Dana Loesch, Good Christian Bitch, Explains Why Chick-fil-A Had Nothing To Do with “Kill the Gays” in Uganda
Dana Loesch, as Tea Party whack-jobs go, is nothing special. It’s only fair to say, though, that she is one of the few members of her, um, cohort who is more-or-less presentable enough to be placed in front of a TV camera without scraping her knuckles on the floor, breathing through her mouth, or raving about how UFOs kidnapped Elvis because of America’s godless abandonment of the 2nd Amendment, and she’s clearly hoping that jock-sniffing the likes of Andrew Breitbart (dead, but then again, not nearly dead enough) and the other stars of the right-wing-fundamentalist media firmament will be a career-builder. (Look out Anne Coulter. There’s a new media whore in town!)
On August 2nd, in any case, Loesch exasperatedly explained to all the mental giants trolling the Breitbart-branded “Big Journalism” site that “No, Chick-Fil-A Did Not Support Legislation To Kill Gays.”
Now, it’s no surprise where Loesch stands on the Chick-fil-A issue. What’s maddening, though, is that Loesch has the gall to allege that she has “debunked” lies about the Chick-fil-A/Family Research Council/Uganda bill connection and to claim that she “deals in truth” (unlike those “progressive websites” that just spin a pack of lies all day long). And yes, folks, life is just as simple and as black-and-white is that. Dana Loesch = truth. Anyone to the left of Anders Behring Breivik = a goddamned socialist liar.
I’m not going to link to Loesch’s article because, really, reading it is only going to lower your IQ, and I’d like to save you from that. Google it if you care. (Remember what the research shows, though: Being a conservative doesn’t make you stupid; being stupid makes you a conservative.)
But here’s the gist of it. According to Loesch, the Family Research Council, aided by $25,000 in Chick-fil-A funding, did lobby on a 2010 congressional resolution condemning Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” law, but only to “remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right” and to make sure the resolution would be “more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill.” See? All Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, and the loathsome Tony Perkins of the FRC care about is accuracy.
OK, Dana, you smarmy, self-righteous little Teahadi propaganda puppet, let’s consider this hypothetical situation.
Let’s say your neighbor publicly announces his intention to kill you because he thinks your Laura Nyro hairdo is an abomination before god. (Frankly, I kind of have to agree. I mean, I understand, given your fucked-up politics, that you don’t actually have any gay friends to advise you, but that’s no reason to take styling tips from Jersey Shore. Sorry; I digress.)
Anyway. He writes his intentions down all nice and clear and posts them on a big sign on his front lawn. Amazingly, no one does anything. So a bunch of your neighbors, concerned about the danger to you and about the lack of a response from law enforcement, begin a petition drive to pressure the police to take action. Among other things, the petition states that it is universally recognized human right that people should be able to wear their hair in any way they choose, without fear of threat or reprisal.
On behalf of a group of hairdressers, I intervene and give 25,000 bucks to a PR firm that promises to lobby the mayor’s office, arguing that the police should ignore the petition and take no action against your neighbor. My reasoning is that there are many circumstances under which there are legitimate and righteous reasons for disapproving of certain hairstyles (in the military, in the Wal*Mart personnel office, at your local Hassidic Chabad house, etc.) Thus, the petition is not only inaccurate, it is harmful to hairdressers, who make their living by helping people choose appropriate and virtuous haircuts. My PR firm does a good job, the petition is quashed, and nobody in your town does a thing about the threat.
Now let’s apply this to the, um, reasoning in your delirious, dishonest blog post.
First, in the sweepstakes of Meaningless Technicalities, you’re right – but only because of the deceitful way you’ve posed the question: No, Chick-fil-A didn’t support legislation to kill gays. (Of course, it didn’t. Because Chick-fil-A is in the United States. And Uganda is in … Uganda. So lobbyists in the U.S. wouldn’t actually be pressuring our Congressional representatives to vote on legislation pending in the Ugandan parliament, would they? See how that works?)
Otherwise, though, it’s just like in the example above: I didn’t support your neighbor’s intention to kill you. Not directly.
Similarly, all Chick-fil-A did was fund the Family Research Council, which acted (successfully) to make sure Congress issued no condemnation of Uganda’s Death Penalty for Gays bill.
In other words, I got your neighbors’ petition ignored and I blocked the police from taking action against the death threat. But I didn’t do those things because I wanted you dead — (No, really! I would never want such a thing. I’m a CHRISTIAN!) — but because your neighbors said something about hair care that I disagreed with.
End result, you’re dead (too bad; so sad), but don’t point fingers at me! I was just exercising my free speech!
I could spend entire days responding to the lies that you and your Teahadi minions spawn like evil Alien eggs all over the internet, but I chose you, sweet, microcephalic Dana, because your attempt to pass your bigoted verbal diarrhea off as a more reasonable, more truthful version of the Chick-fil-A story – as the accurate version, may God have mercy on your little GCB soul – is like me saying I’m a better swimmer than Michael Phelps because I once pissed in Andrew Breitbart’s pool.
Apparently you believe that Chick-fil-A’s few degrees of separation from the Uganda bill are sufficient to deflect the charge that Dan Cathy’s money went to help Uganda promote the murder of gay people. Similarly, you evidently believe – fearless warrior of the intellect that you are –that your own over-manicured hands are also clean. But they aren’t. I can smell the stench of chicken grease and moral corruption from here.