Please Hit

There are MANY expenses associated with running this site, computers, wifi cards, travel to debates and conferences, purchase of research, etc.

Despite what the progressives say, I receive no funding from the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy.

The only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers.

Folks PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going.

Hit the Tip Jar (it's on the left-hand column).

Monday, January 26, 2015

THE 70th Anniversary Of the Liberation of Auschwitz: A Survivor's Story


Usually on days like today, I will add a political message, explain how antisemitism in Europe and the US was making a come back that we all need to worry about. How the president of the United States is creating Judenrein areas in the Holy City of Jerusalem. But not today.  On this the 70th Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz, the most wretched concentration camp of them all on January 27, 1945.  Instead of the usual fare, I  give you an essay by a survivor who eventually became tailor to the president of the United States and a video from the time of liberation.  Read the story watch the video, and understand why we must never let anything like this to happen again.

By Martin Greenberg Auschwitz Survivor (Originally posted at Fox News)

Seventy years ago I was in a Nazi concentration camp.

Since then, I’ve seen tyrants and dictators enter and exit the global stage. Yet as the world prepares to mark the 70th anniversary of the Auschwitz liberation, it is perhaps well and right that we reflect on how the Holocaust shocked the moral imagination on a scale the world could scarcely fathom.

Why ponder such things? Because for far too many, the Holocaust remains a mystery.

A major poll taken last year of 53,000 people found that just 54 percent had ever heard of the Holocaust. Knowledge of Auschwitz is likely even more limited, particularly among young people. Past surveys have shown that nearly half of Britons had never heard of Auschwitz. Some schoolchildren even thought Auschwitz was a type of beer.

Here at home in America a debate erupted last year when a teenager posted a smiling selfie at Auschwitz. Whatever your opinion on the appropriateness of her actions, I was at least pleased to be reminded that some young Americans still visit the Nazi concentration camp to learn history up close.


I, too, visited Auschwitz as a teenager. In 1944, my family and I stood in line before Dr. Joseph Mengele—the Nazi physician known as the “Angel of Death”—as my mother, grandparents, two sisters, and baby brother were all sent to the left to be burned in Hitler’s ovens. My father and I were sent to the right.

The first night inside Auschwitz my father said we must separate because together we would suffer double. “On your own, you will survive,” he told me. “You are young and strong, and I know you will survive. If you survive by yourself, you must honor us by living, by not feeling sorry for us. This is what you must do.” That was the last time I ever saw my father.

I’m grateful for my father’s words of grace and guidance. They echo in my heart even still. It’s a cruel thing, feeling guilty for surviving. But my father erased any future guilt and replaced it with purpose. It was a gift only a father’s wisdom could give. It gave me a reason to go forward, a reason to be. It does still.

Part of heeding my father’s words involved replacing the horrors of my Holocaust past with a life spent creating beauty in the form of hand-tailored suits for U.S. presidents, Hollywood films, and the world’s most influential men. In fact, my first sewing lesson took place in the Auschwitz concentration camp laundry when I accidently ripped the collar of Nazi soldier shirt. A guard beat me before a kind older inmate taught me how to sew a simple stitch to repair the torn shirt. It was hardly the ideal tailoring apprenticeship, but it was my first lesson in a skill that became my livelihood.

But at 86, another part of honoring my father’s wishes requires being a voice for the voiceless. Indeed, as parents, educators, and citizens, we must all do our part to help ensure that “Never Forget” remains much more than a threadbare catchphrase that gathers dust and loses meaning with each passing year.

For example, many people are surprised to learn that Auschwitz was actually a complex comprised of three main camps and dozens of satellites. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s statistics estimate that between 1940 and 1945, at least 1.1 million Jews and 200,000 of Hitler’s undesirables were sent to the Auschwitz complex. Of those, 1.1 million were murdered. As I’ve noted elsewhere, that number would have been far greater were it not for the courage of the American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who traveled around the world to defeat a moral darkness that consumed at least six million Jewish souls.

That’s a lesson worthy of remembrance. The 70th anniversary of the liberation marks that moment when freedom conquered barbarism through sureness of virtue and strength of will. Sadly, as recent events reveal, that remains a lesson humanity must learn and relearn from generation to generation.

The word Holocaust means “sacrifice by fire.” May the memory of the millions who were engulfed in the flames like my family never be forgotten.

Martin Greenfield is author of "Measure of a Man: From Auschwitz Survivor to Presidents’ Tailor" (Regnery Publishing, November 10, 2014).


A Constitutional Look At The Gay Marriage Issue

IMHO, the real issue in the Gay Marriage dispute is how the Supreme Court should rule on the issue, it's whether or not this is a Federal or State Issue which has implications beyond forcing states to conduct same sex wedding, but also whether or not a gay couple married in one state should be recognized in another.

Much to my parents chagrin, I did not go to law school, neither am I a constitutional scholar like our president.  The below is one take on the constitutional issues raised by the Gay marriage debate and I hope to publish more between now and when the Supreme Court announces its decision sometime in June.

It originally appeared on "The Federalist Today" and I have been given permission to reproduce below:

Constitutional Rights and Wrongs:

A week and a half ago, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the two constitutional questions at the heart of the contemporary gay marriage debate:

1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

How will the Court decide? How should the Court decide?

Richard Weaver, in The Ethics of Rhetoric(1953), highlights and evaluates three types of arguments in political rhetoric: reasoning from consequences, reasoning from circumstances, and reasoning from definition. These correspond well to the three approaches to constitutional interpretation that we can expect from the Court as it takes up these questions.

The Progressive pragmatist judges the case based on the result desired; that is, from its consequences. Now that Progressives have adopted the gay marriage cause–and only now that they have done so–the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection” clause must require states to sanction and recognize gay marriages.

The establishment moderate judges the case with a political calculator; that is, from its circumstances. Now that gay marriage is legal in thirty-six states (albeit mostly because of federal court action and inaction) and supporters of gay marriage consistently outpoll opponents (though not in a number of individual states)–and only because such is the case–it is time to square the Fourteenth Amendment with this emerging consensus . . . and thereby strengthen that consensus by putting the moral weight of the Constitution behind it.

The problem with both of these rhetorical approaches is obvious: they make the judge both a sovereign and an interested party rather than the impartial arbiter he is intended to be.

The constitutional jurist, on the other hand, would measure the state laws in view against the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment at the time of its adoption; that is according to the definition of its terms. Most relevant in this case is the second sentence of Section 1: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Anyone reasonably conversant with the history of the Fourteenth Amendment would readily conclude that mandating gay marriage is far beyond its scope: no one in 1868 could have possibly conceived that they were redefining marriage when they voted to ratify the Amendment. But even leaving that aside, there is nothing inconsistent with “the equal protection of the laws” in a law that allows any one (adult) man to marry any one (adult) woman (not of near relation) and excludes, for all, every other combination.

But then, one might argue, wouldn’t the same logic justify a law that allows any one (adult) man to marry any one (adult) woman (not of near relation) of the same race and excludes, for all, every other combination? States, of course, had such laws until the last were annulled by the Supreme Court, rightly applying the Fourteenth Amendment against them in its 1967 decision, Loving v. Virginia. And, in fact, they had justified them on exactly these grounds, winning an 1883 Supreme Court case (Pace v. Alabama) on that basis. What makes the Loving decision right, the Pace decision wrong, and a decision constitutionalizing gay marriage wrong is the same thing: the nature (i.e. the definition) of marriage. Race is an accidental quality of a marriage partner; sex is an essential quality, bound up in the natural complementarity of men and women. The court mistook the accidental for the essential in upholding laws against interracial marriage; it will mistake the essential for the accidental if it strikes down one man-one woman marriage laws.

This pattern–and the implicit appeal to consequences and circumstances, rather than definition–has been the norm rather than the exception in deciding cases through appeals to the Fourteenth Amendment.

For example, in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) the Supreme Court rendered the clear meaning of the rights entailed in all four clauses of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment irrelevant, suggesting that Plessy’s inability to ride in a whites-only rail car in no way denied him of his full possession of equal political liberty. Writing for the 7-1 majority, Justice Henry Billings Brown argued:
We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s [Plessy] argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.

The Progressive pragmatist judges the case based on the result desired; that is, from its consequences.

For Justice Brown and the rest of the majority, Plessy’s possession of equal political liberty was a subjective matter both on his part and theirs. Since the Court felt that a “separate but equal” rail car was good enough for the Fourteenth Amendment, the onus was on Plessy to put the same construction on the matter. If he didn’t feel equal because he wasn’t allowed to ride in a whites-only train, too bad: the objective reality that he was denied access to a public railcar was of no consequence. Rather, the Court, in quintessential pragmatic and progressive Olympian terms, proclaimed truth in his case subjective, and the lines of admissible subjectivity, their own.

When the Court reversed course in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), it did so utilizing the same circumstantial and outcome-oriented reasoning that the Plessy Court had employed sixty years prior. It might have ground its decision in Justice John Marshall Harlan’s definition-based Plessy dissent, that rightly asserted that “separate but equal” violates the principle of a “color-blind constitution” in which “the law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surrounding or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.” Instead, the Brown Court ruled that societal circumstance and elite preference could no longer ignore the subjective damage done by a “separate but equal” legal regime. American ruling elites had come a long way on the race issue, but not so far as to capture the intellectual and moral essence of Justice Harlan’s brave dissent.

Justice Clarence Thomas demonstrated what might have been (and what yet could be) in an important, though widely ignored, statement on the jurisprudence of civil rights, arguing in his concurring opinion in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) that the Brown Court “[Did] not need to rely upon psychological or social science research in order to announce the simple, yet fundamental truth that the Government cannot discriminate among its citizens according to race. . .that the Government must treat citizens as individuals, and not as members of racial, ethnic or religious groups.”

The rarity of Thomas-style arguments and the ubiquity of circumstance- and consequence-based constitutional reasoning presents a difficult challenge for those committed to preserving a republican judiciary today. At the time of the founding, Alexander Hamilton argued (in Federalist 81) that the danger of systemic judicial abuse “is in reality a phantom,” given the inherent weakness of the judicial branch and its accountability to Congress through the impeachment power. Unfortunately, his argument, as our experience shows, is much less compelling today, for several reasons Hamilton could not have anticipated.

The Congress can still act in ways that encourage responsible judicial behavior, if it wishes.

In Federalist 80, he argues that the federal courts must have the authority to enforce the limits of the Constitution against state laws–a power that, he acknowledges, can be abused. The limits on the states in the original (pre-Bill of Rights) Constitution were few, however, and the interests of the states directly represented in a Senate comprised of members chosen by state legislators. Today, the Court’s expansive application of the Fourteenth Amendment against state laws has increased exponentially the opportunities for abuse–and the shift to a popularly-elected Senate has decreased the incentives for holding the court accountable for abuses. How often can we expect Congress to provoke a fight with the Court over a usurpation of state authority, especially when it may very well like the Court’s judgment?

The Congress can still act in ways that encourage responsible judicial behavior, if it wishes. A careful review of judicial nominees, the use of impeachment where merited, and passing laws that properly define the jurisdiction of the federal courts (as described in Federalist 80 and 81) remain available tools, if some of the institutional motivation for using them has been lost. But the right employment of such tools would likewise require the legislative branch to reason from definition, a prospect more to be dreamed of than expected, given the power that often self-defeating political calculations seem to have over even the most well-intentioned proposals (note to pro-life House Republicans: neither an unborn child’s humanity nor his capacity to feel pain is affected by the circumstances under which he is conceived).

Those wishing to recover republican government, especially those seeking to lead a movement or party, must take the advice of Richard Weaver and engage the larger cause of responsible political argument:
This is a world in which one often gets what one asks for more directly or more literally than one expects. If a leader asks only consequences, he will find himself involved in naked competition for power. If he asks only circumstance, he will find himself intimidated against all vision. But if he asks for principle, he may get that, all tied up and complete, and though purchased at a price, paid for. Therefore it is of first importance whether a leader has the courage to define.
The lesson in all this: As “ideas have consequences,” so will the reasoning we employ to uphold or deny the self-evident truth of human equality continue to have consequences for the American republic.

Holy Cow! I Missed My Blogiversary. The Lid is NINE

January 23rd was the ninth anniversary of the first time I posted here at The Lid (that's 63 in dog years). Back then it was called Yidwithlid and instead of Jeff Dunetz I used a pseudonym Sammy Benoit.  Eventually I discovered  Yidwithlid said to potential readers that only Jewish articles were posted here. Well that and Daniel Pipes drilled me a new one, saying the title was pejorative and an indication the prose wasn't serious.

In Hebrew the number nine is represented by the letter Tet - ט. The first time that letter appears in the Torah is in the word Tov meaning good. It appears in the first chapter 4th verse of Bereishiet (or in English Genesis)   
3. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.  4. And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated between the light and between the darkness.
Although it is three days late, I pray that in my ninth blogiversary God will see the contribution being made here at The Lid, although miniscule in the scope of things, as Tov, as good.

In 2006 a good day saw 75 readers, today that is about ten minutes (not including the RSS Feeds, Facebook and the emailing list).

In these eight years Years, We broke some stories, put Helen Thomas out of work, exposed anti-Israel changes to the 2012 Democratic platform, forced an Obama appointee Chas Freeman to withdraw his nomination, and got a US National security adviser General Jones to apologize to the Jewish People. We've pissed off Congressmen to the point where they've twitted nastiness about the site only to be caught in their anger by The Hill, but I've then praised those same people when they "done good." Sadly that doesn't happen often.

This is the 12,022nd post since that first day (there's no way to report total traffic as I didn't start keeping records till the site was about a year old).

Enemies have been made, usually by defending others. More important is the long list of friendships created only through the efforts of creating this site. So many others have invested the time to teach me so much--there is so much more to learn.

Whether this is your first time to this site or whether it is your 12,022th time, it is impossible to explain the appreciation I feel that you have taken a part of your busy day to read what is written here.

As it is the tradition of blogiveirsaries here at The Lid,  below is the first post ever written for this site. It was called:


The First Post and Spielberg

Hi All


Forgive me as I have jumped into this blog game kind of late. First let me answer the most obvious question. I am Jewish and I wear a Kippah, hence the name Yid With Lid. There are times when I just feel like ranting and raving so I will just do it here. Hopefully you will find those rants entertaining.

Munich: The Real Assassins.

Last night Discovery Channel ran a documentary that featured interviews with the real assassins who went after the Palestinian Terrorists who ran the Olympic Massacre. Once again it show that the Spielberg film is a fraud. Why would the Director who created Shindler's List make a movie that is blatantly anti-Israel, and worse yet is based on a fraud? That's right folks, the guy who wrote the book that Spielberg based his movie on claims to have first hand knowledge...he claims to be the head of the Mossad hit squad. Only one problem, he was NEVER IN THE MOSSAD.

So what do you think? Is Spielberg creating a new movie genre? Will his next book be based on Clifford Irving's fraudulent autobiography of Howard Hughes? Or those Fake Hitler Diaries that were published in Germany a few years ago?

Pat Robertson says no. The movie Munich was just God's way of punishing Spielberg for the movie 1941.

What do you think?
 Enough reminiscing, it's time to put the sappy stuff aside and write some real posts.


Thanks for visiting!





PS: if you feel you are able, please consider hitting the tip jar located on the left-hand column.  It helps me to defray the costs of research, Wi-fi, etc. all of which comes from my pocket.

Bibi’s Congressional Trip...Why he HAD To Go

The dynamics of the Netanyahu visit is much more complicated than the U.S. and Israeli media try and make it out to be. It is more than one more breach in the Obama/Netanyahu relationship; it’s a reaction to the President’s attempt to go around the constitutionally mandated rules for Senate approval of treaties, Obama’s use of British Prime Minister David Cameron to lobby for Congress to submit to the President, and a fear that the President will agree to a deal that will naively give Iran a treaty that will put the United States and Israel in grave danger.

After the Netanyahu visit to a joint session of Congress was announced, Israeli Daily Newspaper Ha'aretz quoted a senior US official as saying, “There are things you simply don’t do. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.”

Just the week before the announcement of the Netanyahu’s visit Obama called Bibi and delivered a "warning not to meddle in the battle he is waging against Congress over the sanctions legislation." This call was made just days after a joint press conference with the British Prime Minister and the American President where David Cameron admitted he was lobbying Congress to drop any bid for new sanctions on Iran.

On Sunday’s “Meet The Press” White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough tried to distance the President from that anonymous statement, "I can guarantee that it's not me, not the president, and not what we believe.” He added, “I'm not going to get hyperbolic or emotional about this. Our relationship with Israel is many faceted, deep and abiding. It's focused on a shared series of threats, but also, on a shared series of values that one particular instance is not going to inform overwhelmingly."

Despite McDonough’s protestations, Obama is seething, and that is the real reason the Administration made a point to say the President would not be meeting with Netanyahu without Bibi even broaching the topic. And if you look at it from the president’s perspective the anger is justified. After all the Israeli Prime Minister kept the possible visit secret for weeks while he negotiated the details with the speaker.

But from the perspective of the Israeli Prime Minister there is no wiggle room, the Iranian nuclear program must be stopped at all costs. Netanyahu is not a worry-about-Iran-come lately. Whether you agree with him or not, Bibi has made the Iranian nuclear program a priority issue became Likud party leader the first time, in 1992.

Neither Netanyahu nor either party in congress trusts this administration to negotiate a treaty with Iran. Indeed much of the push back against this administration on Iran comes from the Democratic Senator from New Jersey Bob Menendez. As for New York’s Senior Senator Chuck Schumer, he is to close to the top of Democratic leadership to ever disagree with this President.

It was Senator Menendez who at last week’s Foreign Relations Committee hearing cornered Deputy Secretary of State Anthony Blinken into admitting the White House is no longer negotiating stop Iran from breaking out to nuclear weapons, they are only trying get a better "alarm" in case the rogue nation tries to make the leap.

In the end why should it matter? The constitution requires the Senate approve each treaty with a two-thirds vote. However if the agreement does not bind a future presidency it isn't considered a treaty and thus does not need Senate approval. And according to the Administration that is exactly what they are trying to accomplish.

The Administration is fighting two different Congressional bills. One will require the administration to seek Senate approval for any agreement with Iran closing the loophole the Administration is trying to use. As Menendez described it to Anthony Blinkin, “The Iranians have made it very clear that their parliament has to vote on this issue. Why is it possible that Tehran will treat its parliament better than the administration in the greatest democracy is willing to its congress?”

The very fact Obama does not want Senate input into this treaty alone is cause for concern that he will make a bad agreement.

The second bill is the one generating the most buzz. This bill would increase sanctions on Iran in July 2015 if a framework agreement were not made by the March 2015 deadline, additionally Obama (or any President) has the right to waive or delay the sanctions. According to the President the possibility of new sanctions will scuttle the discussion, even if it’s scheduled for four months after the agreed to deadline.

Menendez and others in Congress are fearful that if a deal is not made by the March deadline, the time for Iran to breakout into nuclear weapons time is shorter than the time it will take to create new sanctions, thus the reason to have sanctions in place.

And what is Iran doing during this debate? Increasing their nuclear capacity. Iran is building two new nuclear plants “for peaceful purposes.” They always say they are building new nuclear infrastructure for peaceful means, but in actuality they use it as a pretext for expanding their nuclear stockpile. Indeed, The Xinhuanet News Agency (China) reported “Iran’s atomic chief said on Sunday that Iran must increase its uranium enrichment capacity to 30 tons per year to meet the fuel needs of its Bushehr nuclear power plant, according to Tasnim news agency

So in the end, Netanyahu’s trip to Congress is a necessary risk. Start off with the fact that this President does not like Netanyahu and his administration has enacted anti-Israel policies since he took office. Now add to that the fact that based on the information we know now the Obama administration cannot be trusted to make a deal which protects the United States or Israel from a nuclear Iran. Why else would he try to skirt congressional approval? Iran is increasing its nuclear capacity without objection from the United States and the only way to prevent this possible disaster is to convince Congress and the American people to put their foot down. Under those conditions Benjamin Netanyahu had no other choice.

In a speech at an Israeli Bonds Dinner in Florida Sunday, Israeli Ambassador To the US Ron Dermer laid out the reasons Netanyahu was going to congress:
The Prime Minister’s visit here is not intended to show any disrespect for President Obama. Israel deeply appreciates the strong support we have received from President Obama in many areas – the enhanced security cooperation, heightened intelligence sharing, generous military assistance and iron dome funding, and opposition to anti-Israel initiatives at the United Nations.

The Prime Minister’s visit is also not intended to wade into your political debate. Israel deeply appreciates the strong bipartisan support we enjoy in the American Congress -- where Democrats and Republicans come together to support Israel -- Just as Israel appreciates the wide and deep support that itenjoys among the American people.

Rather, the Prime Minister’s visit to Washington is intended for one purpose -- and one purpose only. To speak up while there is still time to speak up. To speak up when there is still time to make a difference.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Iran is the world’s most dangerous regime. It has already devoured four Arab capitals – Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Saana in Yemen – and it is hungry for more.

Iran is the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world, perpetrating or ordering attacks in 25 countries on five continents in the last four years alone.

Iran is responsible for the murder of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and hundreds of Marines in Lebanon. It is responsible for the bombings of US Embassies in Africa and for the twin bombings two decades ago in Argentina.

This reign of terror and violence has all happened without Iran having a nuclear weapon. Now just imagine how much more dangerous Iran will be with nuclear weapons.
And do not think that America is beyond Iran’s reach.

Today, Iran is building ICBMs - Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Now only in cartoons do ICBMS carry TNT. In the real world, they carry nuclear payloads.

And those ICBMS that Iran is building are not designed to hit Israel. Iran already has missiles for that.

Those ICBMs are designed to reach Europe and the United States – to reach New York, Washington and Miami.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Charles Johnson Was About As Close To Andrew Breitbart As I Was (Not Very)

Note: The Charles Johnson discussed in this post is not the Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs. It is the Charles Johnson of Got News.
Blogger Charles Johnson's latest target is Dana Loesch. He goes out of his way to provide half stories about Dana and her husband Chris which Dana herself does a great job debunking at her site. The part of the story I can add to is where Johnson tries to convince the reader that he was among Andrew Breitbart's closest friends. I wasn't even close to being close friends with Andrew, but I certainly knew who he was close to. One thing I can tell you is that anyone who claims they were very close to Andrew Breitbart probably wasn't.

In his piece Johnson claims:
I volunteered and worked for Breitbart. The reason you don’t know too much about my work for Andrew is that I was busy doing it and living in relative obscurity. (It was only after Andrew died and I got married that I decided I should be a bit more out in the public eye and began tweeting and causing trouble.)

I wrote movie reviews for Big Hollywood, I wrote a few articles vetting Obama, and I found the Derrick Bell tapes. I also found the Eric Holder “brain wash” people into not liking guns. I worked on the Obama eats dogs story and published the material on Obama’s time at Columbia, among many others. I also won two journalism awards from the Wall Street Journal for a story I published first on Andrew’s sites. (I also published a version on National Review Online.) I thanked Andrew in my speech at NewsCorp headquarters and in print. “I would never have won this great award without the help of Andrew Breitbart and the people at BigPeace.com believing in me and my work,” I said at the time.
Johnson was a volunteer reporter for the Breitbart sites and so was I.  Between late 2009 and 2011, there were over 200 articles featuring my byline on one of the "Big" sites (and two or three since). At Big Journalism, I broke the video which exposed Helen Thomas and got her fired, I helped oust Obama national security pick Chas Johnson (who believed the Muslims discovered America) among many things I broke at Breitbart.com, I exposed Mel Gibson and his intended Maccabees movie at Big Hollywood, and I broke countless stories about Obama's Anti-Israel policies at Big Peace. Or to put it another way, Johnson's service was nothing unusual.

But he insists:
I was also the last employee at Breitbart to contact Andrew before he died. We talked about going to a party at screenwriter Dale Launer’s house that Friday. I was also in Andrew’s office with Samuel Corcos the day he offered the money for video of the N-word being said to black congressmen. We had Mexican food at a B restaurant and he ate half my chicken burrito because I was talking too much. Sam Corcos, Bryce Gerard, and I met Andrew and Alex Marlow first at a GenX event and America’s Future Foundation event in Los Angeles when I was a freshman in college in Los Angeles. Cato’s Gene Healey and The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf were both there, too.
 Did Johnson get a certificate proving he was the last employee to talk to Breitbart? Sorry I am being a bit snarky. Breitbart was a "regular guy." If a stranger met him on the street and told him they were thinking of starting a blog, Andrew would give the stranger his card with his cell phone number and urge him to call if he needed help. So the fact that Johnson supposedly spoke to Andrew just before he died was nothing special.

In the three years since the "Bigs" began publish, Andrew and I may have spoken maybe 30 times either in person, on the phone, or at the bar at CPAC, yet I called him my friend. It is not some delusion of grandeur on my part, it was just that Andrew Breitbart made people feel they were the most important people in the world and a key component of his team. Allow me to give you an example:

While on the publicity tour for last latest book, Andrew appeared on the Hugh Hewitt show. Hewitt jokingly told Andrew of his disappointment that his name wasn't in the acknowledgements. Piling on to a good joke,  I tweeted Andrew saying Hewitt had no right to be in the acknowledgements, but as one of his most prolific contributors I should have been named and should have gotten some of his royalties on top of it. The very next day I received a phone call apologizing for not including me (he also mentioned he wished he included Pamela Geller also) because I was a top contributor.   I don't know whether he meant it or not, but that was the Andrew Breitbart I knew, he always found time to make others feel important.

Did Andrew Breitbart take the time to make Johnson feel important? I bet he did.  Andrew made everyone seem important...but that doesn't make him any different than the other contributors to Andrew's sites.

But there's more. Nine months after Andrew died Dana sued Breitbart.com.  Honestly the suit had nothing to do with Andrew's relationship with Dana or visa versa. Johnson suggests that it did. He tells of visiting the Breitbart offices before Andrew's death and that they would complain about Dana's work ethic ... notice he doesn't mention who.  I don't know the behind the scenes of Loesch's lawsuit, but obviously she had problems with someone in the organization and obviously it didn't metastasize until after Andrew died, hence the timing of the suit.

The last time I spoke to Andrew was the last day of the 2012 CPAC, two weeks before he died. I gave him suggestions for Big Journalism, he told me to talk to Dana about them.  An indication that Breitbart still had confidence in Loesch. Also keep in mind as the site grew from a list of news services and blog posts, to the "Bigs," Andrew divorced himself from the business side of the operations. There were times Andrew would mention to me his next project, and when I suggested he hire me to run it Andrew would always point me to his friend and partner Larry Solov as the guy who made hiring decisions. It was a point that then Editor-in-Chief Joel Pollack echoed to me after Andrew died.
I want to be very clear that I didn’t want to write this piece. Lots of people lie about my work. There’s even a bogus story about me crapping on the floor in college. I let most of this nonsense go by the way side. But Dana is lying about my work, just as she’s lying about her relationship with Andrew Breitbart toward the end of his life.
As far as who was "closer" to Andrew, like I suggested before, someone who suggests they were close to Andrew probably wasn't; his actual close friends don't have to. Remember what Charles Johnson says in his tome about Andrew: "I was also the last employee at Breitbart to contact Andrew before he died." Without saying it he is suggesting he and Andrew were best buds.

When the Breitbart team and many of Andrew's friends gathered for his funeral, the Breitbart team took a picture as a message that they will carry on the fight for truth. Notice that Dana Loesch is in the picture---notice that Charles Johnson was not. 

On her website, Dana Loesch addresses Johnson's other claims:
A few days ago while trying to cull news from my Twitter feeds, Chuck Johnson was fighting with everyone under the sun and filling up my timeline. Because he seemed petty, I opted to unfollow rather than mute him. Within thirty minutes he had a public meltdown resulting in a hit piece comprised of failed hit pieces from progressives before him. He responded with a poorly-written, error-riddled, libelous piece as his traffic (via Alexa) has taken a dive this month
I strongly urge you click here and go to Dana's Site to read her response to the rest of Charles Johnson's hissy fit.