Showing posts with label Sean Hannity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sean Hannity. Show all posts

7.02.2014

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:
Posted by at 2 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

8.14.2013

On FNC's Hannity, Loesch attacks California's transgender-friendly schools law [UPDATED]

Ardent transphobe Dana Loesch went on Fixed Noise Channel's Hannity to attack California's K-12 Transgender Protection Law (AB 1266) that was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), which conservatives were pissed off about. The other guest, Leslie Marshall, largely disagreed with Loesch.



From the 08.13.2013 edition of FNC's Hannity:


Transcript (Partial)::
LOESCH: You know, I don't know what kind of crazy world we live in exactly, Sean, when we decide that the best way to stop bullying is to pass a law where we introduce opposite members of the sex into opposite-sex bathrooms and locker rooms, where regardless of the - yeah, and in sports teams, regardless of how other students feel. You're gonna force acceptance? I mean that's something that, again, you know, this comes back to things that are taught in the home.

MMFA has more on Loesch's transphobic remarks on last night's Hannity:
Loesch then compared transgender students' identities with her childhood wish that she could be a flower, displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of transgender identities, described by the American Psychological Association as "part of the human condition."

Neither Loesch nor Hannity seemed to appreciate the significant problem of anti-transgender bullying, which could lead to physical and mental health problems later in life. Hannity dismissed such concerns out of hand: "So forget about the 99 percent. The accommodation goes to the .00001 percent." Loesch snarked, "Let's go ahead and have a boy go on a girls' team. Because that's going to get him less bullied?" 
Hannity could have hosted a psychologist steeped in the scientific literature on transgender issues to shed insight on the story. Instead, he and Loesch traded baseless smears and fears about transgender people, indicating that Fox is uninterested in putting an end to its longstanding transphobia problem.


Disturbed homophobe Caiden Cowger insults transgendered individuals:
Posted by at 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

3.08.2012

Dana Loesch misleads her readers with the "Obama hasn't been vetted properly" canard

Dana Loesch and the rest of the stooges at Breitbart.com are going after President Barack Obama (then President of Harvard Law Review) (D) for associating with Harvard's first tenured Black law professor Derrick Bell and the "media" for allegedly "burying his radical views." He was also being accused of "racism" by these same distortionists.
Big Journalism:

The larger question is why a publicly-funded entity like WGBH is charging individuals for information, especially when that information gives greater context to the President's 1991 remarks? WGBH refused to give Breitbart.com the video and didn't even respond to the request for the footage -- but they'll reply to Buzzfeed and license them portions of the video? Isn't that preferential?  
Additionally, if the President's embrace of Bell was unimportant, why did Buzzfeed choose not to pay the hundred bucks to license those seconds? If it wasn't a big deal, why cut it? Cut the critics off at the pass; render them unable to accuse you of once again suppressing information. 

Buzzfeed's argument that PBS already aired the video is insufficient, given that PBS didn't air it uninterrupted and overdubbed the video with commentary. There were parts of Obama's speech obscured as a result, specifically "Open your hears and minds to Derrick Bell." 
It's significant when we're vetting the President during an election year, don't you think, Buzzfeed? 



In fact, back in 2008, PBS's Frontline already showed the clip in question, unedited. By the way, Dana, the speech occurred in 1990, not 1991. President Obama has been thoroughly vetted since at least 2007.

WGBH (PBS-Boston):
The web is abuzz today about video of a speech Barack Obama gave in 1990 (some reports have incorrectly identified the speech as occurring in 1991) at Harvard Law School defending the actions of Professor Derrick Bell. Bell, the law school’s first tenured black professor, had protested Harvard’s failure to offer tenure to women of color as law school professors. Online publisher Andrew Breitbart, who died last week, had said he possessed the speech and hinted that he would release it, arguing that it provided evidence that Obama has long held radical political beliefs. 
But there’s nothing new about the clip or Obama’s role in the controversy at Harvard Law School. In 2008, as a part of our quadrennial election special The Choice 2008,  FRONTLINE ran the same footage of the speech as a part of an exploration of Obama’s time at Harvard Law School, where he graduated in 1991. It’s been online at our site and on YouTube since then.  
In light of today’s controversy, and Breitbart.com editors’ claims that the footage had been edited, we pulled the full archived tape. It includes not just Obama’s speech, but other footage from the rally and portions of Derrick Bell’s speech. You can watch it in full below. 
Watch Obama Speaks at Harvard Law in '90 on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
 

While BuzzFeed did not publish all of the available footage of the event — a manager here noted that they were paying for each second of footage — they did post the entirety of what was available of Obama’s speech. While other cameras could have shot additional material from the event, no other footage of the event exists at WGBH.




On Sean Hannity's radio show, Breitbart.com bloggers Joel Pollak and Ben Shapiro previewed the distorted version of the PBS clip on the Breitbart.com site.

Mediaite:

From the 03.07.2012 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show: 
Earlier today, Sean Hannity gave his listeners a heads up on what to expect tonight from the highly anticipated unaired Obama college video hyped by the late Andrew Breitbart, with an interview with Breitbart.com editors Ben Shapiro and Joel Pollak. “On Hannity tonight, you will see the full tape of what we are going to reveal of this particular controversy — remember there’s a whole series of events, tapes and things that Barack Obama participated in that were not vetted, that were not searched for, we know where they are, we are going to be focusing on this particular controversy and we are going to release the full tape that Andrew Breitbart knew about was planning for and it’s not just going to be about Barack Obama and his views, although that’s a big part of it,” Pollak said. “You are going to see information tonight on Hannity that proves the cover-up between the mainstream media, between academia and between Obama’s supporters everywhere to make sure that this information never made it to the public, never made it into the campaign, never made it to the American consciousness.”
The editors are calling the video release “the vetting.”

Keith Boykin, the Daily Voice editor who attended Harvard with Obama, said that "there was nothing hidden in the speech" and debunked the Breitbart/Loesch cronies' spin.

Raw Story:

Daily Voice editor Keith Boykin, who attended Harvard University with President Barack Obama, expressed confusion on Wednesday over the controversy surrounding video of Obama introducing Dr. Derrick Bell in 1990. 
Breitbart.com published video of Obama speaking about Bell, a racial justice pioneer who developed the critical race theory. Breitbart.com has labeled the professor a “racialist” and compared him to controversial Pastor Jeremiah Wright. 
“The whole idea that somehow Barack Obama or others want to hide this, why would anyone want to hide this speech?” Bokyin wondered during an appearance on MSNBC. “We had sit-ins and demonstrations. He didn’t do all that. But he came and stuck his neck out at a time of critical importance when Professor Bell was about to leave.”


So, to sum it up, Loesch and her cronies are flat-out unscrupulous right-wing pinheads who have no regard for the truth and facts.



Posted by at 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1.11.2012

KFTK's The Dana Show moves from 2-4PM to Noon-3PM, effective January 30th

Starting on Monday, January 30th, Dana Loesch of the Gateway "Grassroots" Initiative's The Dana Show on KFTK will have a new time slot, expanding to three hours. The first two hours are head-to-head against Rush Limbaugh's The Rush Limbaugh Program on KMOX 1120 AM and the 3rd against local Dittohead Mark Reardon. Premiere's The Laura Ingraham Show (currently airing from Noon to 2PM, has been removed from KFTK's Schedule. The Dave Glover Show gets expanded from 3 hours to 4, and starts right after The Dana Show. The post-Glover lineup, Allman In The Morning, and The Glenn Beck Program's spots stay intact.



Starting January 30th, Dana Loesch, host of "The Dana Show" will move to three big hours from noon to 3pm, bringing you all the hottest and biggest developments from the political scene. At 3pm, Dave Glover will take over the microphone as his show, "The Dave Glover Show" expands to four big hours in drive-time keeping you laughing and informed on your commute home.
The new weekday schedule will be as follows:
Allman in the Morning  5am-9amGlenn Beck  9am-12nThe Dana Show  12n-3pmThe Dave Glover Show  3pm-7pmSean Hannity  7pm-9pmMichael Savage  9pm-11pmThe Mark Levin Show  11pm-2amRed Eye Radio  2am-4amThe Wall Street Journal This Morning  4am-5am

In Indianapolis, on WIBC, they will air the last hour of The Dana Show, at 3PM EST/2PM CST, instead of the first hour that currently airs.

What does that mean? Another hour of Loesch's outrageous fabrications, outlandish claims, and blatant lies perpetrating on her inane hate-filled radio show.
Posted by at 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

1.18.2011

Dana Loesch defends Sarah Palin on AC360

St. Louis's favorite liar Dana Loesch has proven herself to be an idiot yet again. This is the same lady who has repeatedly claimed that "I hate political parties," "I am an ultra-Conservative Independent," and more lies from that sewer mouth of her. Why does Anderson Cooper have this liar who can't back up anything and shout over other guests? Maybe they're afraid of the "Liberal Media" card. As always, Cooper gave Loesch the last word, instead of Belcher. She again has ducked from answering a question.


Here's a perfect image to describe Dana:

=


COOPER: Well, Palin's choice of words, using the historically anti-Semitic term blood libel, set off a new round of criticism. As you might imagine, even some Republicans who felt Palin had been unfairly bashed expressed dismay over the tone.

And here's what a new ABC News/Washington Post poll found. Just 30 percent of Americans approve of the way Palin responded to the Tucson shootings, compared with 78 percent who approved of how President Obama responded.

Now, those numbers may explain why Sarah Palin sat down tonight with Sean Hannity.

Again, let's just point out there is no evidence that Ms. Palin had any influence on alleged shooter Jared Loughner.

Joining me now, Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher, who was a pollster for the Obama campaign, also Dana Loesch, Tea Party organizer and Saint Louis radio host.

Cornell, I want to play you some of the -- the -- the -- the conversation between Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity. It's her first questions since -- since the Tucson shooting tonight. Let's just play part of what she had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, FOX NEWS CHANNEL) PALIN: Knowing that that had absolutely nothing to do with an apolitical...

SEAN HANNITY, HOST, HANNITY: Yes.

PALIN: ... or perhaps even left-leaning criminal who killed these innocents and -- and injured so many, I didn't have a problem with it being taken down, if, in fact, it actually has been taken down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Has she been unfairly painted here?

CORNELL BELCHER, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN POLLSTER: Well, I don't know if she's been unfairly painted. I know that this has not been a good couple of weeks for her.

I mean, she has shrunk herself -- she's shrunken herself as -- as -- sort of as a national political leader after this incident. I mean, and the -- and the Washington Post poll shows that. The problem, I think, for Republicans now is this, is that the most vocal, you know, well-known voice in the Republican Party right now is a reality TV host star who continues to shrink in the eye -- in the eyes of -- in the eyes of the public.

And I think what you're going to see over the next, you know, couple months here is -- and you are already starting to see some of it -- is the Republican establishment lining up trying to put her in a box.

And I think sort of the contrast between her and Barack Obama over the Tucson incident sort of, you know, really puts front and center some of the contrast here. And it's not a good contrast for the GOP.

I think you're going to continue to see the GOP establishment try to put her in a box, because this woman cannot be the most vocal, most familiar face of the Republican Party, because she's clearly not someone who's trying to be a national leader. She's speaking to a very specific constituency of her -- of -- of her base.

This was an opportunity for Sarah Palin to be bigger and for her to broaden her base. And she's not doing that by going on Hannity. She is not -- she didn't -- she didn't turn 15 people who work for her for her by going on Hannity.

If you're going to be a national, broad-based leader, you have got to reach out, and you have got to reach out to that middle swathe of America. And she's -- and she's -- and she's just not doing that.

COOPER: Dana, I want to play for you the -- the -- the -- what she said about the whole blood libel thing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, FOX NEWS CHANNEL)

PALIN: That term has been used for eons, Sean. So...

HANNITY: Yes.

PALIN: ... again, it was part of that double standard thing, and goes back to, if it weren't for those double standards, what standards would they have, I suppose.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: I mean, she -- she seems unwilling to -- to apologize or back off about -- of anything. Do you think she's fair on that?

DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: I do think that she's fair on that, Anderson, because it's -- this is exactly what you have.

We have a Tea Party organizer that received a death threat because of all -- you want to talk about rhetoric -- because of all of the things that are being said about conservatives and being said about Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin.

And I don't think that she applied the term incorrectly. And I don't think that it is just inherent to one particular group of people. This term is a common term. I have seen it used exponentially. In fact, she cited in this interview that it was used in a "Wall Street Journal" article just two days prior to this incident.

So, Alan Dershowitz himself has admitted that he's used this term many times. So, it's not as though this is like a -- a newfangled term that she used, and it's -- it's causing offense. This is a common term.

COOPER: Cornell, do you agree with that?

BELCHER: Dana, I just can't -- I can't let her off the hook that easily. I mean, I have got to think that, strategically, she knew what she was doing.

I mean, she comes in with her grievance politics and then she plays the victim, and then she sort of wraps it all up in -- in...

LOESCH: She was defending...

(CROSSTALK)

BELCHER: ... in what we know as an anti-Semitic slur. I mean, I -- I just have a hard time letting her off...

LOESCH: This wasn't anti-Semitic. What she was talking about...

BELCHER: ... off the hook on that.

LOESCH: ... is saying that there was -- there was the use of a term that says that people have blood on her -- on their hands. Did you listen to the interview? She laid it out clearly. I don't know how anyone in their right mind can say that this term was inaccurately used. I honestly don't. I -- I question whether we heard the same interview.

BELCHER: Well -- well -- well, there's -- there's -- there's plenty of people -- there's plenty of people of the Jewish faith who tend to think differently and understand this as a historical...

LOESCH: Who defended her using that term.

BELCHER: ... as a historical slur again -- against -- against their people. And I -- and I take their word on it. I think this was strategic on her part.

LOESCH: It wasn't a slur against Jews.

And I find interesting that a lot of people who have -- who have actually been against Israel and who have been against Jewish settlements are suddenly finding themselves sympathetic to the Jews.

(LAUGHTER)

BELCHER: Here's -- here's the bottom line. When -- when the -- Jewish organization after Jewish organization comes out and say, this is a -- this is a slur, a -- a racial slur against -- against Jewish people...

LOESCH: And there's been a ton of Jewish organizations that have defended her.

BELCHER: You know what? I'm -- I'm -- I'm going to...

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: Why do you discount those?

BELCHER: Dana, I don't think there's been a ton of Jewish organizations that have been defending her.

LOESCH: No, no, no. I think that's disingenuous, Cornell. That's disingenuous,

COOPER: Wait. Wait. Not -- not both at the same time.

Cornell, just finish your thought.

LOESCH: No, no, no.

BELCHER: Well -- well, OK, OK. Anderson, you're -- you're keeping everyone honest.

Let's line up the people, the Jewish organizations that have come out and said this is a racial slur, and let's line up the Jewish organizations that say that -- that this is not a racial slur, and let's see where that falls. Let's keep -- let's keep us honest on this. LOESCH: If it means that much to you, instead of actually focusing attention on those who were shot and focusing on the -- the lack of discussion surrounding the fact that we have...

COOPER: But -- but, Dana, couldn't -- I mean, wouldn't...

BELCHER: No, you can't play that. That's -- that's a -- that's a nice little spin game, but the question...

LOESCH: Oh, wait a minute, so, standard...

BELCHER: ... but the question was about -- well, the question was about this...

LOESCH: ... for thee, but not for me?

BELCHER: ... the -- the question about this -- but the question was about this racial -- about this racial slur. Of course this is about -- about...

(CROSSTALK)

BELCHER: ... who was shot.

LOESCH: The question is about you cherry-picking which Jewish groups you're going to listen to.

COOPER: But -- but why...

BELCHER: Well, no, you say all these Jewish groups are lining up and supporting her. Let's line them up and let's take a look at them. Let's keep them honest.

COOPER: Dana, why not -- why not just say, well, look, if people are offended by this, I -- I'm sorry, you know, that -- that this is not how I meant the term, I -- I -- I didn't think it should be used in this?

It -- it -- I mean, she rarely -- I have never -- I don't think I have really heard her ever back off of anything she's done, and whether it's the -- you know, the -- the crosshairs on the districts, whether or not you believe they're surveyor symbols, as -- as her campaign is now saying.

I mean, do -- do you think she should be -- say at -- at some point, just, you know, I'm sorry about this, if somebody interpreted it that way, or do you think she has nothing to be apologetic about?

LOESCH: I really side -- and I -- and I side with Alan Dershowitz and many others who have come out saying that this was -- they don't find this to be an incendiary term. And -- and neither do I.

The true test of an analogy isn't how colorful the language is, but whether or not it's accurate. And, in this case, it was accurately applied. And I -- I think it's just a little bit ironic that people would find offense over the fact that this term was used, and not be offended over the fact that you have hundreds of thousands, if not over a million, private citizens who were absolutely persecuted without any evidence because of this tragedy.

I still have yet to hear any apology from anyone who came out saying that, oh, well, it was a Tea Party person, or it was Sarah Palin who did it, or it was Glenn Beck or any number of people. But, instead, they're trying to get Sarah Palin on a term that, really, I think they're trying to scrounge offense for.

BELCHER: Dana, I don't think -- Dana, I don't think -- you know, that term aside, you -- you know, just trying to be all -- in all -- all fairness and all...

LOESCH: Cornell, have you been called a murderer because of Arizona? Because I have.

BELCHER: ... and -- and all honesty -- in all fairness and...

LOESCH: There...

(CROSSTALK)

BELCHER: ... all honesty, I -- I -- you know, that -- that term aside, the way Sarah -- Sarah Palin had an opportunity to come out and be bigger this -- this past week, and she didn't. And I think the polling shows that she didn't. She got stuck in grievance, victimization politics...

LOESCH: Yes, let's talk about polling, HCD Research.

BELCHER: ... which is -- which is -- which is not something that you want from your national leaders. She got smaller this week, as opposed -- as opposed to bigger. And I think a lot of people, including...

LOESCH: Oh, no, no, no, no.

BELCHER: ... inside of your party, are going to have a hard time taking her seriously...

LOESCH: No.

BELCHER: ... as a national leader.

COOPER: Dana, I want to give you the final thought, but briefly, because we have got to go.

LOESCH: Media Curves just came out with a study that shows that, actually, the majority of Americans found Sarah Palin to be more sympathetic after her remarks over the -- the -- her remarks over the Tucson shootings.

So, I mean, people can take that for what it's worth. But bottom line is, no one's going to be happy with anything Sarah Palin says, until she puts her head on a platter and offers it -- and offers it up. That's the bottom line.

BELCHER: That's ridiculous.

COOPER: Dana Loesch, Cornell Belcher, difference of opinion. I appreciate your discussing it. Thanks very much.


Sounds like Loesch is making excuses for Sarah Palin, and has to lie about it.

Brad Bartram stated that "Dana Loesch is an idiot," and is right on.

Brad Bartram
Dana Loesch is an idiot
Posted by at 3 comments
Labels: , , , , ,

11.29.2010

Dana Loesch on HandTitty's propaganda hour

St. Louis' biggest moron appears on HandTitty's propaganda hour, known as Hannity. Also on are Liberal Bob Beckel and Conservative Hugh Hewitt.

Beckel tore the shit out of her.

Later, during the Great American Panel segment, conservative Hugh Hewitt complained about Eric Holder going to Zurich “to lobby for the World Cup” to come to the U.S. in 2020 in the middle of what Hewitt characterized as some kind of national security emergency.

But when Democrat Bob Beckel – outnumbered by three conservatives – tried to discuss the substance of this big crisis, Hannity refused. Beckel asked, “Could we talk about the substance of this for a second? For example, the Saudi Arabians, those gutless sons of – people who want us to take Iran out because they don’t have the guts to do it themselves who hold us hostage for oil, and we’re gonna sit back and take that from them?”

Hannity said, “I agree with their duplicity but you’re missing the point.”


http://www.newshounds.us/2010/11/30/fox_news_wikileaks_priority_blame_obama.php

From the 11.29.2010 edition of Fox News Channel's Hannity:





Posted by at 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )
Tweets by @JGibsonDem Tweets by @JPCTumblr