Dana Loesch visits Madison, Wisconsin, and lies her butt off

Yesterday in Madison, Wisconsin, CNN "Contributor" and paid GOP hack who pretends to be an independent Conservative Dana Loesch spoke at the Wisconsin Tax Day Rally, which was of course attacks on Democrats, unions, supporters of Walker's recall, and liberals.

At the Tax Day Rally, Loesch relied on her numerous falsehoods.

Key Points

• She declared Wisconsin "ground zero" between unions and union-busters. Guess which side she's on? (approx. 0:57)
• Loesch: "We are fighting the Reds." (Reds in this case is code for anti-Walker/Kleefisch and pro-union activists) (approx. 1:28)
• She falsely claims that the "Democrats have launched the 'War On (Stay-At-Home) Moms.'" (approx. 1:48)
• She mentions that she was a former registered Democrat, but when September 11th, 2011 hit, Loesch said: "good-bye Dems and I thank God we have a Republican in office." (approx. 2:00)
• Loesch: "I left that party (Democrat Party) of motley crews, rudeness, crassness, and absolute Marxist confusion because of the way they exploited women" (approx. 2:18) No, Dana, it's the GOP that's exploiting women, you asshole!
• She misleadingly accuses the Democratic Party of launching a "war on women." Wrong, Ms. Loesch! (approx. 2:35)
• She was cheerleading for the corrupt Lt. Gov of Wisconsin, Rebecca Kleefisch (R), who happens to be the subject of a recall. (approx. 2:44)
• She slammed the Democrats, SEIU, AFL-CIO, and other liberal-leaning groups for calling out people like her. (approx. 2:59)
• She misleadingly attacks Democrats as "sexists, misogynists, and creeps." (approx. 4:00)
• Loesch was telling lies about the history of the Democratic Party. (approx. 5:00)
• She falsely states that Walker's "reforms" are "saving the state thousands of dollars." Wrong, Walker's bankrupted that state. (approx. 5:38)
• Loesch: "I'm a hard-working, private sector, homeschooling mom." (approx. 5:45)
• Loesch: "The Democrats and unions want to rob our money, our benefits, our children's education." (approx. 6:01)
• While she portrays her family as "blue-collar and hard-working," she and her husband (Chris) are anything but that. (approx. 6:29)
• She misleadingly claims that "20,000+ jobs will be provided by the building of Keystone XL." (approx. 6:45)
• She falsely blames the Democrats and Obama for "shutting down oil." (approx. 7:10)
• The crowd blurted out "She [Kleefisch] rocks!" Nope, she sucks! (approx. 8:14)
• Loesch: "The Democrats, Leftists, Liberals, Marxists, Socialists, and Fascists can bite me!" (approx. 9:00)
• She is still attacking the Democrats for "stalling progress, reform, attacking moms, etc." That's not true, ma'am! (approx. 9:15)

Later that night, she was on CNN Newsroom with Don Lemon, and of course, she was being rude, discourteous, and just flat-out dishonest.


From the 04.14.2012 edition of CNN's CNN Newsroom:


Transcript:

LEMON: That was just on television. Should have heard on the radio and what people were writing about, even some conservative bloggers wrote about it. One of them is here tonight. And we have quite an interesting exchange on twitter. Can't we all just get along? 
Noel Sheppard is the assistant editor or "News Busters." Boy, do I have some questions for you. And so does Goldie Taylor, and so does Dean Obeidallah. We got some questions for you. 
Well, Dana Loesch, we know you, because you're a CNN contributor and the editor of the late Andrew Breitbart's Web site, bigjournalism.com. 
So, more on the n word later guys, I just want to thank you all for joining us because I just want to talk to the conservatives. I want to just talk to the - you know, have this faith balance thing from the Democrat and then from the conservatives. This has pop to the conservatives tonight. And as I said, I don't mean the democratically approved ones or the Democrat approved one, like you guys said.
OK. So listen, there's always a spin from both sides. 
So Noel, I want to ask you this, this is -- this is right up "News Busters" alley. So, how is this so-called liberal media doing telling this story, are they getting it right so far? 
NOEL SHEPPARD, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, FOX FORUM: What you said and what Suzanne said or --? 
LEMON: No, I'm talking about hooker gate. Let's talk about the secret service. And so, I was saying the secret service, this is right up your alley. So, in your assessment, watching the media so far report this since it broke today, the so-called liberal media, how are they doing? Are they getting it right so far? 
SHEPPARD: got to tell you, Don, I'm actually not prepared to discuss that. I really didn't pay a lot of attention to the story today. I was writing about other things. 
LEMON: All right. Interesting Dana, because are conservatives going to capitalize on this, or is this something that doesn't make a difference as a reflect - at any reflection on the White House at all? 
DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think the thing that scares me the most is you have secret service men who are assigned to protect the president of the United States, and then down -- going down to Colombia, he's not -- I mean, he's not being protected. You have them - they were supposed to be one of the part of the advance team. I think I read a little early today. I've been in Wisconsin here for a fantastic rally with Americans for Prosperity, and the Wisconsin tea party up here. 
So I came in, I was eating my dinner. I was looking at the story. And my first thought, Don, seriously was, wait a minute, now, I get we disagree with the president on policy. We disagree with Democrats. But I have a problem with the people who are assigned to protect the president not being there protecting him. So that was my first thought. And that's what I was looking into first. 
Now, in terms of, you know what the media has written or what they haven't written about it, or any sort of spin, I haven't seen anything yet. Because I still think that people are trying to get the facts out there. But long story short that was my first concern. And I hope that was everybody else's first concern, too. 
LEMON: Yes. I think what people were saying is that, OK, this is an election year, and if it was something that happened during a Republican administration, the Democrats would certainly try to spin it. And it's something that happened during a Democratic administration, while the Republicans are going to try to spin it. And so, that was my question. That was the impetus to my question, is this going to be used in an election year in the political process? 
LOESCH: Well, I don't know. Because I - some of the - I read an interview that an individual gave earlier today. Again, I've been out rallying all day. I read an interview that someone gave today who worked with the secret service. And they were saying that this is kind of a problem with the secret service that's been sort of happening for a while, and then they mentioned, was this a White House party that occurred about what a year and a half ago, two years ago, where you had the Salahis I believe, her last name was that crashed this party -- 
LEMON: Salahis. Salahis, yes. 
LOESCH: Yes, Salahis. They crashed this party. And they were able to get there. They were able to do their photo-ops. That's something that should have never happened. So from seeing that and just seeing the reports on it, this seems to be a problem that's been festering for a while. I think we need to get all the facts of the matter before we can try to play politics with it. 
LEMON: Wow. That was really - I can't believe there is some consensus on that. 
SHEPPARD: Yes, I mean. Don, I would say that as well. As I think this is kind a new story, so let's see how this plays out the next couple of days or week. Then we can get a sense how to how the media will play this. 
LEMON: OK. All right. All right. So Noel and Dana, you might have missed this moment this week. I'm joking, but any way, I just want to make sure you see it before we talk about it. Here it is. 
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILARY ROSEN, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: His wife has never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and how do we worry and why do we worry about their future. 
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: OK, conservatives. Dana, is this a real conflict or is this a political or media driven story? I haven't heard, I have to be honest to you. And this is just me. This is unscientific survey here. Most of the women in my life who I have spoken to are not talking about the story and they have no idea who Hilary Rosen even is. And the only people who are talking about it are people in politics and politics in the media. 
LOESCH: I think everybody is talking about it. Within 24 hours, you had David Axelrod make a statement on it. You have -- 
LEMON: I'm talking women. I'm talking women. And people outside of the political process. 
LOESCH: As did the first lady. So Don, where are you at? 
LEMON: No, no, I said. No, no, no, listen to my question. I said people outside of politics and outside of the media. 
LOESCH: OK. I think it is a problem. I ran into a lot of women today who aren't in the media, and I had lunch with some women earlier this afternoon who actually didn't go out to the rally, and they were saying, yes, you know, we heard about this. It's a little bit unsettling, because, you know, we're mothers. We've raised children. It's kind of a problem. I think Democrats are realizing that they sort of have an optic problem when it comes to reaching out to some women voters. 
I mean, it's great to talk about the Lily Ledbetter Act, which actually the labor secretary is the least that did not have any impact at all whatsoever. I think there's a problem with optics right now. 
You can't reach out to a voting bloc, which is going to drive the election, let's be frank. Women, mothers especially, drive every election. They do. You can't reach out to a voting bloc while at the same time your party going out there and saying there's a war on women, and then actually saying things like this about women. 
And it's not just, you know, Hilary Rosen. We're talking about there's a democrat down in Florida representative Randolph who went off on a tirade against mothers on his twitter page and on facebook just in the fast several days. The Democratic Senatorial Committee has been using the war on women for a long time. Move On has been using this phrase for a long time. 
LEMON: Dana? 
LOESCH: Yes. 
LEMON: You have to let the men get in on this. 
(LAUGHTER)
LEMON: Noel is just sitting there patiently, waiting to get in. We're being gentlemen here. We are letting the women have their say but, my God, let him say a word. I just - Noel, you can -- 
SHEPPARD: Don? 
LEMON: Go ahead. 
SHEPPARD: Don, this proves there is no Republican war on women. I'm letting her say whatever she wants. So this should completely dispel this notion that Republicans have a war on women. 
The reality here, this was a big misstep for the Obama administration and for the Obama campaign. They've been talking about this phony war on women since early January, and it's been very, very much assisting the president in the polling numbers where suddenly he's beating Romney by 18, 19 points, and all of a sudden someone that nobody outside of the beltway has ever heard of makes this really stupid remark about Mitt Romney's wife, and this is going to be an issue and the president had to immediately talk about it, Axelrod had to talk about it. And I think that this little rally that Obama has had with regard to women, I think that rally has faded and now the question is, how far is this going to plummet? How much of his 18, 19-point lead -- 
LEMON: OK, OK. Noel, I don't have a blog like you. I have time issues. I have to say, Dana, you are a big girl. You can handle it. Someone just e-mailed and said, I will be honest, this woman is lying. I have yet to hear one person outside of CNN talk about the Ann Romney story and that's from a woman. That's all I'm saying. 
(LAUGHTER)
LEMON: But hang on, listen. I'm going to talk to you -- 
SHEPPARD: That settles it. 
LEMON: I'm going to talk to you in a bit, because Noel, you wrote something about me and we'll talk about the n word and the Trayvon Martin story. You talked about me in "News Busters." You talked about the n word now being used on CNN, saying, if it dramatizes racism, Lemon certainly thinks so. I'm going to ask you about that. 
Dana, your site wrote something about me and filmmaker Spike Lee as it relates to the Trayvon Martin story. I want to talk about that. 
All right. We'll talk about that. So, stand by, guys. More of the stories that you are talking about in just a moment. We will be back right after a break. 

Loesch will also be speaking at Chicago's Tea Party Tax Day rally tomorrow.

Dana Loesch STILL falsely accusing the "Dems of starting the War on Moms"

Today, Big "Journalism" EIC Dana Loesch is STILL accusing the "Democrats of starting the 'War on Moms'" and covering to defend Mitt Romney's wife, Ann Romney.

On Big Government, she baselessly blamed the Democrats "for starting and owning the 'War on Moms.'"

In February of this year Hilary Rosen of the Obama-associated PR firm SKDKnickerbocker, was brought in to advise DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz on public relations.

The following month the DNC Chair was warning of "Romney and the Republicans war on women." I'm not sure how Rosen can claim that the GOP made up a Democratic buzzword when it was her client who made it most famous. 

Rosen's close proximity to the Obama team is why David Axelrod and Jim Messina were so quick to toss her under the bus; their surrogates are working overtime to push as much distance between the President and Rosen as possible.
Rosen herself set the bar for how such attacks as hers are to be judged: In 2008 she condemned such attacks on Michelle Obama. 

Democrats have been throwing up every deflection they can to keep voters's eyes off the record-high, worse-than-Carter gas prices, the sluggish economy, and scandals like Fast and Furious and Solyndra. With so many narratives in the air, they were bound to mess up the storyline. 

Loesch continues lying her butt off with this next post on Big Journalism:

The blowback from Democrat strategist Hilary Rosen's remarks against stay-at-home moms reached a fever pitch this morning, kicking the Obama campaign into massive damage control mode. Last night David Axelrod and Jim Messina threw Rosen under the bus--and this afternoon Michelle Obama joined them. 

If equality were the issue, the First Lady would not have gone on Dave Letterman's show (he never apologized for calling Palin a "slutty flight attendant"); the Obama Super PAC would have returned the $1 million from Bill Maher, who called Palin a "twat" on television and a "cunt" on stage. 

Dana, you and your surrogates on the right have lost, plain and simple.

According to Ryan Grim and Amanda Terkel at the Huffington Post, raising children is technically "work," but does NOT cover the work requirements.

WASHINGTON -- Ann Romney maybelieve that focusing exclusively on raising children counts as work, and the majority of A mericans may agree with her, but that's not how the federal government sees it.

As far as Uncle Sam is concerned, if you're poor, deciding to stay at home and rear your children is not an option. Thanks to welfare reform, recipients of federal benefits must prove to a caseworker that they have performed, over the course of a week, a certain number of hours of "work activity." That number changes from state to state, and each state has discretion as to how narrowly work is defined, but federal law lists 12 broad categories that are covered.
Raising children is not among them 

.
According to a 2006 Congressional Research Service report, the dozen activities that fulfill the work requirement are:
(1) unsubsidized employment
(2) subsidized private sector employment
(3) subsidized public sector employment
(4) work experience
(5) on-the-job training
(6) job search and job readiness assistance
(7) community services programs
(8) vocational educational training
(9) job skills training directly related to employment
(10) education directly related to employment (for those without a high school degree or equivalent)
(11) satisfactory attendance at a secondary school
(12) provision of child care to a participant of a community service program 

The only child-care related activity on the list is the last one, which would allow someone to care for someone else's child if that person were off volunteering. But lest beneficiaries get carried away with their charitable activity, it does not apply to married couples in some states. Connecticut, for instance, specifically prevents counting as "work" an instance in which one parent watches a child while the other parent volunteers.

Regardless of their political affiliations, raising children is an admirable thing.


Michelle Obama and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, both of whom that Loesch criticizes on a regular basis, have condemned Rosen's remarks.

Disappointed in @hilaryr 's comments. As a mother of 3 there’s no doubt that raising children is work.
— D Wasserman Schultz (@DWStweets) April 12, 2012

Every mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected. –mo
— Michelle Obama (@MichelleObama) April 12, 2012

UPDATE: Hilary Rosen will appear on CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer to discuss her apology to Ann Romney. And Rosen has more dignity than the Righties that are smearing her for telling the truth about Ann and Mitt Romney.

Loesch falsely trumpets the "Democrats have declared war on [conservative] mothers"

In her four blogposts tonight on on Big Journalism repeating the same garbage about baselessly accuses the Democratic Party of waging a war on women and moms," Dana Loesch digs an even deeper hole for herself.

In one of those blogposts, Loesch falsely accuses the "Dems of starting the 'War On Women' and the 'War on [conservative] Moms'."

Yes, there is something old-fashioned about the belief that a homemaker couldn't understand the complexity of the economics affecting her household. Rosen apparently subscribes to the Linda Hirschman worldview, one that posits women are only as valuable as their contributions outside the home, unrelated to children and family. Rearing up the next generation that will someday run the world is woefully under appreciated.  

From an overflow of the heart the mouth speaks and Rosen makes it clear that her prejudice against women who stay home stems from a lack of respect and appreciate for what those women do. If the goal of feminism is choice, Rosen betrays the mutual respect amongst members of the female sex by degrading the choices of other women. 

We know Loesch is lying off her patootie. But wait, there's more lies to come from her.

In yet another blogpost on Big Journalism, she misleads the readers into believing that the "Democrats hate stay-at-home moms," which is baloney.

Democrats fabricated this narrative and they and their surrogates continue to perpetuate it in the media. Women are only as valuable for as long as they can be used to corral votes -- nothing is more evident of this then by claiming the GOP is waging a "war on women" while simultaneously insulting women who choose to stay home. 

The War On Women is NOT fabricated by the Democratic Party at all. It's real, and the Republicans (including you, Ms. Loesch) are perpetrating the War on Women.


Hilary Rosen wrote the truth about Ann Romney in the Huffington Post:

My Twitter feed was on fire after an appearance last night on CNN's AC360, where I said that I thought it was wrong for Mitt Romney to be using his wife as his guide to women's economic struggles when she "had never worked a day in her life." Oh my, you should read the tweets and the hate mail I got after that. The accusations were flying. I don't know what it means to be a mom (I have 2 children). I obviously don't value the work that a mother does and how hard it is (the hardest job I have ever had); and I absolutely hate anyone who doesn't have the same views as I do (hate is a strong word).

Spare me the faux anger from the right who view the issue of women's rights and advancement as a way to score political points. When it comes to supporting policies that would actually help women, their silence has been deafening. I don't need lectures from the RNC on supporting women and fighting to increase opportunities for women; I've been doing it my whole career. If they want to attack me and distract the public's attention away from their nominee's woeful record, it just demonstrates how much they just don't get it.

Now let's be clear on one thing. I have no judgements about women who work outside the home vs. women who work in the home raising a family. I admire women who can stay home and raise their kids full-time. I even envy them sometimes. It is a wonderful luxury to have the choice. But let's stipulate that it is NOT a choice that most women have in America today.

I have nothing against Ann Romney. She seems like a nice lady who has raised nice boys, struggled with illness, and handles its long-term effects with grace and dignity. I admire her grit in talking about her illness publicly.

Rosen was criticized by certain members of the Obama 2012 campaign team for her comments.

I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize.
— Jim Messina (@Messina2012) April 12, 2012

Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney.They were inappropriate and offensive.
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) April 12, 2012

In her fourth blogpost on this topic, she is now distorting what Rosen said:

Hilary Rosen doubled down on the Democrats "War On Moms" at the Huffington Post. Rosen can't seem to keep her narratives straight: Ann Romney is either an unintellectual homemaker too stupid to understand economics or a powerful force behind which Mitt Romney hides:

Women of America must ask Mitt Romney to come out from behind his wife's skirt and tell us working women in this country should trust his vision for their future.

Ann Romney wasn't speaking of working women alone, but the idea that Romney isn't a "working" women because her work is as a mother and homemaker is ludicrous. 

I'd ask why Rosen is ignoring President Obama's pay inequality in his own administration but then remind myself that she can't: Rosen works at the PR firm run by Obama's former communications director Anita Dunn. The firm is heavily involved in the Obama campaign. It's her job to deflect from his failures. 

Rosen also rejects that any workplace inequality is the direct result of women's own choices, something studies already confirmed. It's an interesting position Rosen takes: she holds no regard for women's choices that don't match her own and she wants to blame men for those choices that women make.

Loesch has lost this war, bottom line.

James O'Keefe on The Dana Show: "Voter Fraud is rampant and ignored by the Democrats, Media"

Notorious discredited hack James O'Keefe visited KFTK's The Dana Show with O'Keefe apologist Dana Loesch to talk about his latest dud of a video.  Of course Loesch will praise any and all efforts from him.


Key Points: 

• Loesch falsely claimed that "he denies the existence of widespread 'voter fraud.'" (approx 1:20)
• O'Keefe says that the "'mainstream media' will never love us." (approx. 2:20)
• Loesch falsely states that "the 'mainstream media' and the Democrats' narratives claim that no voter fraud exists, but it's been proven wrong by you, O'Keefe." (approx. 3:10)
• O'Keefe: "my exposés have been effective to the point that state legislatures are passing voter ID laws." (approx. 4:00)
• O'Keefe blames the "establishment for covering up the problems." (approx. 4:40)
• Loesch and O'Keefe bash Sharpton and the Dems for telling the truth about "voter ID" laws. (approx. 5:50)
• Loesch baselessly accuses "Eric Holder and the DOJ of refusing to uphold voter integrity." (approx. 7:00)
• Loesch falsely peddles the non-truth that "Voter IDs help voters, not suppress the voters." (approx. 7:30)
• O'Keefe: "I think the people will stand behind us on this one." (approx. 8:28)
• Loesch: "If the DOJ, Eric Holder, and the Democrats will go after O'Keefe, then wouldn't it compromise their inability to do their jobs." (approx. 9:10)
• Loesch: "O'Keefe scored a victory right out of the gate with this." Nope, he LOST right out of the gate, as usual. (approx. 10:40)

The real Eric Holder is right, and people like O'Keefe and Loesch are lying liars.


From the 04.09.2012 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:




Alex Koppelman of the New Yorker rebuts O'Keefe and his ridiculous claims:

James O’Keefe and his supporters think that he’s scored big today. See, not long ago, Attorney General Eric Holder criticized laws that require people wishing to vote to bring photo I.D. with them; he called those laws “a solution in search of a problem,” and said “there is no statistical proof that vote fraud is a big concern in this country.” So one of O’Keefe’s colleagues—a white man who looks considerably younger than the Attorney General—went to went to Holder’s polling place for the recent primary in Washington, D.C., and claimed to be Holder. The punch line, of course, is that he was given no trouble, and welcomed to vote. (He never went through with it and actually committed the voter fraud, presumably because someone’s giving them legal advice not to.) 

James O’Keefe and his supporters think that he’s scored big today. See, not long ago, Attorney General Eric Holder criticized laws that require people wishing to vote to bring photo I.D. with them; he called those laws “a solution in search of a problem,” and said “there is no statistical proof that vote fraud is a big concern in this country.” So one of O’Keefe’s colleagues—a white man who looks considerably younger than the Attorney General—went to went to Holder’s polling place for the recent primary in Washington, D.C., and claimed to be Holder. The punch line, of course, is that he was given no trouble, and welcomed to vote. (He never went through with it and actually committed the voter fraud, presumably because someone’s giving them legal advice not to.)

Well, no. Shapiro and O’Keefe and the rest don’t know when voter fraud takes place, if indeed it does, because they don’t do the work necessary to find out. O’Keefe may be lionized as an investigative journalist, but he’s not one, and he never has been. He takes the easy, flashy way out: his videos don’t prove that malfeasance is happening; they prove that it could, maybe. (Taking the same trick and repeating it over and over again, which is basically what O’Keefe did with this latest video, part of a series of such work, doesn’t help.)
Investigative journalism—the real thing, the kind that discovers the dirt people are actually doing, rather than that they could potentially do—is hard work, and it can be boring. You want to expose systematic voter fraud? Get a bunch of records, pore through them for a few hundred hours.

Media Matters for America also calls out O'Keefe's deception tactics calls out O'Keefe's deception tactics:

James O'Keefe's Project Veritas has unveiled the latest chapter in its ongoing "voter fraud investigation": a video that purports to show a young man nearly obtaining the ballot of Attorney General Eric Holder. Like O'Keefe's past "voter fraud" videos, however, this video fails to show actual voter fraud being committed, and it doesn't prove the existence of a widespread conspiracy to throw an election. That's because both are extremely rare. 

The video shows the man entering a polling place in Washington, D.C., then cuts to the man asking a poll worker, "Do you have an Eric Holder?" After the O'Keefe associate confirms Holder's address, which is censored, the poll worker offers him the voter roll and says, "Please sign your name there." The fake Eric Holder then says he left his ID in the car and leaves. 

This video doesn't prove any of these things. What it shows is a man coming close to committing a serious crime. But even if the man had fraudulently cast a vote under Eric Holder's name, D.C. and federal laws provide a number of protections against fraudulent votes. 

First of all, if the imposter had fraudulently cast Holder's ballot, and the real Eric Holder then had shown up to vote and been told his name was already crossed off the list, the real Holder almost certainly could have still voted. Under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, any voter who is told by an "election official" that he or she is "not eligible to vote" must be allowed to "cast a provisional ballot." 

In spite of all this evidence, however, right-wing media routinely drum up phony or baseless cases of voter fraud, which they then use to rally support for restrictive voter ID laws.

Loesch baselessly accuses "Coca-Cola of siding with 'cop-killing' far-lefty Van Jones"

Yet another day of Dana Loesch suggesting a boycott of anything that doesn't cave into the right-wing agenda and whining on twitter about "'liberals' bullying businesses.". In her post at Big Government, she also falsely accused Van Jones of being a "9/11 Truther" and a "supporter of cop-killers."

Today Coca Cola sided with reported 9-11 truther and cop-killer supporter Van Jones and the group he co-founded, Color of Change. CoC cyber-bullied Coca Cola, Walmart, and other companies for supporting voter integrity via their membership with the American Legislative Exchange Council. Via the Washington Examiner:

Officials from another party-backed group, Color of Change, kicked off a boycott of Coke and other financial backers of the American Legislative Exchange Council which supports new voter ID laws. Other supporters include Walmart and Koch Industries. The boycott call started with a tweet (@CocaCola is helping undermine voting rights. Tell them to stop) and a webpage. The group also has tied the Council to the Trayvon Martin shooting case.

If requiring an ID to vote is racist, I would like for Color of Change to explain to me how requiring an ID to cash a check, purchase alcohol, cigaretters, reserve a hotel room, rent a car, enter into the very Department of Justice building, operate a motor vehicle, buy a home, et al. isn't racist -- and if they are consistent and believe that it is, explain why they haven't protested any of these things.

Who's doing the cyber-bullying now? It certainly is NOT Van Jones or Color of Change, but Loesch and the rest of the RWNJ brigade that's doing it. And the "Voter ID" laws (really voter suppression laws) are indeed targeted at groups likely to vote Democratic, such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, the poor, college students, and the disabled.


Here are the actual facts from Think Progress, not the ones that Loesch made up to lie on purpose:

Prompted by a petition campaign by the progressive advocacy group Color of Change, Coca-Cola has pulled its support from ALEC, a right-wing corporate-funded front group which has been pushing voter restriction efforts around the country. The company released this statement moments ago:

The Coca-Cola Company has elected to discontinue its membership with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Our involvement with ALEC was focused on efforts to oppose discriminatory food and beverage taxes, not on issues that have no direct bearing on our business. We have a long-standing policy of only taking positions on issues that impact our Company and industry.

Here's some great ideas to piss off Loesch: Go buy Coca-Cola products and any other products that don't cave into right-wing extremists.

Here's a great idea to piss off @Dloesch: Please buy @cocacola. #teamcocacola
— Justin Gibson (@JGibsonDem) April 5, 2012

Hey, Dana, grow the fuck up already!
UPDATE (04.06.2012): Yesterday, on KFTK's The Dana Show, she still defended ALEC and attacked Van Jones.

From the 04.05.2012 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:

Loesch still bashing Democrats and Sandra Fluke

It looks like Dana Loesch is still defending the right-wing smears against Sandra Fluke and blaming the Democrats for it. Her blogpost at Big "Journalism" today falsely accused the Democratic Party of dragging out the Limbaugh-Fluke controversy for their own gain.

It's the story that won't go away, the tactic Democrats keep dragging out and inflating with with artificial indignation to secure relevance. They do it because their presidential incumbent needs not just one political identity card -- he needs the whole deck. The administration's attempt to malign Rush Limbaugh and their collusion with MMfA to censor conservatives on the airwaves failed miserably, yet a bogeyman is still needed. Dutiful Hillary Clinton is trotted out to push the dead nontroversy, again. (And progressives insist that conservatives won't stop talking about it?) Clinton's time as the long-suffering silent spouse to her philandering Presidential husband has not blunted her appetite one iota for using women to push an agenda, as indicated by her recent interview with Andrea Mitchell. 

Hillary Clinton was noticeably absent when worse language or crass words were used by equally big names to describe Sarah Palin (her children), Michelle Bachmann; she was silent when local radio host misogynists slurred Wisconsin Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch. Clinton apparently supports with her silence the verbal assault on these women because they're part of -- how did she name it? -- the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The difference is that Limbaugh apologized for the word he used to describe Fluke's action; most of the men who slurred the above-named women have never apologized. In fact, they defended their words. Even more -- the Obama administration (with its own history of workplace inequality) continue to support the men who use these terms. 

I don't particularly dig the language progressives use to describe conservative women. I didn't, and wouldn't, call for them to be censored over it however, because I'm not a pretend First Amendment supporter like these latter day fascists in Slutgate. What is objectionable is their complete double-standard on respect for women. It's not a War On Women unless progressives can claim some sort of offense for their female base. They ignore the actual War On Women -- the War On Conservative Women. For a group that fights for sex, drugs, and free expression, progressives sure do cop the Puritan sensibility pretty quick after a few "sluts." It's comical, transparent, and utterly square.

No, Dana, the REAL War On Women is being waged by people on the right, including you and Michelle Malkin. And it's YOU that's being the fascist, NOT Fluke, Clinton, MMFA, or the left.



On twitter, Oyxcontin-smuggling sexist Rush Limbaugh praised Loesch's blogpost on Big Journalism:

@DLoesch gets it right… Hillary Clinton coordinating with @mmfa to rile up the base and distract from Obama's failure. eib.tw/HbFbrz
— Rush Limbaugh (@rushlimbaugh) April 3, 2012

On the other hand, 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate (who lost to current President Obama) and former First Lady (now currently Secretary of Defense) Hillary Clinton and her daughter Chelsea have defended Fluke from Limbaugh's attacks against her (and by extension, all Democratic-leaning women).

Darius Dixon at POLITICO.com:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Monday called the controversial comments Rush Limbaugh made about Sandra Fluke in February a “verbal assault.” But she also said she was encouraged by the public rebuke of the radio host.

ABC News:

Rush Limbaugh was uncharacteristically quiet today after Chelsea Clinton recounted how the conservative talk show host appeared to make fun her looks by comparing her to a dog when she was 13-years-old. 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, however,  had harsh word for Limbaugh when reminded of  the incident saying, “We’re better than that.” 

Chelsea Clinton spoke last week about Limbaugh’s comments while on a panel about women involved in politics. The former first daughter made the comments while defending Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke who had been ridiculed last month by Limbaugh as a “slut” and a “prostitute” for testifying before Congress in support of a government mandate requiring health insurance to cover contraception.
“She and I actually have something in common,” Chelsea Clinton said.  “We’ve both have been attacked by Rush Limbaugh.” 

“Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?” Limbaugh said on his television show before showing an image of the young Clinton.

Limbaugh and Loesch have lost this war.

Dana Loesch on The Dana Show: "Progressives like the New Black Panthers."

Looks like race-baiting moron radio show host Dana Loesch is up to no good again.

From my tumblr blog, Justin's Political Corner:

Loesch and that caller are out of whack.

From the 03.28.2012 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:


Transcript:

Caller: "I want to talk about-- I do not wish to happen. Do you think all the hatred from the media and the discontent coming out of Florida with the event of Trayvon Martin. Do you think that the media and the African-American people want a race war? Am I out of line by saying that they really want it to happen?"  

LOESCH: "I think..." 

Caller: "...think that they want to see it happen?" 

LOESCH: "Yeah, I think that some progressives, like the New Black Panther Party, definitely sounds like they kind of like they do."  

[...]

"Brian, I appreciate your call. I think that they want it-- progressives need it as a tool, they need it as a distraction. Those are the people who scream loudest about injustices to minority communities. These are also the same people who pass policies that present the greatest offense to minority communities. They complain-- progressives complain about the lack of jobs in certain depressed areas, but what are they doing to bring jobs to those areas?"

This lady (and her husband) sure has a history of race-baiting rhetoric.

Dana Loesch has no clue about the facts, smears Détente and Boehlert

In her blogpost at Big Journalism today, Dana Loesch baselessly accused Media Matters For America's Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert of getting the dates wrong for Détente's song, Kill Rush. 

It was in response to my piece published last night on the media's choice to ignore the death threats against Rush Limbaugh by way of progressives's newest anthem, "Kill Rush." 

Boehlert was too quick to spin without actually checking the facts.
What's that date? March 6? Considering Facebook doesn't post the current year date, it's March 6 of this year, meaning just a couple of weeks ago.  

Eric was wrong on two counts: the song was posted to Youtube in 2011, NOT in 2010. Also, did you see that at the bottom?

They went back and tagged "Sandra Fluke" on their video. Boehlert's spin is that the video was posted in 2010 (it wasn't) and that it isn't in response to Limbaugh (they made it so).

The song was originally recorded in 2010, not 2011 or later. Yet another pathetic example of Boehlert Derangement Syndrome displayed by Loesch.

Boehlert, on twitter, took down Loesch's distortion of the dates:

poor @dloesch, can't even get simple "2010" dates correct; bit.ly/GJwCHU #conservativejournalism #chronicallyconfused
— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) March 23, 2012

stupid "Kill Rush" song was posted in 2010. @Dloesch now claims it's "in response" to Fluke controversy; bit.ly/GThiFs #bendingtime
— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) March 23, 2012

Song:


Loesch wrote another blogpost regarding the band's controversial Kill Rush song.

I don't know what offends me more:the hackneyed, drop D insipidness, the wannabe-Kittie/Phil Anselmo front woman, or the actual lyrics to "Kill Rush." Or maybe the media's complete refusal to acknowledge it?  

Myspace is still around for bands like the ironically named Detente, oh, excuse me, DÉTENTE (ne faut pas oublier l'accent Français!). A quick scan of their Facebook profile shows they formed around when I was in kindergarten, got a touch of secondhand glory by opening for bigger bands (like Megadeth) in those groups's infancy, and then those bands went on to actually, you know, write good music and sell records. Bands like this are why people hate metal, most of which is structurally complex and difficult to play well. DÉTENTE has scored the most attention they'll ever receive in their lives (sadly, none of it will translate to album sales) because of a song they've written called "Kill Rush."  

Media Matters repurposed a three-year-old Limbaugh censorship/book burning campaign to try to drive the talker off the airwaves, when they're not distracted by calling for the censorship of everyone else with whom they disagree -- do you think they will take up a campaign to drive UUAAGH DÉTENTE off Facebook?

Dana, grow up.


Yet another right-wing moron, The Admiral at the Lake Minnetonka Liberty blog, suggested that all the members of Détente should be dead.

Yup. I am calling for the demise of all members of the shitty metal band called Detente.  Oh yeah, I’m “dead” serious. Just as serious as they are for calling for Rush Limbaugh to be killed. They even wrote and performed a song advocating it. Well, what goes around comes around. 

Funny thing about the left, Detente will be excused for exorcising their 1st Amendment rights, I will probably be labeled a hater, dangerous, an advocator of violence, hell, I might even get a knock on the door from the police or FBI. But when the left does it, “that’s different.” Well you know what? It’s not different. It’s time for us to take off the kid gloves and slap those leftist bitches in to submission. I’ve had enough of their crap, it’s time for pricks like this to pay the piper. 

And how about those leftist jackasses at Facebook and YouTube? Whenever some whiney leftist complains, the content is taken down and the user is banned. But as long as a leftist does it, it’s okay. Including advocating murdering someone. Hypocrisy and double-standards, that’s all the left is.

Typical far-right bully this blogger is by wanting to kill people for having the audacity to criticize Rush Limbaugh.