Posted on 10/16/2017 6:34:11 PM PDT by markomalley
Galvanized by the uglier-by-the-minute Harvey Weinstein scandal, women across social media are sharing their personal stories about sexual harassment and assault, using the "#MeToo" hashtag. Among those speaking out is National Rifle Association spokeswoman and prominent conservative personality Dana Loesch -- who, for full disclosure, is also a friend of mine. She revealed to the world on Sunday that she and her family are abandoning their home under serious duress, stemming from a whirlwind of violent threats from anti-gun leftists, a number of which have been explicitly sexual in nature. No matter where one stands on the NRA agenda (I'm generally supportive, but sometimes take issue with the tone of their messaging and some of their decisions), this is utterly revolting and wrong:
She went on to add that there are more specific details of her ordeal that she can't discuss, stating that she and other outspoken female supporters of the Second Amendment "are sexually threatened regularly." (Incidentally, can anyone conceive of a less effective way to convince a woman that she's wrong about staunchly defending her gun rights than by threatening to rape her, or to harm her children?) Loesch proceeded to blast the double standard under which so-called 'feminists' turn a blind eye to flagrant, or even violent, sexism against conservative women: "Feminism should’ve defended women, regardless of party. Let ideas battle it out in the public sphere, but everyone speaks," she concluded. In response to her powerful tweetstorm, Loesch received a public message of support from a somewhat unlikely source:
Good for her. Loesch replied with an appreciative tweet, although many of the responses to Clinton's tweet baselessly accuse Loesch of lying. (This is something that another female conservative friend of mine can relate to. Whenever Mary Katharine Ham discusses her family's Obamacare nightmare in public -- and particularly on CNN -- liberals troll her social media feeds, insisting that she's inventing the story in order to score political points). Laudable as Chelsea Clinton's condemnation of horrific threats leveled against the Loesch family may be, there's another angle here. Loesch's tweets were generated in connection to the "#MeToo" trend regarding sexual assault and violence. Can Ms. Clinton explain why her family's foundation is refusing to return $250,000 in donations from America's most infamous serial predator?
The Clinton Foundation will not return or re-donate any of the $250,000 it received from disgraced film producer and Democratic donor Harvey Weinstein, saying the funds have been spent already. Democratic Party organizations have similarly been under pressure to return or donate money they received from Weinstein over the years. Some have donated the funds to organizations that work to combat sexual violence agains women, for example, but some have donated the money to Democratic Party-aligned groups. Weinstein gave over $35,000 to Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, and leading up to 2014, gave between $100,000 to $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has also been pressured to rid itself of Weinstein's money, but they have said that the money was already spent on projects, the Daily Mail reports.
She...does not seem eager to answer questions about this decision. On the heels of Chelsea's mother expressing horror over voters electing "a sexual assaulter" as president (see: the Access Hollywood tape and numerous accusers), I'll leave you with aggressively-liberal comedian Michael Ian Black's commentary on another living president:
By the way, do we have any confirmation that Hillary Clinton's promised charitable donation of her Weinstein money won't go to her own foundation? That's been the Clintons' self-dealing M.O. for years.
How telling that anti gun rights threaten murder and rape. Liberals showed a Republican baseball team that they are serious about violence and killing. Liberalism is a contagious mental disease.
rotten, despicable,and Paddock-crazy people ping..
I might’ve been a TAD calmer, and said “OK, bring it on, if you really truly want to get shot — isn’t that the whole point here?”
who can get this story to Hannity and Ingraham and Tucker?
Kinda what I thought. NRA spokesperson on the run. Too bad she doesn’t have a way to protect her and hers.
“Allagations “?????
Does Dana still work for Glenn Beck? What are his views on this if so?
I’m sure they have it by now.
This is making the rounds in the non-liberal media
Same with the NRA. What have they said?
Exactly right.
Lure them in and then bush whack them. Just like fish in a barrel.
Its called terrorism, and these people are terrorists to threaten her
Just like a Beck follower. Always a whiner. Are she and her husband armed, or what????
The point is to SAY it. Nobody’s “lured.” And chances are, 99.999% of those mouthing off about it are blowing off empty steam.
Said right, it’s to announce: “Hey, you’re proving my point here.” That ought to make them shrink in shame.
I am a charitable Christian or at least I try to be, and wouldn’t even want to shoot someone who could be fended off in any other manner.
I mean... whose attack could be fended off in any other manner... just to be consistent with another thread of mine going at this point.
That doesn’t even mean being unkind to the person. There are a lot of gracious things that can be said in the power of God that can cause a would-be enemy to rethink.
Indeed - should have simply said. “You understand the “R” in NRA stands for RIFLE, right?”
Good idea... Invite armed terrorists into a residential neighborhood. The idea is to be able to protect yourself as a last result. I'll go with Mas Ayoob's philosophy that it's your responsibility to try to AVOID being in a confrontation, except as a last result.
Mark
Yes. She is armed.
The NRA is at war. It needs to hire more fighting MEN who are not as vulnerable to that type of pressure. If that sounds sexist, cry me a river.
Violent gun-grabbers? Am as shocked as I was when Rosie O’Donnell came out of the closet.
“...Violent gun-grabbers?...”
That’s... kindasortalike... WHY we have guns in the first place, ain’t it?
Fight crime. Shoot back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.