4.11.2014

Dana Loesch defends fringe terrorist Cliven Bundy

Tea Party activist Dana Loesch has been defending far-right domestic terrorist Cliven Bundy by smearing Senator Harry Reid (D-NV).

Loesch's fact-free smear of Reid:
The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator ReidReid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

Her twitter posts on #BundyRanch:



















































































The real facts about Bundy, which Loesch neglects to tell, are written by the SPLC.

SPLC's Hatewatch:
The core of the dispute is Cliven Bundy’s ongoing claim to the right to graze his cattle on a sensitive piece of southern Nevada’s Mojave Desert known as Gold Butte. Bundy’s family had grazed cattle in the area for generations, but in 1993 Cliven Bundy stopped paying his fees on the land, claiming that the United States government was not the legitimate landlord.
In 2013, a federal judge enjoined him from continuing to graze his cattle on the federal lands, an order he has studiously ignored. So this week, federal authorities moved into the area and began sweeping up Bundy’s trespassing cattle.
Bundy threatened a “range war” if Bureau of Land Management agents took custody of his stock, calling them “cattle thieves.” But, initially at least, the threats appeared to fizzle as the roundup of Bundy’s cattle proceeded apace, accompanied by a heavy law enforcement presence at the scene, while Bundy sputtered helplessly on the sideline. On Sunday, another adult son, 37-year-old David Bundy, was arrested after getting into a confrontation with the federal officers; afterwards, Bundy and his compatriots described for reporters their alleged ordeal the hands of federal officers. 
BLM officials, meanwhile, defend the crackdown on Bundy’s activities by noting that he is the only rancher in the region who refuses to acknowledge or heed the federal permit system for grazing rights. “Cattle have been in trespass on public lands in southern Nevada for more than two decades. This is unfair to the thousands of other ranchers who graze livestock in compliance with federal laws and regulations throughout the West,” the BLM website noted.


Yesterday on The Dana Show, Loesch and Bundy used their segment to push more conspiracy theories, including the claim that "they're throwing little old ladies on the ground and siccing dogs on them."


From the 04.10.2014 edition of KFTK/Radio America's The Dana Show:



On The Kelly FileLoesch used the story to gin up anti-immigrant racist paranoia. The other guest, Lis Wiehl (who is nowhere near a liberal at all), correctly defends the BLM's actions against Bundy.

LatinoRebels:
Ok, we understand that Loesch has an opinion about Bundy, but what does this have to do with immigration and people being here “illegally?” In fact, why did Loesch feel she had to bring up such stale (and racist, yeah, racist) ignorant images of those “illegals.” You really wonder why people like Loesch don’t get it and never will? It’s becoming so par for the course, even us calling her out will now be seen as 1) “leftist” 2) “anti-American” 3) “criminal” 4) “amnesty-loving” or 5) “sexist.” Or wait, we forgot: 6) “Marxist” and 7) “Reconquista-loving.” Just you watch. The “go back to Mexico” tweets from her followers will hit us soon.


From the 04.10.2014 edition of FNC's The Kelly File:

=

4.08.2014

Anti-choice shitstain Dana Loesch rudely mocks #rally4MOwomen attendees

Today, crass anti-choice extremist shitstain Dana Loesch is bullying #Rally4MOWomen attendees for simply exercising their 1st Amendment right to express their opinions on how extreme anti-abortion policies being proposed are affecting Missouri women.






















































Typical from someone who is a habitual disgrace to women in this country.

Michelle Malkin's propaganda hive Twitchy piles on, which Loesch retweeted:




























You, Dana, are an ignorant bully.



It's people like you that want to take away the right to make the choice to have an abortion.








More on Loesch's deliberate falsehoods on the war on women, attacks on [Democratic/liberal] women, birth control, and pro-choice viewpoints:

4.05.2014

Loesch on FNC's The Kelly File: "The Gender Pay Gap is a 'myth'"

Last night on Fixed Noise's The Kelly File, Dana Loesch went on and falsely said that the gender pay gap is a "myth." Unfortunately for serial liars Kelly and Loesch, the gender pay gap is real and does exist.

Thankfully, solid progressive Eboni Williams slapped down Loesch and Kelly's inane arguments.

The Raw Story's David Ferguson:
Loesch complained that Democrats see people as Democrats first and don’t “celebrate women.”
“If you’re a progressive, ‘Democrat’ comes before your sex,” she fumed. “If you’re a Democrat or you’re a progressive, that is honored above your sex.” 
Loesch said that now-ex-Mayor Bob Filner (D) of San Diego, CA is an example of how progressives treat women, in spite of the fact that he was driven from office in disgrace when his assaults on women became public knowledge. 
Guest Eboni Williams asserted that dividing women into “liberal” and “conservative” camps is superficial and divisive and does not address the concerns that all women share. 
“I think we all want equal pay for equal work for women,” said Williams. “We all want these policy goals that are much more the same than they are different.”
“Yeah, the equal pay for equal myth [sic],” said Loesch. “Can we talk about things that are in reality and not something based upon a bunk study?”
No, Dana, Bob Filner's sexual assaults on women are NOT accurate examples of how progressives/liberals treat women.


 From the 04.04.2014 edition of FNC's The Kelly File:

4.03.2014

NRA mouthpiece Dana Loesch tastelessly smears daughter of slain Sandy Hook principal

Last night, in reaction to the Fort Hood shooting (the same place where a much more tragic version of such a tragedy occurred back in November 2009), deranged gun nut and NRA mouthpiece propagandist Dana Loesch tastelessly smeared Cristina Hassinger (@chass63), the daughter of slain Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung, for calling out Loesch's repeated harassment of Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America founder Shannon Watts.

TBogg at The Raw Story has the story on Loesch's insensitive tweets directed at Hassinger:

Our winner for the evening turned out to be radio screech weasel, pee-er on dead people, and thing-that-you-would-get-if-Michelle-Malkin-and-Sarah-Palin-had-a-bile-child, Dana Loesch,who made Pat Dollard look positively artful in his Twitter Tourettes.
Christina Hassinger criticized Loesch on Twitter for attacking Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America founder Shannon Watts. Loesch did not like this, no sireee bob. However, the witty repartee did not go well for Dana:Screen Shot 2014-04-02 at 11.20.22 PMWhoopsie-doodle!
Of course, Dana had a chance to respond with, say: ” Oh wow, so sorry about you mother, you have my deepest sympathies after she died trying to save a bunch of children who are close in age to mine. God bless”…
But…no.
That would be  a sign of weakness that is reserved for people who aren’t  soul dead grifters pitching red meat stupidity to lowest-common-denominator  mouth-breathers who spend the day  listening  to hate talk radio, brought to you by reverse mortgages come-ons and male catheter come hithers.
Here’s your chance, Dana: be a human being, be a stand-up person, someone your kids could be proud of…Screen Shot 2014-04-02 at 11.31.28 PMOhhhh. So close.
When I pointed out on the Twitter machine (and I should note that both Dana and her sad hipster wanna-be husband both block me on Twitter, so she had to go looking for it) that she was being kind of a dick, well, guess who the real victim is now?  Go on ….. guess. I dare you…Screen Shot 2014-04-02 at 11.36.47 PMSTOP TWITTER YELLING AT DANA LOESCH , PEOPLE!

Moms Demand Action founder Watts correctly calls out Loesch for being a shill for the gun manufacturers:



TBogg:




More on Loesch's idiocy and falsehoods on Guns and the 2nd Amendment:  


3.25.2014

Anti-choicer Dana Loesch shills for Hobby Lobby's anti-birth control and contraception policies

The rabid anti-choice Dana Loesch attacks contraception and birth control yet again, in order to defend Hobby Lobby in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. She also attacked Sandra Fluke for stating the truth about the company's birth control policies and its impact should it go HL's way.

Loesch got in her usual Fluke-bashing cheap shots in.



















WRONG, Dana. Hobby Lobby IS denying contraception and birth control coverage as of 2012.





People For The American Way discusses the ramifications of the case:
If right-wing America had set out to design a Supreme Court case that combined all of its political fetishes, it could not have done better than to come up with Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius, a devilishly complex assault on Obamacare, women’s health care rights in the workplace, and the embattled idea that the Bill of Rights is for people, not corporations.  The outlandish claims of the company involved would not have a prayer except for Citizens United, the miracle gift of 2010 that just keeps giving. 
Hobby Lobby is a big business that wants to deny thousands of its female employees access to certain contraceptives, like Plan B and certain IUDs, which are supposed to be available to everyone under Obamacare but which the company says it finds theologically objectionable.  Ironically, Hobby Lobby’s private insurance plan fully funded these religiously incorrect forms of birth control for several years before the 2010 passage of the Patient Care and Affordable Care Act and the Department of Health and Human Services’ issuance of its “Preventive Services” Rule, which made coverage for them obligatory.  So it was the workings of Obamacare which apparently gave this business entity its corporate epiphany that these forms of birth control were sinful and the will to fight the contraceptives it had once been perfectly content to subsidize.  Amazingly, this challenge produced an off-the-rails decision by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that the company’s “religious” rights had been violated.

[...]

Business Corporations Have Never Had Religious Rights and the Idea Is AbsurdThe astounding nature of the decision becomes clear when we focus on the fact that Hobby Lobby is a regular business corporation, secular in its operations and devoted to profit-making purposes.  It is neither a church nor a religious organization.  It does not hire its workers based on religious preferences or practices.  Under the Affordable Care Act, if Hobby Lobby were a church or a non-profit religious organization that had as its purpose the promotion of religious values, and if it primarily employed and served people along religious lines, it would be considered a “religious employer” and it would be completely exempted from the contraceptive-coverage requirement.  Even if it did not meet those stringent criteria, the company could still be exempt under the law if it were a non-profit institution that objected to contraceptive coverage for religious reasons, as do certain religious institutions of higher education.
But Hobby Lobby is neither a “religious employer” nor a non-profit institution.  It is a standard for-profit business corporation.  That is why the case is of such surpassing importance.  It threatens to carry over Citizens United’s transformation of corporations into “persons” for political spending purposes into the realm of religious worship and free exercise, with dramatic implications.



Center For American Progress has the real facts about Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby:
Dangerous implications
A holding that for-profit corporations have religious beliefs could not only harm employee access to adequate health care, but could also legalize religious-based discrimination while trampling on employees’ religious freedom.

More health care exemptions
More than 50 percent of Americans receive health insurance from their employers, and the employer health insurance rules are a major piece of the Affordable Care Act legislation and key to its success. The Hobby Lobby case and other cases currently in federal court are an attempt by those who were against the Affordable Care Act to slowly chip away at it, and contraception is just the beginning. If for-profit corporations can claim a religious exemption for contraception, they could then refuse to offer other types of health care coverage all because it conflicts with the owners’ “faith.” Consider the following examples:
  • Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions. A for-profit corporation owned by a devout Jehovah’s Witness could be able to refuse to cover blood transfusions for its employees.
  • Certain fundamentalist factions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are religiously opposed to the use of all vaccinations and could be exempt from covering vaccinations for their employees.
  • Christian Scientists eschew modern medicine entirely, believing instead in the healing power of prayer. A for-profit corporation owned by a Christian Scientist could decline to provide any health insurance based on these religious beliefs.
  • Scientologists are religiously opposed to psychiatry and drugs associated with psychiatry. A Scientologist owner of a for-profit corporation could use the corporation’s so-called “religious beliefs” to refuse coverage for psychiatric services for its employees.
  • Some evangelical Christians are opposed to the human papilloma virus, or HPV, vaccine, which prevents cervical cancer, because they believe the protection of the vaccine will increase promiscuity. A for-profit corporation owned by an evangelical Christian could request an exemption for his or her corporation, thus denying the corporation’s employees and their families’ access to the vaccine.
If the case goes Hobby Lobby's way, it'll be scary indeed. Yet another reason to boycott Hobby Lobby!

More on Loesch's deliberate falsehoods on the war on women, attacks on [Democratic/liberal] women, birth control, and pro-choice viewpoints: