea party rally is being organized by Gina Loudon, a self-proclaimed conservative Christian who previously called O'Keefe a "hero."

Sadly, no St. Louis media has yet gotten a quote from Burns about his role in O'Keefe's scheme, although Chad Garrison did write about it at the RFT.

Tea Party's John Burns Involved In James O'Keefe's Plot to "Seduce" CNN Correspondent

John Burns of American Majority and the St. Louis tea party was implicated in a story about disgraced conservative hitman James O'Keefe's ploy to "embarrass a CNN correspondent by recording a meeting on hidden cameras aboard a floating palace of pleasure' and making sexually suggestive comments, e-mails and a planning document show," according to CNN. Burns is best known in St. Louis for leading the tea party's failed efforts to block funding for public transportation, for ridiculously accusing Washington University of "fraud" in the aftermath of a hoax conducted by him and O'Keefe, and, worst of all, for writing "free abortions" on the back of a sign in an attempt to sabotage pro-gay marriage rally.

The CNN article claims:

James O'Keefe, best known for hitting the community organizing group ACORN with an undercover video sting, hoped to get CNN Investigative Correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session, those documents show.

O'Keefe was reportedly going to introduce the segment as follows, according to documents obtained by CNN:

My name is James. I work in video activism and journalism. I've been approached by CNN for an interview where I know what their angle is: they want to portray me and my friends as crazies, as non-journalists, as unprofessional and likely as homophobes, racists or bigots of some sort....

Instead, I've decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I'm going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I'm going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath.

Please sit back and enjoy the show.

It's not entirely clear what John Burns' role was in the plot. The article cites him as being included in O'Keefe's email correspondane about the plan:

CNN was forwarded an e-mail, sent from O'Keefe's e-mail address, to the executive director of Project Veritas, Izzy Santa; and two conservative activists, Ben Wetmore of New Orleans and Jonathon Burns of St. Louis, Missouri, dated after the call with Boudreau.

Burns would not respond to CNN. Hopefully, some local reporters can get to the bottom of this.

John Burns Forgets There Was Already a Vote On Public Transportation

Well, looks like somebody is still bitter about getting demolished in the vote on whether St. Louis values public transporation:

Nations won a huge victory for the oligarchs of St. Louis in the passage of Prop A, and his selection as CEO is both a reward for his service to them as well as a promise to yield greater spoils. The self-styled captains of tomorrow care little about what actual citizens desire in the short, intermediate or long terms. Instead, they swat away those desires for a future they themselves would fashion upon us with or without our blessing.

Um, actually, there was an election. And people voted in favor of public transportation in a 63-37 landslide. You know...democracy.

And in case you're curious what Burns has been up to since his heroic leadership of the tea party's landslide loss, basically he's been running around with Adam Sharp annoying reporters in parking lots:

Oh, and annoying Congressmen by asking the same questions over and over and over no matter how many times they are answered:

Astroturf St. Louis Tea Party Attempts to Defend Pandering to Roy Blunt: Other Tea Parties Not Impressed

The St. Louis Tea Party is scrambling to defend their decision not to join with 28 other Missouri Tea Party groups who all spoke out strongly against the idea that Roy Blunt fits with the tea party's professed small-government ideals. Most state tea party groups dislike Blunt because of his votes on issues like the big bank bailout, Cash for Clunkers, and No Child Left Behind, but the St. Louis tea party leadership decided long ago that they were content to be merely a front group for the establishment Republican Party, as long as they could continue to get booked as pundits on CNBC and CNN.

Nevertheless, they were obviously feeling the heat enough to try to defend their decision in multiple venues. First, Bill Hennessy gave a lame excuse that they weren't a group that could endorse or un-endorse, but that excuse made no sense because all the letter from the groups said was that Roy Blunt was not endorsed by the tea party. John Burns, who led the tea party's opposition to public transit, wrote a guest post on Gateway Pundit's blog today claiming that voting for ideological pure conservative candidates would lead to loss in November. Here's a sampling of what he said:

And it may seem highly counter-intuitive, but for this specific election cycle where so much is on the line, we can’t forget that “perfect” ideological candidates (candidates who are “perfect” on all of our issues) aren’t always the best choice at the polls in the primaries.

And later:

Mark this well: nothing is more important this election than preventing Socialists from getting elected. To achieve that end, we need candidates that can win. In that sense, the “perfect” candidate isn’t always the best candidate. It won’t profit us a thing if we have the most perfect ideological candidate in the world who can’t beat the Socialists this November.

This is pretty interesting in relationship to Roy Blunt. It seems to me like a strong argument could be made that Chuck Purgason would have a better chance of winning in November, given Blunt's record of voting for bailouts and a load of other baggage. The only real advantage Blunt has over Purgason is boatloads of money. So, essentially, Burns is saying that you should ditch the better candidate in the primary in favor of the candidate who has the most money (by necessity, the GOP insider). Quite a bizarre philosophy from a guy who previously portrayed himself as so pure that he claimed anyone who supported public transportation was a "socialist," including the Republican Mayor of Chesterfield.

Jim Durbin at 24th State also had a fascinating defense of the St. Louis tea party's decision to pander to the GOP in the primary elections. Here's how it starts:

Some of our friends in the Tea Parties are engaged in primary battles, and in their zeal to win, they are making false statements about the unity of the Tea Party movement behind particular candidates.

He goes on to say that people who wouldn't be motivated to vote for Roy Blunt in the general election have, "a loser's mentality" and are "lashing out." He ends his post by saying:

Respect goes two ways. Please remember that.

Hmmmm, fascinating.

The reaction to the St. Louis tea party's defense of shameless pandering has not been positive.

Tea Party Says Goal Is to Purge ALL Liberals from Academia and Public Office

John Burns is the anti-LGBT friend of right-wing criminals James O'Keefe and Joseph Basel who was ostensively appointed as the leader of the tea party's failed effort to oppose funding for public transportation in St. Louis. Burns claimed during that campaign that the people supporting public transportation were "socialist clowns" trying to "defeat liberty." Apparently, 63% of the population of St. Louis County are "socialist clowns." Anyway, the tea party praised Burns as a hero and was so happy with his use of dirty tactics in the Prop A campaign that they decided to also put him in charge of a "Block Captain Liberty Evangelism" program for the November elections.

So given that Burns thinks that anyone who supports public transportation is a "socialist clown," consider his claims that the goal of the tea party is to purge ALL liberals from academic institutions and from politics.

From his first explanation of the "block captain" program on Gateway Pundit's blog:

Win or lose November 2nd, we’re still fighting come November 3rd, December 3rd…until we restore the US Constitution, kick every socialist out of office across the nation, and restore the culture of liberty that our nation was founded upon.

From the second:

The overall goal of the Block Captain Revolution is to recruit, train, and deploy patriotic Block Captains and Block Captain Teams to take over every governmental institution, every institution of higher learning, every court of law, and to restore US Constitutional government to America. We will not stop at anything short of total victory.

And from the third:

The first part of making a difference is committing yourself and your family to the war until final victory. Until your local area’s government institutions from school boards, fire boards, city councils, county councils, state rep seats, state senate seats, and even dog catcher – until your local government institutions are completely dominated by friends of the Constitution and of limited government, liberty and of free markets, and until the Socialists have been driven from every university and school in this nation, your work is not done and your commitment must be strong

In other words, the tea party, which claims to be about free speech and letting conservative voices be heard, is actually about stifling free speech by purging ALL liberal ideas from public discourse. How sad that folks like Burns are so insecure in their radical conservative ideology that they think they need to remove any liberal ideas from public discourse for fear of people actually making decisions for themselves. Can you even imagine the reaction if some liberal claimed that their goal was to remove ALL conservative ideas from public discourse?