Posts tagged "Dana Loesch"

For commentators who claim to despise lawlessness and who have attacked the Obama administration for allegedly feeding disorder and politicizing it, conservatives were quick to embrace a lawless Nevada rancher who for two decades has refused to pay federal grazing fees on public land and is now promoting his cattle crusade as a war against the federal government.

According to the right wing media, paying the obvious penalty for openly refusing to obey the law for decades suddenly translates into victimhood for rancher Cliven Bundy and “harassment” by the government, as conservative commentator Dana Loesch tried to spin away Bundy’s contempt for law and order.

Aside from ignoring the law, Bundy and his armed, anti-government supporters have repeatedly threatened violence and fanned the flames of confrontation with revolutionary, insurrectionist rhetoric, like declaring a “Range War.” (“Serious bloodshed was narrowly avoided,” the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported last week from the site of the flash point.)

All of the incendiary rhetoric and the loaded allegations about a tyrannical government has been marketed and promoted by Fox News and the rest of the conservative media, which claims to revere America as a nation of laws; the same Fox News that declared war on Occupy Wall Street protesters in 2011 and condemned them for being lawless. (“Domestic terrorists”!)

But now, suddenly the rules of engagement have shifted. Bundy is a right-wing hero and a massive Fox News flip-flop has taken place.

The facts of the Bundy case are not in dispute.

Since 1993, Bundy has refused to pay grazing fees for his use of 600,000 acres of public land. Bundy does not recognize the unambiguous authority of the federal government to administer the lands. In July 2013, a federal court ordered the defiant rancher to remove his cattle from the land or they would be confiscated to pay off the $1 million in fees and trespassing fines Bundy owes. He disobeyed, and confiscation of the cows began last week, before being halted because of the Bureau of Land Management’s “serious concerns about the safety of employees and members of the public.”

Even Fox’s Megyn Kelly conceded that legally, Bundy “doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”

Nonetheless, the stampede of support for lawbreaker Bundy has been nearly all encompassing on the right. National Review Online’s Kevin Williamson called the presence of armed agents “inflammatory” and condemned the government’s actions as a “siege,” while The Drudge Report recklessly hyped the growing fear of a violent standoff between anti-government militia members and federal forces.

On Fox, Sean Heannity has served as ringmaster for the insurrectionist circus that unfolded in Nevada and Hannity has clearly singled out law enforcement as the enemy. “Not once did Hannity mention concern for the well-being of law enforcement officials,” noted the Fox-watching site NewsHounds. “Not once did Hannity discuss the federal government without demonizing them and suggesting that they were behaving in a criminal, fascist manner that deserved to be fought.”

Yet that’s the same Hannity who’s been part of the right-wing campaign to denounce Obama for being outside the law; for his alleged ”pattern of lawlessness.”

"Obama’s Politicized, Lawless Executive Branch," was the headline to David Limbaugh’s TownHall.com column just last week. “Obama Adds Irrationality To Lawlessness — While Threatening Prosecution,” came from National Review Online’s Andrew McCarthy this winter. (“It is wearying to catalogue President Obama’s lawlessness,” he complained.)

And from Rush Limbaugh in February [emphasis added]:

What do we do to stop somebody as lawless, some president as lawless this?  What do we do?  Nobody knows.  Nobody knows what to do.  Nobody knows how to stop him giving away money.  Nobody knows how to beat him giving away money.  Nobody knows how to deal with a guy who makes up the law every day as he gets up. We’ve never confronted this before. We’ve never had a president who is so lawless. We’ve never had a president who is so unconcerned with the Constitution

That central attack theme has been repeated hundreds (thousands?) of times across the right-wing media since Obama was first sworn in and has come to define the conservative opposition to Obama: The current President of the United States, who happens to be an attorney and a former law school professor, shows no obedience to American laws or its courts, which is why Fox News, for instance, has repeatedly wondered if Obama should be impeached for his alleged lawbreaking.

Someone so arrogantly lawless that he pays no mind to U.S. jurisprudence? Kind of like a Nevada rancher who’s been in open defiance for more than 20 years and views himself as being immune to federal law? 

How can you tell the embrace of Bundy and his lawbreaking crusade is so obviously driven by partisan politics? Just recall the Occupy Wall Street movement and how conservative pundits uniformly howled their indignation. Why? Because left-leaning activists were breaking the law.

At National Review, editor Rich Lowry warned, “It’s become clear during the past few weeks that there is a lawlessness at the heart of Occupy Wall Street.”

Lowry was amazed at how activists refused to obey orders from police:

When asked to do something by an officer of the law, the instinct of most people is to comply, especially if they are violating a rule. The instinct of many of the Occupy protesters is to resist, then inflate their arrests or clashes with the police into a monumental struggle with the forces of oppression.

Keep in mind Lowy’s claim that “most people” comply with officers of the law while watching this clip from a Nevada confrontation over the weekend, dubbed a “Ranch Riot” by a Bundy sympathizer. In it, pretesters not only fail to comply with “officers of the law,” would-be militia members rain down epithets on law enforcement officials, denouncing various officers as being a “terrorist,” “loser,” “chickenshit,” and a “fucking pussy.” (Lots of the name calling starts at the 5:00 mark.)

It’s safe to say Sean Hannity would have started hyperventilating on-air if he ever got his hands on a profanity-laced, anti-police Occupy Wall Street clip like the one that came in from Nevada. (Anarchists!) But suddenly at Fox, anti-government loudmouths who condemn law enforcement officials as chickenshits are the ones being cheered and depicted as freedom fighters.

So much for law-and-order at Fox News.

=

h/t: Eric Boehlert at MMFA

Two affiliates of the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity are helping conservative media promote the cause of a Nevada rancher who has made violent threats against the federal government.

Cliven Bundy, a cattle rancher in Nevada, has refused to remove his animals from public property in violation of a federal court order.  

In 1993, Bundy declined to pay government fees that are required in order to allow his cattle to graze on the public land. In 1998 a court order told Bundy to remove his cattle as part of an effort to protect an endangered desert tortoise in the area. He refused. In July 2013, a federal court order told Bundy to remove his cattle from the land or they would be confiscated. He disobeyed the order, and confiscation has begun. The government will auction the animals and use the proceeds to pay off the $1 million in fines that Bundy owes the government.

Bundy’s ongoing refusal to obey the law and court orders has become a cause célèbre for the conservative media, which has compared the situation to deadly standoffs like Waco and Ruby Ridge.

In recent comments to a conspiracy theorist’s radio show, Bundy said, “I haven’t called no militia or anything like that, but hey it looks like that’s where we’re at.” He added, “We got a strong army here, we have to fight.” Previously Bundy told the Las Vegas Sun that ”he keeps firearms at his ranch” and promised to “do whatever it takes” to defend his cattle being seized, adding, “I abide by almost zero federal laws.”

Earlier this week, protesters and members of the Bundy family had a confrontation with law enforcement, where a stun gun was used to subdue Bundy’s son, who had reportedly climbed on a dump truck when he assumed it contained cattle that had been killed during confiscation. Members of several militia groups have made their way to Bundy’s ranch, reportedly “to protect the Bundys from tyranny.”

Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the conservative non-profit group, was founded by and has been largely funded by billionaires Charles and David Koch. The Center for Media and Democracy reported that in its previous incarnation as Citizens for a Sound Economy, AFP received $12 million of its $18 million in funding from the Koch Family Foundation.

During the 2012 election, AFP spent $122 million in an effort to defeat President Obama and Congressional Democrats. AFP has also sponsored and organized bus rallies and town hall meetings to promote conservative ideas, including deregulation, tax cuts, and opposition to health care reform.

AFP has been at the forefront of spending in the 2014 election, launching several ads attacking the Affordable Care Act which have come under fire for inaccuracy by independent fact checkers. As of March, AFP had aired a reported 17,000 television ads.

Two of its local affiliates, Americans for Prosperity Nevada and Americans for Prosperity Colorado, have become active boosters of Bundy’s actions.

AFP Nevada’s Facebook page posted a graphic attacking the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for spending “one million dollars” to enforce the court order to round up Bundy’s cattle on federal land. Another photo attacked the Bureau for creating a designated “First Amendment Area” for protesters to gather in near the property.

On its Twitter page, AFP Nevada is more strident in its support of Bundy and in attacking the federal government.

AFP Nevada has promoted the hashtag #BundyBattle, which supporters are using to showcase their message. In one tweet, AFP Nevada posted a graphic attacking the cattle round up and said they had a “bone to pick” with the Bureau of Land Management.

Another AFP Nevada tweet attacked the “First Amendment Area” with a photo of cow manure and the caption “This is what we think about ‘First Amendment Areas’.”

AFP Nevada also promoted as a “must read” a blog post from conservative pundit Dana Loesch where she described the standoff as “harassment” from the federal government. The group also accused the BLM of “strategically regulating hard-working Americans out of business.”

AFP Colorado has reposted several of AFP Nevada’s tweets, and has posted commentary of its own about the issue. In one tweet, AFP Colorado has said that the “Fed militarizing of Nevada standoff is bound to fuel more sagebrush rebellion” and that ”Feds turn from landlords to warlords when Nevada rancher won’t bend his knee.”

AFP Colorado also reposted a tweet attacking the “First Amendment Area” from Paul Joseph Watson, a correspondent from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ Infowars.

h/t: Oliver Willis at MMFA 

mediamattersforamerica

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





















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

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











You, Dana, are an ignorant bully.


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

(cross-posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)

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

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

The Raw Story’s David Ferguson:

Loesch complained that Democrats see people as Democrats first and don’t “celebrate women.”
“If you’re a progressive, ‘Democrat’ comes before your sex,” she fumed. “If you’re a Democrat or you’re a progressive, that is honored above your sex.” 
Loesch said that now-ex-Mayor Bob Filner (D) of San Diego, CA is an example of how progressives treat women, in spite of the fact that he was driven from office in disgrace when his assaults on women became public knowledge. 
Guest Eboni Williams asserted that dividing women into “liberal” and “conservative” camps is superficial and divisive and does not address the concerns that all women share. 
“I think we all want equal pay for equal work for women,” said Williams. “We all want these policy goals that are much more the same than they are different.”
“Yeah, the equal pay for equal myth [sic],” said Loesch. “Can we talk about things that are in reality and not something based upon a bunk study?”

No, Dana, Bob Filner’s sexual assaults on women are NOT accurate examples of how progressives/liberals treat women.

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

(cross-posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)

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

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

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


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

TBogg:

(cross-posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)

Hopefully Missourians reject the anti-worker scam known as “right to work for less” (RTWFL) when it likely gets put on the ballot in August. 
ANY Missouri politician who votes for RTWFL should be denied communion. 

h/t: Marie French at STLToday.com

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

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



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



People For The American Way discusses the ramifications of the case:

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

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




Center For American Progress has the real facts about Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius:

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

If the case goes Hobby Lobby’s way, it’ll be scary indeed. Yet another reason to boycott Hobby Lobby!

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

(cross-posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)

bulgebull:

Stephen King Vs Dana Loesch

image image

Yesterday author Stephen King fired out several tweets in support of Obamacare, bringing attacks from Twitchy, little Ben Shapiro, and wingnut radio shrieker Dana Loesch, who clearly has zero self-awareness.

via Joe. My. God. http://ift.tt/1lPaCvc

View On WordPress

Talk radio reels them in at US conservative confab (via AFP)

When conservative radio host Dana Loesch takes to the airwaves with Republican White House hopefuls, the exchanges bear little resemblance to mainstream media interviews like those on CNN or NBC. “You brought the house down!” she told a beaming Texas…

Do you recall the story Glenn Beck told a few years back when he traveled to New York City and he was treated badly when he dined in several restaurants and then treated even worse on his flight back to Texas?

Beck railed about it on his program the following week, repeatedly complaining that he was treated “as a subhuman,” stating that he “just wanted to be treated as a human” who was worthy of dignity and respect:

I’m tired of being treated as a criminal, a disease, mentally challenged, stupid, or subhuman just because I happen to believe that the founders weren’t racists, that the Constitution was and still is inspired and the greatest document for government ever created, that the military is not full of a bunch of baby‑killers, or that we shouldn’t spend the money that we don’t have, or that we should stick up for the little guy, the small business owner, that the corrupt businessman should go to jail and that capitalism is still the best system to lift people out of poverty. I will not shy away from saying proudly that I believe in God, that I believe churchgoers in all churches get a bad rap. We are good people and the reason, Christians are the reason the Nazis were stopped, slavery was stopped, and man was eventually set free all over the planet. It was Christians that did it. I’m sorry that you might find that offensive, or that I ‑‑ that I go to church and you find that offensive, or that I happen to go to the wrong church and you find that offensive. But I will not apologize for what I believe in or who I am. Because what I believe in compels me to stand up for you and your right to be who you are. I’d just like to be treated with a little dignity along the way.

Given that experience, you’d think that he would be opposed to the Arizona legislation that would allow business to discriminate against gay customers (or anyone else, for that matter) in the name of “religious liberty,” would you not?

Well, you’d be wrong, as he voiced his support for it during yesterday’s morning meeting, saying that while he doesn’t necessarily like it, he doesn’t see anything hateful about it.

"I don’t like that world," Beck said, "where everybody is able to say ‘I’m not going to serve your kind’ but that’s freedom. That’s freedom. Freedom is ugly."

That’s not surprising coming from Lonesome Rhodes Beck, as fellow TheBlaze employee (and top fill-in for Beck) Dana Loesch supports Arizona’s SB1062.

h/t: Kyle Mantyla at RWW

NUGENT: But again my frustration and my often times angry review of what the liberal Democrats have always done to destroy everything they touch, including Wendy Davis a puppet of Nancy “You don’t need to read this, you need to sign it to find out what’s in it” Pelosi and of course our favorite Attorney General Eric “Gunrunning” Holder and of course our favorite commander-in-chief, the scam artist, “You can keep your doctor, period,” etcetera, etcetera.

[…]

NUGENT: Everybody I know who is in the asset of American — of America — is proud, very proud to be job locked. We’re locked in our dedication to be productive Americans. Wendy Davis and all the liberal Democrats could not represent a more anti-Texas, anti-freedom, anti-rugged individual, anti-entrepreneurial, anti-productive, anti-American agenda. We will not let Wendy Davis become the governor of Texas, and just recently — I think it is time to celebrate on The Dana Show and I know you will join me as I dance — that Greg Abbott experienced an 11 percent increase in his gap over Wendy Davis, which on my Facebook the millions of people attribute to the “Ted Factor.” So I’m on course, history will show me as being in the asset column. History will show that the liberal Democrats were in the liability column, and I know that will be true.

From the 02.25.2014 edition of KFTK/Radio America’s The Dana Show:

H/T: mediamattersforamerica

crooksandliars:

(Credit: Flickr)

Dana Loesch is going to be a guest host on The View this Monday morning, February 3rd.

I started tweeting the View on Friday evening because I wanted all the female hosts who are on that show to know exactly who will be joining them for coffee at their televised table. Because Dana Loesch is a slippery one —downright oily, if you want to know the truth. She was really, really good at putting over a very “aw-shucks-I’m-just-a-regular-gal” vibe when she was a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher several months ago, but I smelled a rat. I’ve seen this woman in action; she has a combo platter of venom, bully-victimhood and a faulty grasp of facts that would give Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin a run for their money.

“But Jane, she’s a nice Christian mom from the Midwest!” you might say. Since I like to think of myself as a nice, Christian mom from the Midwest, reporting what a total creep this woman is gives me no joy. But, report it I must because the issues at the center of her agenda are too precious to me, to my family and to the future of our country.

[…]

I hope The View doesn’t hire Dana Loesch, that this is a one-time gig. I know this piece has a lot of jokes and I’m trying to maintain some levity, but I truly think people of Dana Loesch’s ilk are destroying this country and they need to have the megaphone taken away; her brand of deceit must not be rewarded. We are better than that.

Let her stay on The Blaze, talking into her own reflection. I can give you a list as long as my arm of rightwing pundits that know how to fight their side with class and dignity (even if they are wrong all the time. I kid. Sort of.) Please, The View, think about Nicholle Wallace, Mary Katharine Ham, Amy Holmes, Mary Matalin or SE Cupp as possible conservative voices. Because hiring Dana Loesch is like hiring the lady at the Glenn Beck rally with the aluminum colander on her head, holding up the picture of Barack Obama with a bone through his nose.

Anyway, here’s some more links of Dana Loesch being insane or a liar or a jerk, sometimes a combo of two, sometimes all three.

  • And lies more about her here (this has whiffs of a two-hen coffee-klatch btwn Megyn Kelly & Loesch).
  • Dana joins Ted Nugent and the two of them yuck it up together, calling President Obama a “mongrel.” (please keep in mind that Ted Nugent likes to brag about having sex w underage girls and he shit his pants to avoid being drafted in the Vietnam War.)
  • Dana joked that she, too would have urinated on dead Taliban fighters (as some US soldiers have been accused of doing.) She instead goes after the reporter who reports on the story…

Again, The View- Whoopi, Sherri, Jenny and Barbara: You can do so much better. Please, don’t settle for this.

read more

h/t: Shannon Watts at Mediaite

ABC’s The View reportedly plans to mainstream conservative talk radio host Dana Loesch by featuring her as a guest co-host on the February 3 program. 

The decision to give Loesch a national platform on a highly-rated television show is troubling considering Loesch has gained notoriety for her inflammatory rhetoric, expressing extreme views on topics from gun control to reproductive access. 

Loesch made headlines in January 2012 for her reaction to an internet video that appeared to show members of the Marine Corps urinating on the corpses Taliban fighters. On her St. Louis-based radio show, Loesch defended the alleged act, saying that she would “drop trou and do it too” if she was in a similar situation. Loesch criticized “a bunch of progressives that are talking smack about our military because there were Marines caught urinating on corpses — Taliban corpses,” and later defended her comments on a Breitbart.com blog post by claiming she was “defending [the Marines] from overly-dramatic hysteria.”

At the time, Loesch was an CNN contributor, and the network reportedly suspended her soon after these remarks.

Loesch was also one of the few right-wing media figures to excuse former Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) for his “legitimate rape” remarks. After Akin declared that it is rare for women who had been the victim of “legitimate rape” to become pregnant because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” Loesch took to Twitter account and dismissed Akin’s comments, claiming he “failed a soundbite” and attacking his critics for “hypocritical overreactions.”

Loesch also has a history of leveling groundless and inflammatory attacks against liberals. Five years after the story was debunked, Loesch claimed on her radio show that President Obama attended a Muslim school known as a Madrassa in response to a caller’s comment that Obama was “born with a Quran in his hand.” Loesch attacked State Department official Huma Abedin by pushing the conspiracy theory that she had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and labelled then-Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke a “nympho” for advocating for a mandate for insurance companies to cover contraception.

See Also: Dana Loesch continues to smear Texas Gov. candidate Wendy Davis (D), will guest host on ABC’s The View

H/T: MMFA 

mediamattersforamerica