From the May 8 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:
Loading the player ...
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is receiving extra security after an activist in Missouri, Scott Boston, said, "We have to kill the Claire Bear." But in defending Boston, CNN contributor Dana Loesch failed to mention that she co-founded a conservative activist group with him.
From the Post-Dispatch:
At an event Thursday in Springfield, Mo., Scott Boston, a St. Louis area activist who has been involved with the Tea Party, told the crowd "we have to get Claire McCaskill out."
"We have to kill the Claire Bear ladies and gentlemen," Boston said. "She walks around like she's some sort of Rainbow Brite Care Bear or something but really she's an evil monster."
The comment was seen as ominous enough to prompt the U.S. Capitol Police to seek extra protection for the Missouri Democrat.
Police in Kirkwood, where McCaskill lives, confirm they were asked by the Capitol security agency to perform stepped up patrols around her house.
McCaskill has also had extra security tailing her at public appearances.
In writing about the incident at Big Government, Loesch reported that the FBI questioned Boston about his remarks at his home in St. Louis.
In December, Loesch and Boston helped to found the Gateway Grassroots Initiative, which is dedicated to "advancing conservatism at the national, state, and local levels." Boston has also co-authored a post promoting the Gateway Grassroots Initiative at Breitbart.com.
Loesch made no mention of her connection to Boston in her Big Government post.
From the May 7 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:
Loading the player ...
The right-wing media continued their pattern of encouraging people to fear Muslims by hyping a thinly sourced column in an Egyptian newspaper about a supposed proposal to legalize necrophilia. Al-Arabiya has reported that members of the Egyptian parliament are denying that any such law was ever proposed.
Conservative media figures are suggesting that a recently released memo from Leon Panetta shows that President Obama doesn't deserve credit for ordering the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan. In fact, the memo fits the previously reported timeline of the decision to raid the compound and confirms Obama's role in making that decision.
Last August, The New Yorker reported the details of Obama's decision to order Vice Adm. Bill McRaven, who is in charge of the Joint Special Operations Command, to carry out the raid:
Late on Thursday afternoon [April 28, 2011], Panetta and the rest of the national-security team met with the President. For the next few nights, there would be virtually no moonlight over Abbottabad -- the ideal condition for a raid. After that, it would be another month until the lunar cycle was in its darkest phase. Several analysts from the National Counterterrorism Center were invited to critique the C.I.A.'s analysis; their confidence in the intelligence ranged between forty and sixty per cent. The center's director, Michael Leiter, said that it would be preferable to wait for stronger confirmation of bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad. Yet, as Ben Rhodes, a deputy national-security adviser, put it to me recently, the longer things dragged on, the greater the risk of a leak, "which would have upended the thing." Obama adjourned the meeting just after 7 P.M. and said that he would sleep on it.
The next morning [April 29, 2011], the President met in the Map Room with Tom Donilon, his national-security adviser, Denis McDonough, a deputy adviser, and Brennan. Obama had decided to go with a DEVGRU [SEAL team] assault, with McRaven choosing the night. It was too late for a Friday attack, and on Saturday there was excessive cloud cover. On Saturday afternoon, McRaven and Obama spoke on the phone, and McRaven said that the raid would occur on Sunday night. "Godspeed to you and your forces," Obama told him. "Please pass on to them my personal thanks for their service and the message that I personally will be following this mission very closely." [emphasis added]
For a recent cover article, Time magazine released a memo written by then-CIA director Panetta on the morning of April 29, 2011. Time transcribed the handwritten note:
MEMO FOR THE RECORD Apr. 29, 2011, 10:35 a.m.
Received phone call from Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault. The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 am. [emphasis added]
So, the memo confirms that Obama met with national security adviser Tom Donilon and others on the morning of April 29. Donilon then called Panetta on the phone and told him that Obama had decided to go forward with the raid, and that McRaven was in charge of operational decision-making, as one would expect with any major military operation.
The right-wing media are twisting this final detail -- that McRaven was in control of the operational decisions -- into a suggestion that there was no "gutsy call" by Obama to go forward with the raid.
CNN contributor Dana Loesch sparked controversy this week by reviving the smear that President Obama was educated in a "madrassa." As we noted, the word "madrassa" has become a loaded term associated with anti-Western indoctrination. Loesch responded to the controversy in remarks to The Washington Post's Erik Wemple.
Loesch suggested in her comments this week that the Quran instructs its adherents to "find the infidel where they lay and slay them." In 2010, Loesch similarly suggested that all Muslims are violent.
As Charles Johnson noted at Little Green Footballs, Loesch published a blog post in September 2010 about pastor Terry Jones' threat to burn Qurans on the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Loesch suggested that the focus on Jones was misplaced and that instead, more attention should be paid to acts of violence committed by Muslims.
In conclusion, she wrote:
Obama says that "As Americans, we will not or ever be at war with Islam."
How many thousands of people must be murdered by Islam before he stops saying such?
Where did this nation's balls go?
[click to enlarge]
In a blog post today, The Washington Post's Erik Wemple reported on an email exchange he had with CNN's Dana Loesch following her revival yesterday of the long-debunked smear that President Obama attended a "madrassa" as a boy, which was first reported by Media Matters.
From Wemple's post:
To get Loesch's take on her invocation of "madrassa," I sent along these questions to her:
Hi Ms. Loesch: I am a media reporter for the Washington Post and have a few questions about your comments about President Obama having attended a madrassa. 1) What do you think of reports that have vacated his claim? Are you skeptical of them? 2) Have you discussed this matter with CNN? 3) Do you plan to address this again? 4) What is your view of the criticism from [Media Matters]?
That inquiry fetched this response from Loesch:
When MMfA acknowledges that they're under fire for repeatedly publishing antisemitic content, when they can explain why they coincidently received money from SEIU to target black conservatives in the wake of Kenneth Gladney, when they clarify what they meant when they accused the US of bombing Al Jazeera, and when they detail how often they convene with the White House on strategy (i.e. DOJ story), then I'll be interested in responding on a nonstory from this joke of a far-left propaganda smear site. Until then, I'm more interested in seeing stories on why we have 300 dead Mexicans and two dead border agents on Eric Holder's watch.
Thanks for reaching out, it is genuinely appreciated.
OK, so that explains how Loesch feels about Media Matters. But I pinged her back: "But do you have any response to the non-MMFA portions of my inquiry?" Her response: "The entire thing is an MMfA portion." In another blast, she wrote that " 'madrassa,' doesn't mean 'terrorist school.' I made this point on air, by the way, that it's similar to a Sunday school. Why was that not included in their smear? I find it interesting that the first response from MMfA is to think 'terrorism.' That says more about them, and their ignorance of the word and religion, than me."
There's no way that this blogger is burrowing into the "madrassa" semantic rabbit hole with Loesch. You do not need to be a scholar on world religious education and culture to capture the essence of her exchange with the "Koran" caller. She was expressing ideological kinship with him. The only part of her response that matters is the words "Well, yeah."
In January 2007, the smear that President Obama attended a "madrassa" as a boy was sparked by a vague Internet report, then spread by Fox News, and finally debunked by CNN -- within the span of a week. Right-wing media figures have continued to push the smear for years, and CNN contributor Dana Loesch joined the ranks yesterday.
During Loesch's radio show, a caller said: "Obama said -- when he was talking about Romney -- he was saying that he wasn't born with a -- he was talking about himself -- wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But he was born with a Quran in his hand."
Instead of correcting the caller by pointing out that Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim, Loesch said: "Well, yeah, I mean, he did study -- he went to one of the madrassas over in Indonesia for a while. So he knows -- I mean, he -- which is kind of like the equivalent in Islam of a Catholic school in Catholicism. So there's that."
Back in 2007, Obama's campaign made clear that Obama spent two years in a predominantly Muslim school while living in Indonesia, but that he did not attend what Americans think of as a "madrassa."
While the word generally means "a Muslim school," the American media have most commonly applied the word to schools that sprang up in South Asia after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and engage in anti-Western "political indoctrination."
It was only a matter of time before conservative media rallied behind National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent. In the space of a few days, he has garnered support from CNN contributor Dana Loesch, Fox News host Mike Huckabee, and frequent Fox guest Lars Larson, who have defended the firebrand rocker and Washington Times columnist for recent comments he made about the Obama administration. Those comments alarmed the Secret Service enough to seek a meeting with Nugent. (The Secret Service has since announced that "the issue has been resolved" and the agency "does not anticipate any further action.")
During the NRA national convention on April 14, Nugent accused Obama of having a "vile, evil America-hating administration" that is "wiping its ass with the Constitution" and told the crowd that "[w]e need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November." He added: "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year."
Those comments, by the way, have now been scrubbed from the organization's official YouTube account and from the NRANews.com website.
Loesch, Huckabee, and Larson have denied that Nugent was making any kind of threat -- Nugent himself has disclaimed this point -- and by way of defense, have offered their own interpretations of what Nugent, whom they all referred to as a friend, was really saying. But in casting doubt and trying to deflect attention from the inflammatory comments, these commentators are fueling an old myth that Obama is a "gun grabber" out to "take away" Nugent's freedoms and Americans' guns.
Regardless, why would it be OK for Nugent to stoke fears that Obama will come for Americans' guns and liberties -- and that people will die as a result? How this is acceptable is anyone's guess.
Today, CNN highlighted comments National Rifle Association board member and Washington Times columnist Ted Nugent made on Dana Loesch's radio show but repeatedly avoided telling viewers that Loesch is a paid CNN contributor. Nugent appeared on Loesch's show yesterday to defend his inflammatory comments about the Obama administration, saying he stood by his remarks at the NRA and that his message had been "100 percent positive."
Speaking at the NRA national convention on April 14, Nugent accused President Obama of having a "vile, evil America-hating administration" that is "wiping its ass with the Constitution." He went on to tell the crowd that "[w]e need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November" and said: "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year." Politico reported that the Secret Service heard Nugent's comments and is "conducting an appropriate follow-up."
During the Loesch interview, Nugent added more derogatory comments about Democrats, describing Democratic chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as a "brain-dead, soulless, heartless idiot," and saying that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi was a "sub-human scoundrel."
Loesch also accused Democrats of "using" Nugent "to distract from the president's low poll numbers, the disaster with Fast & Furious, which I know was a topic as well at NRA, at the convention, Solyndra, high gas prices." She added: "You're a scapegoat. They're trying to suggest that you said something that you emphatically did not say."
She later told Nugent:
LOESCH: You made this statement that well, "if Barack Obama becomes president in November again, I'll either be dead or in jail by this time next year." I think, quite honestly, most -- every conservative would be in jail because we wouldn't be going along with the Obamacare mandates.
In reporting on the comments, CNN's early morning show, Early Start, did note that Loesch is a "CNN contributor and tea party activist" during the 5:00 and 6:00 am ET hour. But after that, CNN repeatedly neglected to mention Loesch's affiliation with CNN.
CNN either described Loesch as a "conservative talk show host" or did not identify her at all.
Progressive legislators have consistently supported policies that benefit mothers and pregnant women, from passing the Affordable Care Act to supporting family leave legislation and funding for Planned Parenthood. Yet in spite of this record, right-wing media are leveling baseless accusations that progressives have launched a "war on moms."
From the April 12 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:
Loading the player ...
From the April 5 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:
Loading the player ...
From the April 3 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:
Loading the player ...
Person-who-is-employed-by-CNN Dana Loesch seems to think she's discovered evidence of "voter fraud" and caught Media Matters in a "FAIL," per the online parlance.
Pointing to reports four Democratic officials in Indiana have been charged with "forging of Democratic presidential primary petitions in the 2008 election," Loesch writes that this October 2011 Media Matters blog post explaining how those allegations of petition fraud were not "voter fraud" was somehow incorrect -- the "fail" declaimed by the headline. Our reasoning at the time for claiming that "petition fraud" and "voter fraud" are two different things was that they're actually two different things, much in the same way an apple is not an orange, nor a bicycle a sledgehammer.
Here's what we said at the time: "The alleged crimes are serious and should be investigated and any perpetrators punished. But the alleged crimes are not voter fraud, no matter how much Fox wants them to be."
As of yesterday, those Democrats have been charged with petition fraud, which is still not voter fraud.