In the wake of SCOTUS's heinous Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision, the Loesch duo defend Hobby Lobby

In the wake of SCOTUS' heinous anti-women ruling on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, TheBlazeTV's Dana Loesch is defending Hobby Lobby's hypocritical decision NOT to provide birth control (which they once used to provide).

During the past couple of days, she and her husband Chris were celebrating the idiotic pro-Hobby Lobby SCOTUS ruling:

First, the ringleader, Dana:

Who's taking facts now? Not you, Dana!

"Women's rights remain unchanged?" What a big fucking whopper that lie is. Women's reproductive rights are under attack because of the pro-HL ruling.

Her husband Chris piled on the anti-women/pro-Hobby Lobby cheerleading:

@TruthNWisdom is a truth-telling hero, unlike scum like you and your wife and their ilk.

He's repeating the baseless lie that "Planned Parenthood kills minority babies."

WRONG, Chris, this SCOTUS ruling INVITES the corporation into a women's bedroom.

The idiots that make up a huge constituency belong to the GOP/Tea Party, NOT Liberals/Progressives and Democrats.

There's religious zealots in the world, and that's folks like you, Mr. Chris.

On Monday's edition of The Glenn Beck Program, while subbing for Lonesome Rhodes Beck, Loesch deliberately lied about the negative impact on women due to the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling in order to mock the boycotters of Hobby Lobby.

From the 06.30.2014 edition of TheBlazeTV's The Glenn Beck Program:

On last night's Hannity, Loesch debated with former National Organization For Women head Patricia Ireland on the ruling.

Ellen at Newshounds.us on the segment:
Last night, it was the Hannity show’s turn, via a “debate” about “some of the most outrageous rhetoric” from the left” – which just happened to solely include comments from NOW president Terry O’Neill. 
Hannity chose for his debate the ever hate-filled and hate mongering Dana Loesch. Loesch seems to particularly despise feminists. On The Kelly File in April, she sneered that she didn’t know the goal of another feminist conference other than “to raise up the next generation of women into old cat ladies.” She added, “It was like watching Mean Girls with less attractive women. …You don’t have to “get” progressives. They “get” themselves.” She's a charmer, alright. 
Not surprisingly, Loesch brought her special brand of hostility to this segment. She started off with a condescending response to the other guest, former NOW president Patricia Ireland. “So the idea that women are somehow being denied anything – Look, my rights have not changed after this ruling, Sean, and women who work for Hobby Lobby, they still have access to birth control, as provided by Hobby Lobby,” Loesch said.

Of course, DL had to act like a smart-ass on national television and Ireland was correct.

From the 07.01.2014 edition of FNC's Hannity:

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


Dana Loesch defends Washington NFL Team's racist name, slams USPTO for denying "Redskins" trademark

Tea Party moron Dana Loesch is defending the awful racist slur of Washington NFL Team's nickname, the "Redskins" by falsely claiming that the term honors Native Americans.

She even got cheapshots in at Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). She slammed the United States Patent and Trademark Office for correctly denying the name.

Here are Loesch's tweets slamming the USPTO's decision:

More false logic from Loesch. The Blackhawks, Braves, Cleveland Indians team name, and Oklahoma's names honor Native American heritage respectfully, whereas the Washington NFL Team name and Cleveland Indians mascot Chief Wahoo do not.

TOTAL LIE. Sen. Warren did NOT exploit her Native American ancestry.

Sorry, Dana, but the $20 will NOT be taken out of circulation; however, Andrew Jackson can be replaced with someone else more deserving.

The name "Redskins" does NOT honor Native American heritage (considering then-owner George P. Marshall was a vicious racist), you doofus!

Gary Legum hits back at Loesch's falsehood-ridden statement that "Dems are the ones who hate Native Americans."

Lindsey Adler at BuzzFeed:
recent study by the California State University, San Bernadino reports 67% of Native Americans find the Washington Redskins name and imagery racist.
12 percent of Native respondents were neutral and 20 percent disagreed. In contrast, 60 percent of white respondents do not find the name racist. When asked if they found the term “disrespectful,” the number of positive respondents rose to 68%.
This debunks the "90% of Native Americans support keeping the 'Redskins'" canard in the infamous 2004 Annenberg poll espoused by anti-DC NFL Team name change folks like Loesch.

Travis Waldron at Think Progress Sports:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled six federal trademark registrations for the name of the Washington "Redskins", ruling that the name is “disparaging to Native Americans” and thus cannot be trademarked under federal law that prohibits the protection of offensive or disparaging language. 
The U.S. PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board issued a ruling in the case, brought against the team by plaintiff Amanda Blackhorse, Wednesday morning.
“We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,” the board wrote in its opinion, which is here. A brief explanation of how the Board reached its decision is here. 
“The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agreed with our clients that the team’s name and trademarks disparage Native Americans. The Board ruled that the Trademark Office should never have registered these trademarks in the first place,” Jesse Witten, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, said in a press release. “We presented a wide variety of evidence – including dictionary definitions and other reference works, newspaper clippings, movie clips, scholarly articles, expert linguist testimony, and evidence of the historic opposition by Native American groups – to demonstrate that the word ‘redskin’ is an ethnic slur.”
Kudos to the USPTO, even it pisses off the pro-keep the "Redskins" name crowd.

Neil Irwin at The New York Times on the future of the DC NFL Team's name: 
We can only guess the exact volume and color of the steam coming out of Daniel Snyder’s ears right about now. Wednesday morning, the United States Patent and Trademark Office canceled the trademark for the Washington Redskins, the pro football team that Mr. Snyder owns — and that he has steadfastly refused to rename, amid accusations that its mascot is racist.
It’s important to be clear on what the ruling from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruling means and doesn’t mean. It does not prohibit Mr. Snyder from using “Redskins” as the team’s name. It merely prevents him from using the court system to prevent others from using the term.
One could now imagine someone opening the “Redskins Bar & Grill” without paying a royalty to Mr. Snyder, though that opens up an awkward Catch-22: It’s legal to use the name because a government commission found it disparages Native Americans, but you would then own a restaurant whose name disparages a minority group.

And Mr. Snyder and the team will assuredly challenge the ruling in federal court. Native American groups won their case before the trademark appeal board once before, in 1999, only to have it overturned by a United States District Court. And there was a dissent in the ruling by the trademark review board this time around. (Amusingly, even the dissenter, Marc Bergsman, seemed to distance himself from the name, writing, “I am not suggesting that the term “redskins” was not disparaging in 1967, 1974, 1978, and 1990 … Rather, my conclusion is that the evidence petitioners put forth fails to show that it was.”)
But it’s hard to view the new ruling as anything other than the beginning of the end of the name. It has now been assailed not just by Native American groups but by the president of the United States and half the Senate, which ultimately controls the various tax and legal advantages the N.F.L. enjoys. Players in football and many other sports are now routinely asked their view of the name, and their evident discomfort with it is rising.
Yep. Time to change the name of Washington's godawful team name.


Paid NRA mouthpiece Dana Loesch tastelessly poses with an AR-15 on the cover for her book Hands Off My Gun

Yet again, NRA mouthpiece and TheBlaze Dana Loesch is pandering to the fringe gun nuts by posing on the cover for her new book (Hands Off My Gun: Defeating The Plot To Disarm America, originally titled Defenseless) due to be out in October in a very offensive manner by insulting the survivors of the Sandy Hook Shooting.

John Amato at Crooks and Liars:
Dana Loesch, firebreather for Glenn Beck and other low brow conservatives has a new book out and decided to pose on the cover with an AR-15, a weapon that helped massacre so many innocent children in Sandy Hook. Glenn Beck is very excited that the cover will absolutely piss off liberals, but her crassness only proves the point I've been making for a long time.

Tim Peacock at Peacock Panache:
ana Loesch is no stranger to controversy. She's the extreme right conservative that applauded the desecration of enemy bodies overseas (urination on the bodies by American soldiers, in case everyone's forgotten). She's the Tea Party conservative that defendedArizona's SB1062, a piece of legislation that would bring back a new era of Jim Crow public accommodation discrimination (which didn't come as a surprise since Loesch supports Jim Crow in general). Loesch is the extremist that sided with Cliven Bundy even after he made (and doubled down on) egregiously racist statements in the course of his 'sovereign citizen' spiel. In her latest shock-jock stunt to generate publicity (and money), Loesch posed for the cover of her new book "Hands Off My Gun" (due out in October) with the same weapon used in both the Sandy Hook massacre and the Oregon high school shooting this week.  
 Furthermore, Loesch's intentional use of that particular firearm - a firearm now nationally associated with one of the worst school shooting tragedies in modern history - doesn't just work to incense the gun regulation crowd; rather, it serves as a snub (perhaps even a rude gesture) to those families who lost family members in both Sandy Hook and the Oregon shooting. And Loesch knows this. To say anything otherwise would be disingenuous.
 This is typical crass moronic behavior we've come to expect from Loesch.

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


On The Kelly File, Phony "Christian" Dana Loesch falsely smears Jessica Ehrlich as an "anti-Christian Bigot"

On tonight's edition of The Kelly File hosted by substitute host Martha MacCallum on Fixed Noise, phony "Christian" conservative hack Dana Loesch insulted the show's other guest Jessica Ehrlich by calling her an "anti-Christian bigot" for opposing the homophobia and other far-right screeds that David and Jason Benham espouse. 

Loesch defended the fired by HGTV Benham Brothers' bigoted homophobic comments by stating "I don't find Christian views to be political."

Ehrlich correctly called out Loesch's BS bunk arguments by saying that "they cloaked their political views as Biblical."

Further in the interview, Loesch baselessly claimed that "being pro-choice and pro-homosexuality doesn't make you a Christian."

To debunk Dana's faulty logic on that statement, yes, you can be pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights and still be a Christian in good standing.

From the 05.16.2014 edition of FNC's The Kelly File:

Transcript, via Progressives Today:
Jessica Ehrlich: Here you have two attention-seeking, reality series wannabes, who are political activists, who have an extreme agenda. And who are trying to cloak this sort of religious freedom characterization… 
Dana Loesch: I just don’t understand the anti-Christian bigotry. The world’s big enough for us all, don’t you think? 
Ehrlich: There is no anti-Christian bigotry here. They cloaked their political views… 
Loesch: I don’t find Christian views to be political. 
Ehrlich: These are not Christian views. 
Loesch: It’s not Christian views to talk about Biblical principles?… What about the Bible do you find extreme? 
Ehrlich: They are anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality. 
Loesch: Using your logic, Jessica, then how does that not make you anti-Christian?… Jessica, you learn more when you keep your mouth shut. 
Ehrlich: You don’t need to get rude about this. 
Loesch: If we’re going to have a discussion on rudeness, let’s start with your name-calling and your smearing of these brothers just because you are an anti-Christian bigot.
Her own site makes excuses for defending the Benhams:
The story of the David and Jason Benham moved me perhaps because it is the most recent in a string of stories this year where people of faith or of different opinion are attacked; also maybe because they seem like sincere people of faith. The SunTrust story broke while I was on air, inspiring this rant. Tonight I appeared on the “Kelly File” with excellent guest host Martha MacCallum to debate the issue a bit with a democratic strategist named Jessica Ehrlich. My intention was to have a civil discourse, where perhaps we disagree, but civil nonetheless, but find common ground on this being America and there is room for all, faith-based or not. I quickly found that this was not to be the case. Ms. Ehrlich was set upon castigating these brothers for their faith. It wasn’t enough for Ms. Ehrlich that neither David nor Jason have ever expressed anything either in voice or otherwise that would classify, it was “hatred” so long as the brothers didn’t endorse in what they themselves simply disagree. It wasn’t enough for Ms. Ehrlich that the Benham brothers remained committed, on their own time and their own dime, to the six families whose homes they were flipping for their now-cancelled HGTV program — they had failed to endorse a lifestyle outside of their Biblical belief set. Ms. Ehrlich called them hateful “anti-homosexuals,” “extremists,” among other things, to which I asked her if her simple disagreement with David and Jason Benham’s lifestyle then would classify her as an “anti-Christian bigot.” It’s the same logic. She didn’t like the measure she uses to be used against herself.
I have friends and members of my own family who are gay, I have friends and family members who believe whole-heartedly that abortion is fantastic, and magically, we still all get along. I am not hurt if they do not share my beliefs no more than they are hurt that I do not share theirs. I care about these people, which is why I would never go out of my way to hurt them, especially over what we believe. It’s why it floors me that people like Ms. Ehrlich, who I’m sure prides herself on “equality” and compassion, would go out of her way to malign the characters of two men whose only crime seems to be that they are Christians. Perhaps she was not raised in a diverse environment and didn’t learn to coexist with people who think differently than she, but it’s about time she learned.
Dana, it's about time you learn to quit being a rude bully to people who disagree with your line of thought.

Typical Loesch being a fake "Christian" right-wing asshole. Mrs. Ehrlich's the REAL Christian in this discussion, NOT you or the Benhams.

On today's edition of The Dana Show, Loesch was outraged by SunTrust's decision to temporarily suspend their accounts (which later got reinstated) by whining about "#progressiveprivilege." She also smeared Hillary Clinton, Shannon Watts, Elizabeth Warren, birth control, Common Core, Michael Sam, and liberals/progressives in general in that rant.

From the 05.16.2014 edition of KFTK/Radio America's The Dana Show:

More on Loesch's attacks on LGBTQ rights: