Loesch and her cronies attack Media Matters and David Corn

Yet another day in the office for Breitbart.com hacks like Dana Loesch, Dan Riehl, Lee Stranahan, and others to lead the Media Matters Derangement Syndrome attacks. One of Loesch's henchmen, Dan Riehl, blogged in Big Journalism and falsely accuses "MMFA of assaulting Dana Loesch's right to free speech."

If there's anything shameful in what only antisemitic Media Matters apparently still feels is an ongoing Sandra Fluke debate, it's the way antisemitic Media Matters continues it's un-American, Soros-funded war on free speech in America. 

While they may be especially focused on coming for the Jews in certain areas, anyone on the Right is ultimately fair game for the crew at antisemitic Media Matters. As far as they're concerned, antisemitism is just fine, but if one dares speak out against a leftist policy of Barack Obama's, all bets are off and they will lie and stretch any truth to silence you. 

Yesterday's attack targets Big Journalism's Dana Loesch. Not coincidentally, Dana was written up at length today by Tricia Romano at the Daily Beast. Point being, if you're of the Right, the higher one's profile rises, the more vicious and dishonest are Eric Boehlert's and antisemitic Media Matters's attacks. 

Antisemitic Media Matters posts an audio clip of Dana Loesch's FM radio show. Listening to it, Dana talks about many associated topics. In between she discusses the left's war on religion by attempting to force the Catholic church to purchase and distribute birth control. That's the heart of the matter and little more.
Among several other related remarks, Loesch suggests House Speaker John Boehner "just got out of the tanning bed, he's a little bit dizzy," going on to ask if Boehner is "an agent for Obama." Now, are we supposed to take that literally, as Media Matters would suddenly like us to with regard to pretty typical talk radio comments on Sandra Fluke? No, of course not. 

What Media Matters is actually engaged in is a grossly un-American hate campaign to silence critics of the Left, Media Matters itself and Barack Obama. Such campaigns are as dirty and malignant and un-American as one might find on the Internet, or elsewhere. They deserve to be condemned, marginalized, if not wholly ignored, and little more. It's that they always come in a purely political context that makes them as pathetic, as they are un-American. If Media Matters, a reportedly bizarre and erratic David Brock and Eric Boehlert had their way, only those who agree with them would be allowed to speak in America. Now, back to your bunker, boys - and take merry little band of paid storm trooper hacks along with you.

No, Mr. Riehl, Loesch's "free speech" hasn't been assaulted because MMFA was right to call her out on her constant attacks against Sandra Fluke. And for the 10,000th time, Eric Boehlert and MMFA are NOT "Anti-Semitic."

MMFA:

Amid the controversy over Rush Limbaugh's misogynistic attacks on Sandra Fluke, CNN contributor Dana Loesch has aggressively pursued the right-wing campaign to bully the Georgetown law student. After announcing that she would call Fluke "whatever I want," Loesch has called Fluke a "nympho" and used her radio show and posts at Big Journalism to claim that Fluke "embarrass[ed] herself and her sex by ... discussing about how she has a huge inability to control her sexual urges."


From KFTK's The Dana Show:

Fluke Also Testified About The Need For Access To Contraceptive Medicine After A Woman Was Raped.  

From Fluke's testimony:

One student told us that she knew birth control wasn't covered, and she assumed that's how Georgetown's insurance handled all of women's sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn't go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn't going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman's reproductive health. As one student put it, "this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn't understand our needs." These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they're not burdens that male students must shoulder. [Fluke testimony via Media Matters, 2/23/12]

For the truth about Sandra Fluke's testimony, click here

Loesch Falsely Accused Fluke Of "Discussing About How She Has A Huge Inability To Control Her Sexual Urges." Loesch addressed the controversy surrounding Limbaugh's misogynistic attacks on Fluke during the March 7 edition of her radio show, saying:

LOESCH: As the mother of sons, if I had a daughter who decided to embarrass herself and her sex by going before members of Congress on national television and discussing about how she has a huge inability to control her sexual urges, and thus needs a bailout, she needs individuals to pay higher insurance premiums so she can have free contraception at her university at which she is going by way of public funds apparently, that would to me would be more embarrassing than the act of what she's doing being called out for what it is listed as in the dictionary. That's just the hard truth of the matter.
Back in the days when women acted better in public, and they didn't go and discuss about how they had an absolute insatiable sexual appetite that needs a thousand dollars a year in order to prevent pregnancy, people did that because there was a consequence to talking about your sex life to such an extent publicly on national television. And apparently all those inhibitions are out the window. Nothing is sacred anymore and thus nothing is attractive or alluring, because everything is trashy, and I think Fluke's testimony before members of Congress has contributed to that. [KFTK, The Dana Show, 3/7/12]   

Loesch: Fluke Was "Embarrassing Herself Before Congress By Testifying That She Simply Cannot Stop Getting It On." In a March 2 Big Journalism post Loesch wrote:

More have admonished Limbaugh's description of Sandra Fluke than admonished a 30 year-old woman embarrassing herself before congress by testifying that she simply cannot stop getting it on and her inability to control her urges constitutes infringing upon everyone else for a bailout. [Big Journalism, 3/2/12] 

Loesch: Fluke "Wants To Be Able To Be As Promiscuous As She Wants To Be." During the March 2 edition her radio show, Loesch responded to a caller who said that Fluke should "change her career and go work at the Mustang Ranch out there in Vegas," and said:

LOESCH: Oh my gosh. That could be -- you know, I'm telling you, she's worried about money apparently instead of going and asking for the government. But see that's -- and, Mike, I appreciate your call -- it comes down because she doesn't want to have to pay her own bills, because she's an independent woman. She's an independent woman like that Destiny's Child song, but she doesn't want to take care of all of her own business, because that's what independent women do. Independent women expect the government, which is characterized as the old cartoon Uncle Sam, to take care of their financial needs. She wants to be able to be as promiscuous as she wants to be, and all of the accoutrements that go along with that, she wants those to be financed by the government, because that's what independent women do. [KFTK, The Dana Show, 3/2/12] 

Loesch: Fluke Is "Doing It More Than She's Studying In Law School. ... They Act Like They're Nymphos."  

On her radio show, Loesch said of Fluke: "She's doing it more than she's studying in law school. Is that why our -- is that why law sucks lately? Is that why we're having such a problem in our courts?" Loesch also said, "They act like they're nymphos. That's what they act like." [KFTK, The Dana Show, 2/28/12] 

She's a majorly insane moron.


Now, on to David Corn and his newest book, Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party:

His book correctly explained how Fixed Noise exploited their gullible viewers (or at least a decent portion of their viewership) into believing that "Barack Obama is a Muslim."

Mackenzie Weiniger at Politico:

President Barack Obama blamed Fox News for his political woes in a private meeting with labor leaders in 2010, saying he was “losing white males” who tune into the cable outlet and “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7,” according to journalist David Corn’s new book, “Showdown.” 

Corn writes that after the midterm elections, Obama told labor leaders in December 2010 that he held Fox partly responsible for him “losing white males.” 

“…Fed by Fox News, they hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7, and it begins to seep in…The Republicans have been at this for 40 years. They have new resources, but the strategy is old,” Corn recounted Obama as saying. 

Sean Hannity addressed Obama’s reference to Fox News on his radio show Monday, saying it “sounds like the president is very angry behind the scenes, very angry.” 

And, Hannity said, he wasn’t surprised Obama decided to pin the blame on Fox. “Now this is a guy who claims he never watches cable news and then he’s making this broad sweeping statement that’s false,” Hannity said.
“You always have Fox and talk radio to fall back on when all else fails,” Hannity added.

Bret Baier, the host of Fixed Noise's Special Report, misleadingly stated that "there were no examples of our hosts saying Barack Obama is a 'Muslim.'"  Totally false, as several FNC/FBN personalities (including Baier and his program) have questioned Obama's faith and alleged that he was a "Muslim", a "fake Christian," or even "[Godless] atheist."

Here are at least a few examples of FNC/FBN commentators disparaging Obama's religion:

Special Report On Obama: "Islam Or Isn't He?"  

During a June 2009 segment, Special Report aired a quote by Obama foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough, in which he talked about how Obama "experienced Islam on three continents" and spent part of his childhood in Indonesia with a Muslim father. Special Report included this question above the quote: "Islam Or Isn't He?" [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 6/3/09] 

On Fox, Donald Trump Claimed Obama's Birth Certificate "Maybe ... Says He Is A Muslim."  

On The O'Reilly Factor, frequent guest Donald Trump said:

TRUMP: Listen, I have a birth certificate. I have my birth certificate. And in fact, they said the one I gave yesterday wasn't good enough. So I actually got the one from the Health Department, which is the perfect one. Because they were saying the one I gave yesterday wasn't good enough, so I got the other. People have birth certificates. He doesn't have a birth certificate. He may have one but there's something on that, maybe religion, maybe it says he is a Muslim. I don't know. Maybe he doesn't want that. Or he may not have one. But I will tell you this. If he wasn't born in this country, it's one of the great scams of all time. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 3/30/11]

Fox Hosted "Conservative Comedian" Who Claimed Obama Is "Faking" Being Christian.  

Fox & Friends hosted "conservative comedian" Brad Stine, who said of the president: "If Santorum doesn't want to question his Christianity, I will, because he's not really part of that." Stine continued, "why can't Obama be slammed for faking [Christianity]?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/20/12] 

On Fox, Lars Larson Claimed Obama "Bows Down To Leaders Of ... Muslim Countries And Then He Disses Easter In His Own Country."  

On Fox News' America Live, guest host Shannon Bream stated: "The president and White House often seem very frustrated about these polling numbers that come out that show a significant amount of Americans question the president's faith and wonder whether he's truly Muslim, even though he says again and again he is a Christian." She then asked: "So is it fair for the White House to take a little heat that he didn't step up and be more vocal on Easter?" Radio host Lars Larson stated that Obama "is paying more attention" to Muslim holidays. 

Fox Nation Promoted Coulter's Claim That Obama Is An Atheist. 

On September 1, 2010, Fox Nation promoted a column by Ann Coulter claiming that Obama is an atheist, using the headline: "Obama Is Not A Muslim, But...." [Fox Nation, 9/1/10]

 

Fox & Friends Pushed False Smear That Obama Attended A "Madrassa." On the January 19, 2007, editions of Fox & Friends First and Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade, along with co-hosts Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson, spent several segments advancing a false report that then-Sen. Barack Obama was raised a Muslim and attended a madrassa, or Islamic school, as a child in Indonesia. At one point, Doocy asked: "When people find out this stuff, they're going to go, 'Why didn't anybody ever mention that that man right there was raised as -- spent the first decade of his life raised by his Muslim father as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa?' " [Fox News, Fox & Friends Firstand Fox & Friends, 1/19/07]

From the 03.19.2012 edition of FNC's Special Report With Bret Baier:


Enter hack Dana Loesch: At her Big Journalism blog, she says Corn's assertions are "misleading and distracting from the fact that the Obama and Dems are failures."

I sense a feeling of spagetti-noodle strategy from Axelrod and Plouffe. They've thrown a number of possible bogeyman into the realm of public discourse to see what would stick. It was Bush, then Palin, then Fox News, then the tea party, then the phantom "War On Women," then Palin again, now we're back to Fox and the race card. The only people who cared about Barack Obama's ethnicity during the campaign was the Barack Obama campaign.  

They're doing it again with Corn because every other tactic they've tried to distract the public from the disastrous results of Obama's leadership have utterly failed. The class warfare failed, the trumped-up "War On Women" is a failure, and polls are numerous in echoing the public's lack of confidence in his capability to deal with the economy or gas prices. No one cares. Corn's book would have been a tired cliché during the campaign; released now just makes it all the more comedically desperate. 

Ms. Loesch, you have lost this round to David Corn, and he's more truthful than you.

On Big Journalism, Dana Loesch is still whining about "MSM covering up OWS rapes"

Yet again, we have the biased as hell and deranged crazy lady Dana Loesch trashing the Occupy Wall Street Movement. In her blogpost at Big Journalism, she again falsely accused the "'mainstream media' of covering up OWS rapes."

I've been following the story of Michael John Kobulnicky, a reported former tea partier who stands accused of rape: 

Lemon Grove resident Michael John Kobulnicky, 50, a leader in the San Diego Tea Party and former regional director of the Southern California Conservative Party, is under arrest for allegedly kidnapping and raping a local woman on Fiesta Island.

“He dragged her out of the car and sexually assaulted her pretty brutally,” San Diego Police Lt. Andra Brown told ECM news partner 10 News in late February, shortly after the February 25 assault occurred. 

He is charged with rape, kidnapping, and forcible sex with a foreign object.  Evidence includes surveillance video shot at a local convenience store shortly before the kidnapping occurred.  Kobulnicky is being held without bail pending arraignment on Monday.  

Despite media reports, his involvement in the San Diego Tea Party has been forcefully rejected. 

Some progressive talking heads seem gleeful at the misery of Kobulnicky's alleged victim. Progressive media has stopped short of crowing over it; I guess I missed the part where they condemned the over 300 counts of criminality and violence from OWS before pointing fingers. Additionally, how can Occupiers possibly recognize this as rape when they've spent the past six months denying the documented rapes that happened in their own encampments? Even now they're focused on denying the lastest Occupy rape in New Haven.  

May I be frank? If Kobulnicky is proven guilty of crime with which he is charged, let the bastard rot.  

Whether or not Kobulnicky is a tea partier is irrelevant because tea partiers condemn all rape regardless.  

You'll recall how Keith Olbermann refused to acknowledge that documented (with police records) rapes occurred at OWS events by OWS protesters. In fact, he even defended one case involving the rape of a minor by saying he was sure it was "consensual sex." (That Keith Olbermann apparently believes the forcible vaginal penetration of an unwilling victim is "consensual" says more about his views on sex than he realizes.)

Teabaggers don't condemn rape? Baloney in this particular instance. And OWS does NOT condone rape either, much to the chagrin of Loesch and her enablers.. And Current TV's Keith Olbermann was right in that the alleged "OWS rapes" were NOT done by the OWS people, but outsiders and teabagger agitators. This is the kind of crap Dana peddles regularly regarding OWS.


Another member of the Loesch/Breitbart Axis of Evil, Lee Stranahan, baselessly accuses OWS protestors of "asking for violence with police."

The Occupy Movement sprung back into public view last night the only way they knew how--by staging a violent clash with police on the streets. Like a spoiled child who has learned that throwing a temper tantrum is the only way to get attention, the movement used the confluence of the six-month anniversary of the start of Occupy Wall Street and the intoxicated party atmosphere of St. Patrick’s Day to launch an attempted re-taking of Zuccotti Park. The move was predictable because Occupy had openly discussed a few weeks ago that they needed more ‘direct actions’ as way to refill their dwindling financial coffers. 

This is the Occupy Business Plan: antagonizing the police is good for business and will be supported by the media. And, unfortunately, the Obama administration.
And spring hasn't even started yet.

Loesch falsely accuses the Dems of "playing political games with VAWA"

On TeaNN's Erin Burnett OutFront, "contributor" Dana Loesch was spewing a number of falsehoods regarding the Violence Against Women Act, including the defense of fellow St. Louis nutjob Phyllis Schlafly. 

From the 03.15.2012 edition of CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront:


Transcript:

BURNETT: All right, John Avlon is with us. (INAUDIBLE) Elise Jordan is a former speechwriter for Condoleezza Rice also joins us and Dana Loesch, CNN contributor -- all right, great to see all of you with us. Let me start with you Dana.
It is something everyone thought would be over by now. I mean and it was interesting, he was actually talking about Newt Gingrich (INAUDIBLE) I wouldn't want to presume to tell Newt Gingrich what to do, but I thought it would be over by now. And you know sort of it seemed like he was saying that maybe Newt should get out although he didn't directly say it. 
DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: Well there are a lot of individuals, Erin that are wondering whether or not Newt Gingrich should get out of the race. But at the same time, I was having a conversation with a friend a little bit earlier and we were discussing how the primary is a really good racket because the longer you stay in the longer you can really push to get higher speaking fees and maybe book deals and so on and so forth, but at this time, the delegate math. I just don't know if Newt Gingrich can make it happen, where it concerns delegate math. The fat lady is definitely warming up and everybody's been talking about this proverbial fat lady for a long time now. But it is -- you know it is different because the Super Tuesday this primary cycle, we had like 10 contests, but the Super Tuesday back in 2008, there were like 20, 21 contests -- 
BURNETT: Right.
LOESCH: -- so it is scheduled a little differently and it feels a lot longer. 
BURNETT: Well I think Elise we've all learned a lot of lessons, whatever your political party may be about how to not schedule a primary season. What about this video though that the Obama campaign is putting out? Seventeen minutes, Tom Hanks narrated, Academy Award winning producer, a real image of a documentary, even though of course it is a campaign ad. 
(CROSSTALK) ELISE JORDAN, FORMER SPEECHWRITER FOR CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well I think it's pretty striking that the message seems like it's going to be disaster averted. Nothing really bad is happening in contrast in '08, where it was change you can believe in. And this video, he paid you know 300,000 for it. I think back in '08, someone in Hollywood would have done it for free. And I think that he's just very different phase in terms of how his supporters are getting behind him. 
BURNETT: Kony's video has 100 million plus views, John Avlon. Will President Obama's video get that many views? 
AVLON: The bar has been set. I'm going to say no in terms of that. I mean look this is a highly produced campaign video. Elise (ph) makes an interesting point though is that this is actually saying that wow, storm clouds were coming, we averted a disaster. It's not a narrative of triumph. It's a narrative of what could have been much worse.
BURNETT: All right. Let's talk about this issue about women. I mean this is becoming a bigger and bigger conversation and now of course you've got the act -- the violence against women act that Senate Democrats want to put forth legislation from 1994. They say it's finally time. Elise they, at the time, it was broadly bipartisan. Now, there are some Republican opposition to parts of it including would-be immigrants allowing you to say well if you're being used, you could get a visa. Republicans don't like that. 
(CROSSTALK) 
JORDAN: You can take it one of two ways, anti-women or anti- immigrant, whichever way you want to see it because their opposition is towards 5,000 u-visas (ph) that are given to the worst victims of domestic violence and those -- that's you know how many visas were given last year, they're up to 10,000 that can be given a year. It's a very small percentage of the nearly 5,000 visas we give a year. 
BURNETT: Right.
JORDAN: So they can say yes, it's about immigration, but really I think it's just this backlash against women that we're hearing a rhetoric that just really isn't very helpful. 
BURNETT: Yes, Dana, I mean how can justify voting against this bill? 
LOESCH: Well -- 
BURNETT: I'm not saying you would. I'm asking you hypothetically.
(CROSSTALK) 
BURNETT: I'm sorry if it came out that way. 
(CROSSTALK) LOESCH: No, well I mean this is -- this is -- I think it's very brilliant maneuvering on the part of Senators Leahy and Schumer because they realize this is where they need to take the conversation in order to appeal to their base, but the problem is as Senator Grassley had pointed out is that you know in the past this had been unanimously approved, the reauthorization of this. I think it was back in like 2006 I think was the last reauthorization. But because of all of the provisions tacked onto it and Grassley, Senator Grassley's concern, his chief concern is that there are no safeguards listed this time with this. 
I mean you know definitely people don't like to see violence against women and I know Phyllis Schlafly has a really good op-ed about this, about the act itself over at TownHall.com. But Grassley's concern was that there is no safeguards and this -- it is very easy to commit fraud in this system. There are no safeguards with this, the definition is very loose, it's very broadly defined and so the amendment that Grassley had put forward was to kind of -- was to remedy this. 
BURNETT: John Avlon, I mean does it make sense to keep the immigration part in? I mean regardless of what you think about the issue, I think it's outrageous that someone was offended by it or not. We should be able to pass the violence against women act without having it turn into a conversation about contraception or immigration or whatever it is that may be your sticking point. 
AVLON: That's right and let's be clear. I mean this is a political maneuver by Democrats, but it's a very smart one. 
BURNETT: Right.
AVLON: There's a bill that had broad bipartisan support in the past to some proposals that are now controversial. And the fact that it now includes same-sex couples is one of the things that some conservatives find very, very troubling and offensive. But you know the question is whether Republicans are going to let that agenda drive them into this trap in effect and let this narrative deepen because it's been -- it's a part of a pattern and that's the point I think Democrats are trying to surf off of. From Planned Parenthood fights on down, this narrative exists because it reflects a fissure, a fault line within the Republican Party. 
BURNETT: It seems to show, Elise, too that the Republican Party -- we talk about why the Obama administration has put out a 17-minute video, because they think they have lost control over their narrative. The Republican Party certainly seems to have lost control over the women's narrative. 
JORDAN: Definitely and I think what Rush did, his comments were so harmful to the entire health care debate to Republicans philosophical opposition to Obamacare and what -- by using that kind of vitriolic language, it just -- it totally destroyed -- it made the whole argument against for having Obamacare more attractive. 
BURNETT: All right, well thanks very much to all three of you. We appreciate it. Well you have heard the slogan, if you see something, say something. Well now a few police departments across the country like in Grapevine, Texas are taking the campaign to a whole new level. Take a look at this. 

Loesch, was lying as usual.

On her blog at Big Journalism, she baselessly accused "Democrats of starting a new war on women" and "playing games with WAWA."

A batch of new polls released this week confirmed the Democrats's worst nightmare: the majority of Americans strongly disapprove of the way in which the President is handling the economy and gas prices. The findings were a blow to a party that for weeks has pandered to women with the trumped-up bogeyman of an all-white male Republican party who wanted to gobble up all their birth control pills. The fabricated War on Women failed, and failed hard. Not ones to give up easily, Senators Schumer and Leahy devised another tactic: playing checkers with the Violence Against Women Act.  

The reauthorization of the VAWA is unanimously approved every year since the it was passed in 1994; the latest reauthorization was in 2006. This year there is resistance and Democrats are anxious to exploit the resistance from Republicans. Why is the GOP resisting? The language of the VAWA has remained the same throughout both Republican and Democrat congresses, except now. 
Democrats trotted out Sandra Fluke because the visual of President Obama verses a bunch of religious folk wasn't the bestoptic, but a woman against the progressive stereotype of a Republican was. (Rhetorical: is it "War On Women" to present them as victims and use them for messaging?) Unfortunately, Fluke didn't work out because a woman complaining of an annual $1k birth control bill when $9 per month birth control exists at places like Target and Costco doesn't cut a sympathetic figure. The polls cited above prove that the strategy to deflect from the economy didn't work, the attempt to frame radio talk host Rush Limbaugh as the "de facto leader of the Republican party" (rhetoric that's been around since I was in high school) failed and now his ratings are at an all-time high.  

Democrats are now in damage control mode. The NYT assists by burying poll numbers; David Axelrod appeared on CNN last night prior to my appearance, wherein he parroted the "de facto" talking point and tried to portray Mitt Romney, the most moderate Republican in the race who was formerly vehemently pro-choice, as part of the "War On Women." It was a deflection from Erin Burnett's question: if he planned to petition the Obama super PAC to return the $1 million dollar donation from Bill "c*nt," "tw*t" Maher (his words, not mine). Axelrod declined, saying that Maher was "different," which apparently makes it OK. The difference is that Maher is a progressive and donated a million dollars. 

Their message should focus on the shock of why Democrats, who claim to so strongly care for the well-being of women, would dare use federal assistance to victims of domestic violence as a political pawn? The answer is, of course, to score points in a battle to keep the public's attention off of their incumbent's abysmal record.  

No, you lying little fartknocker, it's the REPUBLICAN Party that's using VAWA as a political pawn, NOT the Democrats. People like Loesch and her cronies are attacking Sandra Fluke for trivial reasons.

The REAL facts (not the RWNJ spin) on WAWA, via the Huffington Post's Nancy K. Kaufmann:

Until this year, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was the poster child for bipartisanship. First passed in 1994 under the leadership of then-Senator Joe Biden, it garnered overwhelming support when it was reauthorized in 2000 and again in 2005. Now, however, it too has become politicized, a casualty of the culture wars. Although the legislation to reauthorize VAWA (S 1925) still has bipartisan sponsors, it was recently voted out of committee in the Senate 10-8 on a strict party-line vote and final passage is by no means certain. 

This year's reauthorization bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID), seeks to ensure that VAWA includes protections and services for all victims, regardless of who they are or what their abusers look like. It addresses the unique needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) victims, and those of immigrant victims, foreign brides, and Native women residing on tribal lands. All these populations have, thus far, been denied the full power of VAWA. 

LGBTQ people encounter domestic violence at the same rate as the general population, yet a survey by the New York City Anti-Violence Project reported that in 2010 nearly half were turned away from domestic violence shelters and more than half of LGBTQ survivors were denied orders of protection.  

Immigrant women without legal status are especially vulnerable to abuse, since going to the authorities carries with it the risk of deportation while the abuser may go free. 

Finally, the bill would increase access to justice for Native women living on tribal lands. The numbers are stunning. Native women are 2.5 times more likely than other U.S. women to be battered or raped. One-third of Native women will be raped in their lifetimes. Two-fifths will experience the tragedy of domestic violence. And, their legal situation greatly complicates their access to justice. VAWA reauthorization would give tribes the authority to prosecute misdemeanor domestic violence-related crimes when the abuser lives or works in the jurisdiction of the tribe, or is the spouse or intimate partner of a tribe member. It is time to close the gaps in the law to ensure that rapists and abusers cannot commit crimes against Native women with impunity. 

Reauthorization of VAWA is imperative. The costs to victims and their families and to society are too large to ignore. Opponents of VAWA are trying to make its renewal part of an ongoing culture war in which the needs of women have been buried in an avalanche of rhetoric that devalues women's lives in the service of an ideological, partisan agenda. 

The GOP is desperate to try anything to appease the ultra-right base of the party, which will hurt them come general election time.

Also, Loesch has falsely accused Media Matters For America's Eric Boehlert of being "like David Duke" and being "anti-Semitic." In fact, Boehlert (a mainstream liberal) and Duke (a far-right white nationalist) are complete opposites.

Loesch: "Majority of Americans disapprove of Obama"

Dana Loesch yet again being a hypocrite. She still believes the "War On Women is made-up by the left to distract from the issues." Wrongo!

Big Journalism:

A trio of polls released yesterday shows the harsh reality from which the embattled President Obama and the media hoped to deflect by fabricating a "War on Women."  

The newest Washington Post/ABC poll shows that the majority of Americans strongly disapprove of the way in which the President is handling a number of issues, chief among them the economy and gas prices. According to the March 10th, 2012 poll released yesterday a net 50% of those surveyed disapprove of how Obama is handling the job of president with 39% "strongly disapproving" and only 28% "strongly approving." This is up from the net 46% taken on February 4th of the same year.
On the economy, 50% "strongly disapprove" whereas only 20% "strongly approve" of the President's management. His negatives greatly outweigh his positives on everything from his handling of Iran, the budget deficit, Afghanistan, and on "the situation with gas prices" where 52% "strongly disapprove" of his job performance. It represents an increasing trend. 

The latest New York Times/ CBS News poll:

At a time of rising gas prices, heightened talk of war with Iran and setbacks in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama’s approval rating dropped substantially in recent weeks, the poll found, with 41 percent of respondents expressing approval of the job he is doing and 47 percent saying they disapprove — a dangerous position for any incumbent seeking re-election.

The last of the trio comes from Rasmussen which illustrates how a full 59% of the country view Obama as "more liberal" than they are themselves.
It's a bad day for optics in the White House, and a bad day for the administration's strategy of deflecting from these awful truths with an elaborately-staged press conference on contraception designed to divert attention away from a two-pronged failure: the attack on the free practice of religion by way of abridging employers's freedom to choose faithfully against providing "free" contraception, and the sinking confidence in the President concerning his mismanagement of the nation's economy and energy policies.  

These polls show that the administration's weeks-long assault with a trumped-up narrative has failed. The administration's "hurt and rescue" (cause a problem while simultaneously pretending to be the savior from the problem while acting as though your actions are mutually exclusive) tactic has failed in that the predictability and sheer silliness gave it away.  

Many women see as a greater threat to their freedom the administration's insistence that employers -- many of whom are also female -- compromise their religious beliefs to provide for the contraceptive choices made freely by other women, women who can empower themselves by paying for their choices themselves. It's not "feminist" to demand that another woman carry the yoke of your free choices. Women see it as a threat the administration's refusal to ease the higher costs at the pump, costs which eat away at our budget for groceries, summer clothes for our children, and bills which go towards providing rooftops over our families' heads. We also see it as a threat to our families the administration's failure to provide clear objectives in Afghanistan while our family members overseas perform their duties in the scorching heat as our President authorizes more of our grocery money towards propping up a publicly-financed and US trained Afghan military.  

If we're going to talk about a "war on women," the only one I see is the one above, the policy decisions I've listed -- and I could enumerate further.  

Polling will likely change a lot between now and November, so there will be fluctuations like these.

For Ms. Loesch to claim that "Obama's approval numbers are tanking rapidly," that may be partially true, depending on the poll source. Of course Repubmussen's most recent poll has President Obama with negative approvals, with -5 (47-52, Against) differential. ABC/WaPo poll has him at -4 (46-50, Against).  On the other hand, Gallup's most recent poll has Obama at +6 differential (49-43, Favor), as does the NBC/WSJ Poll (50-45, Favor) at +5. The RCP Average w/ Rasmussen has him at -0.8. RCP average w/o Rassmussen has him at (46.5-46.3, Favor) +0.2.

Obama Job Approval Average via RCP:

On CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight, Loesch continued to distort the Obama/Bell tapes

Last night on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight, CNN "Contributor" Dana Loesch continued to distort the Derrick Bell tapes, by saying that the tapes "haven't been seen until now" (which is patently false) and "are selectively edited." The other guest was Ben Smith of Buzzfeed.com.

Mediaite:

Appearing on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, Breitbart.com’s Dana Loesch and BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith feuded over who had the real scoop on the controversial Obama hug video. 

“I wish that BuzzFeed would have shown the actual full video footage,” Loesch said, noting that Breitbart.com had the full B-roll of the footage. “Because at the very end one of the things that Ben Smith does not get into at BuzzFeed — and I’m glad he was provoked into looking for this footage after Andrew’s speech at CPAC — what it doesn’t get into is how Barack Obama, when he finished his speech, he went over and he hugged Derrick Bell.” 

It should be noted that PBS editor Andrew Golis claims their network has had the video on their site this whole time.

Loesch did NOT have the real scoop of the video, and likely neither Smith. PBS had it on the website since 2008.

From the 03.07.2012 edition of CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight:


It has also went to Fixed Noise, via Hannity.

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.

Big Journalism's Loesch falsely accuses Jan Schakowsky of "validating misogyny"

Yet another edition of lies and distortions by Dana Loesch on the" War on Women." In her fact-free blogpost at Big Journalism, she baselessly accused Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL09) of "validating misogyny and what the left say about women is more vile."

Two days ago Jan Schakowsky released a statement condemning Rush Limbaugh for his remarks on Sandra Fluke: 

“I strongly condemn the personal and vicious remarks made by Rush Limbaugh and conservative commentators this week about Sandra Fluke, a heroic young woman who is speaking out for her peers about their right to birth control.  The behavior of those leaders from the right can only be classified as misogynistic, offensive, and a deliberate attempt to distract us from the legitimate argument about the consequences of limiting access to contraception.   Rush Limbaugh repeatedly used sexually-charged, patently offensive, and obscene language to malign Sandra’s character.
I stand with Sandra.   Sandra represents millions of women, and men, who recognize that women should have the right to determine what is best for them and that there should not be barriers or hurdles that women have to get past in order to get the health care services they need.  Her willingness to step forward and be part of the public debate should be applauded – not vilified.   Her voice – and the voices of millions of women across the country – will not be silenced by bullies who seek to slander them into silence.”

She was asked by a citizen journalist whether or not she would condemn one of President Obama's biggest donors who called Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, personally, exponentially worse. When presented with the opportunity, Conresswoman Schakowsky refused.

Typical Dana being a lying smartass. And what her, Rush, and the rest of the right have been saying about Fluke, Pelosi, and other women on the left have been FAR worse than what Maher had said. Schakowsky, on the other hand, hit the nail on the target.


Also in the video, Frank Strategies, a right-wing loon group with ties to the Koch Bros and Americans  For Prosperity, also went after Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX18) for agreeing with Schakowsky.

Petition battle Update (as of 8:25PM CST, 03.07.2011): 17,384-451, Armed Forces Radio's.

Dana Loesch defends the sexist Oxycontin Smuggling Hypocrite's attacks on Sandra Fluke

In her articles at Big Journalism today, Dana Loesch continues her war on Fluke and made a big stink about "the left silencing Rush Limbaugh for speaking the truth."

Several readers sent along this link to a user-created petition calling on President Obama to kick Rush Limbaugh off the air. Admittedly, at first glance my thought was "whiskey tango foxtrot?" 

I wondered then, if the White House petition site would allow for a petition asking the President to lay off Limbaugh (#LayOffLimbaugh?)  

So I created a petition. Everyone can make one, right? Sign and spread the word. 

In a sane world, it is Sandra Fluke and not The Drugster that's telling the truth. 

The petition that has Limbaugh taken off of Armed Forces Radio currently (as of 8:20PM CST, 03.05.2012) has around 11,400+ signatures.

Contrast that with the one Loesch created, which has currently (as of 8:20PM CST, 03.05.2012) just over 100+ signatures.

She also whined about "not getting her Presidential call."

Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a "talk slut" and Laura Ingraham didn't receive a Presidential phone call. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was called a "bitch" by way of Fishbone's "Lyin' Ass Bitch" intro song on Jimmy Fallon's show and didn't receive a Presidential phone call. Michelle Malkin was called a "mashed-up bag of meat" by Keith Olbermann and she didn't receive a Presidental phone call. Sarah Palin was called a "c*nt" by Bill Maher and she didn't receive a Presidential phone call. 

Countless other conservative women, like myself, have over the past several days been threatened with death and rape on Twitter and in email if we ask why we should pay for another woman's contraception. We didn't get Presidential phone calls. Why? Because Barack Obama can't use us to make an argument for birth control to hide his attack on the First Amendment.  

A show debuted recently called "GCB," changed to such after the outcry over its full title, "Good Christian Bitches." Where's the Presidential phone call to good Christian women?
Where is the Presidential phone call to all of the women who may have been offended by the recent "Slut Walks?"  

It's why this outrage is phony. If progressives were truly consistent and genuine, they would be offended at all variations of the use, and not just when it's used by their side. If the media wasn't to blatant in their efforts to run defense for the Obama administration, they'd note this, as well.
That being said, where's my phone call? 

Grow up, Dana! Progressives and liberals have in fact called Schultz to the carpet for his sexist rhetoric against Laura Ingraham and apologized for it immediately, unlike a certain right-wing radio host who repeatedly savaged Sandra Fluke and "apologized" only when he began losing sponsors. And ABC's GCB gives a proper insight on how certain members of the Christian Right act like hypocrites.

Limbaugh's show has been kicked off of two radio stations so far (KPUA in Hilo, Hawaii was the first one and WBEC in Pittsfield, Massachusetts is the second) and likely more to come. Bain Capital, the company that 2012 Republican Party Presidential candidate Mitt Romney once ran, is the partial owner of Clear Channel (who broadcasts his show along with others on the right such as Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and even left-leaning Randi Rhodes, via subsidiary Premiere Radio Networks) and one of two minority share owners of primarily NBC/Comcast-owned The Weather Channel.

Outright moron Loesch still lying about Sandra Fluke

Yet another edition of the Queen of Breitfartland badmouthing Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke.  Big "Journalism" editor-in-chief Dana Loesch falsely accusing REPUBLICANS such as Carly Fiorina (who lost the California Governor race to Democrat Jerry Brown and former HP CEO), Speaker of the House John Boehner, and Presidential Candidate and former US Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum of "falling for the 'leftist media' narratives."

The Obama administration withered for several weeks under the intense criticism from Catholic leaders regarding the forced violation of religious liberty within the HHS mandate. In an effort to turn the tables, Democrats suggested that the GOP want to abridge women’s rights because Republicans expect women to obtain and pay for their own birth control. This afternoon John Boehner, Carly Fiorina, and Rick Santorum bravely provided cover for the President and the ridiculous narrative of “the war on women.” 

Each of them utterly failed in this response, but unlike Santorum, Boehner and Fiorina aren’t running a presidential campaign with the hopes of becoming the nominee so they can battle the media in the general. 

This reason right here is why Republicans defeat themselves: It doesn’t matter what Barack Obama’s record is if Republicans so willingly allow the media to reframe a debate about religious liberty as a fight over women’s rights. 

More have admonished Limbaugh’s description of Sandra Fluke than admonished a 30 year-old woman embarrassing herself before congress by testifying that she simply cannot stop getting it on and her inability to control her urges constitutes infringing upon everyone else for a bailout. 

I’ve not heard a single Republican politician stand up to the media narrative on this. Instead of projecting surrogate modesty towards Fluke, they project it towards Limbaugh, who is calling the truth for what it is. Fluke, a 30 year-old (presented as a 23 year-old college coed by the media) women’s activist/professional student, is likely not having monogamous sex with the same man approximately 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years (in order to satisfy the calculations about which she felt confident enough to present during a congressional testimony). 

The real war on women is being perpetuated upon us by our own sex; women who seek to place us under the control of a pimp-daddy government by demanding it cover all our needs, in exchange for control, or force private entities to do  so in its stead.

Ms. Loesch, you are an embarrassment to not only your own gender, but humanity, by defending the Oyxcontin-smuggling sexist Rush Limbaugh. And as for Limbaugh, he rightfully should be condemned for his vile, vicious, pervertedly obscene, and sexist remarks directed at Fluke. Even conservatives, such as Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown and former Bush 43 speechwriter David Frum, have condemned him as well.

On a side note, Loesch's boss and notorious hack Andrew Breitbart died Thursday morning.

RIP Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012).