Guy Who Tried To Smear Missouri Professors Now Leading Joe The Plumber's Congressional Campaign

For those of you who don't remember, here's a brief review of Breitbart and Loesch's attempts to smear professors at UMSL and UMKC:

• A college senior who had worked with James O'Keefe before, Phil Christofanelli, anonymously downloaded and shared every hour of footage from a class on Labor Studies he was taking through the University of Missouri system, possibly illegally. The footage was presented in a way to claim that UMSL and UMKC professors were "advocating violence."
  
• Christofanelli refuses, to this day, to say who he shared the video with.
• He later claimed that whomever he shared it with then passed it on to another group that edited the video and then posted it on Andrew Breitbart's sites and Dana Loesch's radio program, leading to conservatives calling for the professors to be fired.
• Despite claims from the professors that the videos were taken so badly out-of-context as to present false information, Christofanelli (at that time still anonymous) refused to step forward and say anything about the dishonest information.
• More than a week after the original smear, longer video clips came out that proved, without a doubt, that the original clips were dishonestly edited.
• And then, finally, Christofanelli admitted that he was the person behind leaking the videos that led to Breitbart's dishonest posts, yet claimed that somehow they weren't false because he felt in his gut that the teachers really were secretly advocating for violence.

And now, as revealed by Big Government, it turns out that Christofanelli is working as the Deputy Campaign Manager for Joe the Plumber, running for office in Ohio's 9th District. I guess we can count on that being an amazingly honest contest, huh?

If YAF Claims They Were Threatened at OccupySTL,They Owe Us a Full Video

There's a post up at Big Government claiming that OccupySTL sent email and voicemail "threats" to the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) of Principia College after YAF visited the Occupy camp in Kiener Plaza this past Sunday. Obviously, threats are serious business and I hope the school and police investigate as thoroughly as possible and figure out if they can file charges in this case if indeed it is confirmed as a threat. However, it's important to note that anyone can send emails or leave voice messages, and so far (despite the screetching at Big Government), there is no real evidence that the messages came from someone at OccupySTL. And given that the right wing has been desparately trying to discredit the Occupy movement from the begining, and the Loesch's tea party in particular has a history of inventing stories of violence, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical.

Anyway, just to review the timeline, a spokesperson for YAF was invited to call in to Dana Loesch's show last Thursday and announced they would be doing a protest of the Occupy group at Kiener Plaza. Other than that, there was virtually no promotion of the YAF action. Then, on Sunday, YAF (about 5 people, not all of whom were "young") went to the OccupySTL location with professional video equipment.



Rather than engaging in a "protest" where they held their signs for the public, YAF went to the center of Kiener Plaza and engaged in an argument with OccupySTL participants, filming the whole time. I was there at the beginning and it seemed like your average debate; not especially productive since both sides were to some extent talking past each other but certainly not overly agressive or confrontational. However, this is how it was described on Big Government:

Last Sunday a local chapter of YAF affiliated with Principia College organized a small and peaceful counter presence to the ongoing Occupy St. Louis demonstration at Keiner Plaza in downtown. According to the organizer, Mattson Wilcoxen, the group of mostly collegians and minors was met with violent language, intimidation, and death threats.

As noted above, this absolutely was not what I observed. I started recording but then quit because it was so uneventful; however, here's a good example of what the conversation was like:

The Occupy St. Louis Facebook page has a 10 minute clip of a discussion with one of the YAF members that shows the same thing.

Given that Big Government is quoting YAF as saying that they were threatened at the rally and that participants used "hostile language," and given we know they were recording the entire time, YAF has an obligation to provide full video of their encounter so that people can judge for themselves how each side was acting. This is the burden they impose on themselves by making the serious allegation that what looked like a normal debate was actually "hostile" and "threatening."

I should also note that the post at Big Government despicably tries to link the alleged threats to MORE, Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment. The right-wing conspiracies theories about the group are funny in the abstract, but when they start making direct accusations about specific people based on zero evidence, it enters into a very nasty place, especially considering the mental stability of some of Breitbart and Loesch's followers. They can hate on MORE's politics all they want, but making ridiculous, unfounded allegations of "death threats" crosses the line of decency.

YAF and Big Government should make public the full video from the event. That way, we can see just how seriously they actually take the allegations of "threats" and "violence" they routinely make.

Breitbart's Big Government Botches Peter Kinder Defense

As noted by many on Twitter yesterday, you know things are bad for Republican Lt. Governor Peter Kinder when his main media strategy seems to be leaking stories to his buddy Andrew Breitbart's blogs. Unsurprisingly, the stories on Brietbart's sites are full of speculation, unsupported assertions, and outright falsehoods.

One story on Big Government by Michelle Moore said the following:

Frankly, I find no evidence what-so-ever that he was a repeat visitor to said strip club OR that he had any interest in her at all. Pathetic.

That's some incisive reasoning, except for the tiny problem that Peter Kinder admitted to multiple media outlets that he visited the strip club "around 10 times:"

We were having a beer and the girls come by and chat. And you meet various of them, and that's where I met Tammy," Kinder said. "That much is true. Subsequently, I returned on a handful of occasions."

A "handful" was about 10 times, Kinder said. He compared his fondness to Chapman to a line in a Dean Martin song, "Let's Be Friendly."

A different post on Big Government suggests that either Chapman or her friend, John Ross, emailed the pictures to the Riverfront Times:

Over three years later, Kinder innocently enters a restaurant where Chapman was working, she asked him for a photo with her – hardly a thing a woman does with a man she accuses of being overly sexually aggressive with her in the first place – then she either sent the photo to Ross, or the Riverfront Times directly for publication, purely as a rationale for raising a 16 year-old smear with nothing to it.

This is false. The RFT noted that the original photo was not from Chapman, and said the following about Ross

We can also say that Ross is not the person who supplied us with the photo.

Finally, Big Goverment claims repeatedly that Ross worked for the Riverfront Times without offering any evidence for the claim:

The story breaks at the River Front Times, where John Ross occasionally writes and also posts several comments on the actual stories.

In fact, the RFT denies that he ever worked for them or wrote for them:

Here at Riverfront Times, we're baffled as to how Kinder came up with this theory. For starters, Ross has never worked or written for our publication. We can also say that Ross is not the person who supplied us with the photo.

Reached by phone today, Ross can't explain Kinder's conspiracy, either. Not only has he never written for the RFT, he says our publication tried to write a "hit piece" about him in 1998. He also says that he never saw the photo of Kinder and Chapman before its publication on the Riverfront Times'' website -- and advised Chapman against talking to the media after the picture went public.

In addition to outright falsehoods, the Big Goverment posts are chalk full of claims that are supported by no evidence. For example, they claim (as does Kinder) that "Democratic operatives" tried to push a similar story in 2008:

...one year later, in 2008, during Kinder’s Lieutenant Governor campaign, Democrats start carrying posters w/ pics of Chapman saying “Who is this woman?” at events including speaking events in Missouri.

However, they offer no evidence to support that claim, other than a link to a picture on Ross's website that they say was used in the campaign. Shouldn't they at least provide some shred of evidence to support a claim like this?

They further imply that Ross is a Democratic operative trying to sabotage Kinder to help Jay Nixon. However, Ross is a huge gun advocate who wrote a book based on the idea that the government would take away people's arms and the people who have to rise up in response. In fact, he told the RFT the following:

"One of the biggest efforts of my life was an eleven year effort to get conceal/carry passed in Missouri," says Ross. "I hired the original lobbyist for the bill out of my own pocket. For ten years, Peter Kinder supported us in our efforts. And for ten years, [then-Attorney General] Jay Nixon tried to block us. He was an opponent. I tell everyone who comes to my shooting school that. I tell them, if it comes down to voting for Kinder or voting for Nixon, I tell them to remember who's in favor of their right to self-defense."

It seems pretty likely to me that the reason Kinder is sending this stuff to Breitbart's sites is because no self-respecting operation would be willing to publish the junk.

Greatest Hits of Debunked St. Louis Tea Party Conspiracies!

Andrew Breibart tweeted a link to a Big Government article about the "corruption he witnessed" while he was in St. Louis (and afraid to debate). The Big Government article is like a Greatest Hits of debunked St. Louis Tea Party conspiracy theories.

Here's a sampling:

• Kenneth Gladney case conspiracy? Debunked.
• UMSL promoting violence conspiracy? Debunked.
• Innocent Adam Sharp assaulted by UMSL prof? Debunked.
• Hilarious conspiracy of "Voter Fraud" after Ed Martin lost to Russ Carnahan? Debunked.
• Carnahan wind farm conspiracy? Debunked.
• Jake Zimmerman crony capitalism conspiracy? Nonsense.
• Firebombing? Never any evidence whatsoever.

So yeah, great article, if you're someone who refuses to engage with reality.

Questions About Big Government's Hit Piece On Ed Martin

After Dana Loesch criticized St. Louis Tea Party founder Bill Hennessy for attempting to defend Ed Martin against a recent Big Government post, Bill Hennessy predictably apologized to Big Government editor Mike Flynn and Loesch and pretty much everybody else. Interestingly, this is the second time in the past couple months that Hennessy had to retreat with his tail between his legs for advocating on behalf of Ed Martin. In May, after Loesch said she was "aggravated" by Hennessy writing a post saying that Martin was "the tea party candidate," Hennessy had to issue multiple clarifications saying that the post was just his opinion and didn't represent the views of the tea party.

But Hennessy's bowing to authority notwithstanding, I think there are a lot of questions that can be raised about why Big Government was used as a vehicle for a hit piece against Ed Martin. Here are a few:

Why would Big Government publish a post about a Republican primary over a year away from the actual election? I am fairly familiar with Big Government and the site is generally not used as a place for arguments about Republican primaries. In fact, a casual glance shows that out of the last 100 posts on Big Government, the hit piece on Martin is the only attempt to get involved in GOP primaries (It's probably even worse than this, but I'm not interested in spending time on it). When Big Government is used as a forum for primary arguments, it would generally be for races with clear "establishment" candidates versus more conservative or tea partyish challangers, but the Martin/Wagner race does not fit that billing.

Are Mike Flynn and/or Dan Riehl exchanging favors with Ann Wagner? Why would they avoid their site's usual protocol to get involved in a Congressional primary fight in Missouri? It's worth noting that Riehl advocated for Ann Wagner on Big Government during the race for RNC chairs as well. Editor Flynn also spoke positively about her. Is there some reason they're intervening on her behalf rather than letting Missouri voters make up their own mind?

Does Dana Loesch have a reason to root for Wagner? As mentioned above, Loesch has twice attacked Bill Hennessy after Hennessy advocated for Ed Martin. Yet, as far as I know, she never criticized Riehl for sticking his nose in the Missouri primary. In fact, she gave Riehl a #FollowFriday shout-out on Twitter today after Riehl's attacks on Martin. Wagner also used Dana Loesch's show to announce her candidacy. What are Loesch's reasons for apparently taking sides against Martin, whom she supported during the last election? By the way, for the record, Loesch has now supported the establishment candidate over the tea partier in pretty much every local election of consequence since the tea party began.

Does Ann Wagner have anything to do with the hit job on Martin? Is sure would be strange for a national blog to randomly attack Wagner's opponent without any provocation. Does Wagner's campaign have something to do with it?

Obviously, I'm no fan of Ed Martin. But I do find these recent events a little puzzling.

Quick Rebuttal of "Insurgent Visuals"

Insurgent Visuals has another lazy, ridiculous post up at Big Journalism that tries to pretend that when they claimed that Ancel said that "violence is a tactic. It's to be used when it's the appropriate tactic," while deliberately editing out the fact that she was quoting a character in the movie At the River I Stand, they somehow were not being dishonest. Their latest claims are desperate and absent of substance, but here are a few quick points.

First, they said that the video was in relation to the idea that no tactics should be off the table:

It lacks the notice that but a few minutes before, it was made clear that the discussion was about tactics. It lacks the context to know that the statement was made “nothing is off the table

But that was a quote from students. There certainly were students in the class who advocated for "leaving violence on the table" as a tactic, but Insurgent Videos falsely claimed that the professors were advocating for that claim, which they weren't. In fact, the professors repeatedly emphasized that such tactics were counterproductive.

Second, they claim that Ancel is endorsing "militancy:"

These inflammatory and incendiary statements were made to set a certain tone: militancy in achieving union objectives.

This makes it sound like she endorses violence, and indeed use this as evidence that she supports violence. However, the class discussion actually clearly distinguished between "militancy" and "violence," as was clear in a quote they previously used from Ancel:

true militancy means high levels of participation and willingness to undertake creative and in-your-face tactics, I think. And the American labor movement never would have had the successes it had without that kind of militancy. There isn’t any major labor battle in this country, clearly, before the era of the 1950s that did not, in fact, break the law. And–but they didn’t do it by destroying property and smashing windows. They did it tactically, by violating the laws they had to violate if they were going to be able to continue their movement

What Ancel was talking about, as was made clear in the class discussion, was civil disobedience.

They also claim that Ancel was saying her quote in response to a student advocating for non-violence. Actually, even according to their own quote, the previous comment was a student discussing violence:

STUDENT 4: When they’re willing to give up violence, then I will too.

Ancel was jumping off that idea to get more discussion from the class. She was not "endorsing the idea." In fact, the movie she showed to the class, At the River I Stand, was extremely critical of people who used violence and clearly advocated for nonviolence as a strategy.

If Insurgent Visuals actually believed their claims that Ancel's quotes called for violence, they would have included the full quotes. However, they deliberately edited her quotes and, in fact, chopped Don Gilgim's quotes off at the word "and.." and then added a different quote to completely change the sentence. They have no defense for their smear, which is why they're already changing their story.

This Is How Their Game Works

In response to revelations that they shamelessly edited both Judy Ancel and Don Giljim's posts to make it appear that they were saying things they did not say, Breitbart hacks are demanding that people respond to their latest nonsense. Their claim is that because Ancel misquoted a guy in the film, that somehow justifies them taking a claim that she was attributing to others for the sake of class discussion and pretending she was endorsing it herself. The argument is stupid beyond words. But that's not the point. The point is that they doing what they always do, using completely nonsensically idiotic distortions of language and logic to try to take up the time of anyone who argues with them. No matter how idiotically stupid their claims are, they will demand, "why don't you respond to this! This proves we're right!" Not because they actually believe it, but because they think it makes them look better.

So, sadly succumbing to their latest mind-numbingly stupid claims, here are a few obvious points:

If they really believed the full quote was an endorsement of violence, then they could have included it in the original video. However, they waited four days and waited until they were called out before manufacturing their ridiculous excuse.

Attributing a quote to another person is not the same thing as endorsing that quote. If I say, Dana Loesch says "Breitbart walks on water," I am obviously not saying that I believe Breitbart walks on water. And let's say Dana Loesch actually said, "Breitbart walks on orange juice," but I accidentally misquoted her. It's still quite obvious that I'm not claiming I believe Breitbart walks on water. This is clear to any person who learned the meaning of the term "says" back in Kindergarten

They still have provided no explanation whatsoever for why they took words out of the middle of Don Giljim's quote in order to distort the meaning to the exact opposite of what he said. Or why they ignored Giljim saying elsewhere that he rejects the tactics.

But honestly, my saying this won't change anything, because all they'll do is try to find some other absurd abuse of the English language to claim that maliciously editing video isn't really the same thing as being dishonest.

Big Gov. "Inadvertantly" Forgets They Cut Out The Middle of Giljim's Quote

Big Government has issued the first correction of their smear campaign against Judy Ancel and Don Giljim. As I just pointed out, they falsely pretended to only have edited the beginning and end of Giljim's quote, when in fact they had cut out a section of the middle that changed the entire meaning of his quote. Now they've issued a correction saying that they "inadvertently" forgot that they had cut out the middle of Giljim's quote.


Nice try. Lots more exposure of their "inadvertent" BS to come.

Lt. Gov. Cowers Before Breitbart Bloggers: Won't Defend Tilley

Earlier this week, the St. Louis Tea Party baselessly and absurdly attacked GOP House Speaker Tilley, questioning his leadership and judgment and suggesting he was associated with the New Black Panther Party:

When Tilley had the audacity to respond to their baseless allegations, the tea party flipped out, and even enlisted the editor of Breitbart's Big Government to help threaten Tilley, Peter Kinder, and Carl Bearden:

Of course, if the St. Louis tea party had any real political power left or ability to organize, they wouldn't need to be begging Breitbart bloggers for help. But more importantly, Peter Kinder was too scared to even stand up for his supposed friend Tilley, instead deciding to grovel to Flynn and asking to be left out of it.

Considering that the tea party has been attacking Tilley for weeks, is Kinder really so gutless as to not stick up for his ally when he is being baselessly smeared by Breitbart bloggers? How far the GOP has fallen.