Another Failed Attempt To Defend Breitbart's Smear Attacks on Sherrod

A blogger who calls herself "Liberty Chick" attempts to respond to my post schooling Breitbart-defender Lee Stranahan as follows:

This links to the following:



So she's falling back on the already debunked claim that Breitbart *did* include Sherrod's redemption by mentioning the following quote in his original post:

Eventually, her basic humanity informs her that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from "one of his own kind." She refers him to a white lawyer.

Two problems. First, Glenn Beck actually did include that quote in the radio program, including in the clips played in Stanahan's post claiming that Beck was "lying." This makes it especially ironic that the Breitbart crowd is now claiming that Beck, not Breitbart, is the guy who originally edited the clips out-of-context, since the entire Breitbart defense is based on the claim that Breitbart said she sent the farmer to "one of his kind".

Second, that clip is *not* the part of the story that redeems Sherrod. It pretty clearly is designed to make Sherrod appear racist, as it claims that she referred the farmer to "one of his own kind." I suppose this is why Breitbart continues to call Sherrod "racist" in subsequent interviews. But the actual redemptive part of the story is as follows, and was left out of Breitbart's original video:

SHERROD: So, everything was going along fine -- I'm thinking he's being taken care of by the white lawyer, then they lift the injunction against USDA in May of '87 for two weeks and he was one of 13 farmers in Georgia who received a foreclosure notice. He called me. I said, well, go on and make an appointment at the lawyer. Let me know when it is and I'll meet you there.

So we met at the lawyer's office on the day they had given him. And this lawyer sat there -- he had been paying this lawyer, y'all. That's what got me. He had been paying the lawyer since November, and this was May. And the lawyer sat there and looked at him and said, "Well, y'all are getting old. Why don't you just let the farm go?" I could not believe he said that, so I said to the lawyer -- I told him, I can't believe you said that. I said: It's obvious to me that he cannot file a Chapter 12 bankruptcy to stop this foreclose, you have to file an 11. And the lawyer said to me, I'll do whatever you say -- whatever you think -- that's the way he put it. But he's paying him. He wasn't paying me any money. You know, so he said -- the lawyer said he would work on it.

And then, about seven days before that man would have been sold at the courthouse steps, the farmer called me and said the lawyer wasn't doing anything. And that's when I spent time there in my office calling everybody I could think so to try to see -- help me find the lawyer who would handle this.

I'm not surprised that Liberty Chick would try to jump into the conversation without even being up to speed on the discussion. A typical Breitbot.

When Breitbart Bloggers Attack

Chip Gerdes (TookieW on Twitter) and Dana Loesch listen in awe as Andrew Breitbart explains how James O'Keefe is an innocent victim of the liberal media

Yesterday, I wrote about the pathetic attempt of right-wing hacks to attack me based on a fake Twitter account. However, that attack was actually the culmination of a series of disingenuous attacks by a group of Breitbart bloggers this weekend that revealed the moral depravity of the group. As noted yesterday, my post on John Burns' nonsense must have struck a nerve.

Anyway, after writing that post , Republican operative and Breitbart collaborator Chip Gerdes (know as @TookieW on twitter), started claiming that I was "sexist" and had a "hatred of women," apparently because I previously have written posts criticizing Dana Loesch:

I asked Gerdes, albeit in slightly more dramatic language, what my post about John Burns had to do with "attacking conservative women," but it didn't slow him down:


In fact, this was part of a pattern from Gerdes of making brazenly mean-spirited attacks:


In fact, as if accusing me of "hating women" isn't bad enough, when 25thCenturyGirl jumped into the discussion, Gerdes claimed that I "attack children:"

Having one Breitbart lackey attacking me with blatant lies wasn't really news, but what made it strange was that a large group of Breitbart minions quickly jumped in, and they apparently were familiar with things like where I work. Here's "Liberty Chick:"


Adam Sharp:


Larry O'Connor, Editor in Chief of Breitbart TV:

Dana Loesch, Editor in Chief of Big Journalism:


For the record, we didn't play dodgeball; we played kickball. And I was picked first, thankyouverymuch!

And finally, Mike Flynn, Editor in Chief at Big Government (not to be confused with St. Louis's Mike Flynn), attempted (and came very close to pulling off) a RT:


I certainly am very critical of Dana Loesch's lies and hypocrisy on this blog, just as I am critical of the lies and hypocrisy of Bill Hennessy, Jim Hoft, Jim Durbin, and John Burns. Loesch has, on many occasions, used her megaphone as a radio host to try to destroy the lives of innocent people, and I certainly am not going to sit back and allow that to happen just because a bunch of Breitbart minions will shriek about it. Anyway, since I, unlike them, am interested in honest discussion, I told them to provide some evidence for their claims:



Naturally, they passed. Gerdes just claimed "it was obvious" if you look at the blog, and Liberty Chick played stupid:

25Century Girl also called them out and asked them for evidence, and of course they ignored the request:

And Chip Gerdes revealed just how absurd (and unserious) his claim was when he told me that the reasons I'm sexist is because other people apparently said mean things about Dana Loesch in an RFT article:

That's all they got. Seriously. Anyway, after this embarrassing performance by the Breitbart roving Twitter gang, I sent them off with this:

This whole episode demonstrates just how incredibly pathetic the average right-wing blog reader has become. The fact that this group of people, including 3 editors of the Big websites, can get away with mean-spirited personal attacks based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever is a testament to the fact that their audience simply doesn't care about evidence. They can scream out vicious attacks without a shred of supporting evidence because the readers of the Big sites are indifferent to standards of good journalism or human decency. However, that just makes it that much more important that mainstream media outlets and honest conservatives call out the hatred and shoddy attacks from this group, rather than giving them a further platform for this corrosive nonsense. They are not going to police themselves because they have no incentive to do so: but members of society who actually care about truth and decency have a duty to stand against these slime attacks. Fortunately, I know how to handle their garbage, but when they pick on people who aren't used to it, as they often do, they can do some real damage. It's up to the rest of us to make sure that this doesn't happen.