Dobbs Takes Aim At HuffPost Critic

11/23/2009 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011

Scroll down for audio

CNN birther-monger Lou Dobbs apparently reads the internets and had many nerves touched by one of our own bloggers, Roberto Lovato, who recently wrote this piece entitled "As Movement Demanding CNN Dump Him Grows, Dobbs Plays Victim." This article apparently irked Dobbs greatly, causing him to bleat several run-on sentences in which he fumbled basic concepts such as the English language and the U.S. Constitution, whilst doubling down on playing the victim.

I just got to bring this to you. This guy, Roberto Lovato...he's a non-entity but he's one of my fleas, writing in Alternet, saying "Dobbs plays the victim as movement demanding CNN dump him grows." I mean, he is one of those delusional left-wing activists who doesn't care a whit about the truth, he has nothing to do with the truth, but what's really interesting is he's trying to, he's just, he's playing one heck of a...stupid game. He writes, "Faced with a growing movement of communities demanding that CNN drop his program, Lou Dobbs responded Friday with one of his favorite postures: the victimized defender of American virtue." Let me be real clear with you, Roberto. I'm not a victim of anything. I'm just a dog and you're one of my fleas. You know... this nonsense that he writes, "Not surprisingly, Dobbs is waving the First Amendment flag to change the subject"... Well first, Roberto, don't be a bozo anymore than you can help. The First Amendment metaphor would not be a flag, it's an amendment.

Huh? No. One cannot metaphorically refer to an amendment as an amendment. This is not the way "metaphor" works. I despair that people like Dobbs are out there defending the primacy of the English language yet wielding it so ineptly.

It's in the Constitution. It's one of my rights, it's one of yours. You are the one trying to deny my rights. And you know... don't be so silly.

What rights does Dobbs think he is being denied? Is there a part of the Constitution that stipulates that all Americans have the right to host news shows? Because I seem to have missed that. What I didn't miss was this part of Lovato's original piece:

Not surprisingly, Dobbs is waving the First Amendment flag to change the subject, which is not about disagreement on immigration policy, and has nothing to do with free speech. Dobbs has the right to his opinions; but there's nothing in the Constitution that says he deserves a "news" platform to disseminate hurtful and dangerous myths about immigrants.

That's true! There's no talk at all about prohibiting Dobbs's freedom of speech. He could, right at this very moment, start his very own Tumblr and wax poetically about the Mexican leper invasion to his heart's content and the majesty of the First Amendment would be wholly unsullied. This is just one of those examples of a serial platform abuser asserting that the Constitution grants him the right to continue abusing his platform without facing criticism.

In any case, Dobbs continues:

And the fact is, you wouldn't be accusing me of anything if I were supporting illegal immigration and amnesty, and you're not even man enough to admit that straight up.

That is a sentence that really should be preceded by the phrase, "Apropos of nothing in particular..." But, hey, maybe it's true! But say the script was flipped in this way. Clearly, this only means that there would be some other group calling for Dobbs's head and making him sad. Maybe Dobbs should reflect on whether the outrage targeted in his direction is because he has opinions on illegal immigration or that he presents these opinions in a multitude of uninformed and irresponsible ways, placing him at odds with the traditional standards of what is known as "the news."

You are a typical left-wing activist coward propagandist trying to use the Constitution that enables all of to have free expression trying to deny my rights.

I'll refer you back to the part written above where I point out that campaigning to remove someone from a news show is not the same thing as denying anyone their rights. I'll go on to say, "YES. HOW DARE MR. LOVATO ACTUALLY USE HIS OWN RIGHTS OF FREE EXPRESSION. Doesn't he know that some people's rights of free expression are MORE EQUAL than others? Does Mr. Lovato have a news show, on the teevee? No? Well then he should realize his rights are less equal."

You're trying to deny me my rights while turning over this country to those who have no regard for our laws, for our rules, for our customs, and the legal foundation of this country.

It would be terrible if such people assumed control in this country! Our phones could get wiretapped or something!

I mean, you're just...Mr. Lovato you're a joke! And I would like you to come on and defend, if you will, your own, yourself, against what I'm saying. Because I consider you to be an outright fraud and those who would follow you or listen to you, you're simply duping, and you're silly. You're utterly silly.

Actually, what's "utterly silly" is begging the person who's campaigning to get your show dropped from CNN to come on the air with you to bring you more viewers and listeners.


[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]