Appearance by Andrew Breitbart Employee Canceled By Illinois Policy Institute

Last Friday, The Illinois Policy Institute disinvited Dana Loesch, the editor of Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism site, from a breakfast event that was to be held over the weekend on Saturday.

The Illinois Policy Institute was holding the event in conjunction with the Independent Women’s Forum and Smart Girl Politics and was to be a “discussion on women, liberty, and America’s future.”

Loesch was disinvited due to a small controversy over what she said Friday on her Saint Louis-based radio show on KFTK 97.1 FM. Loesch took umbrage over those criticizing U.S. Marines that were filmed urinating on the corpses of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.

Loesch was incensed at those complaining about the conduct of our soldiers and went into one of her patented rants about how she didn’t care if our solders urinated on the corpses of our enemies. “I’d drop trou and do it too,” she said of the incident.

Loesch went on to say, “Do I have a problem with that as a citizen of the United States? No I don’t.”

During the rest of that Friday many progressive sites (like Politico) went after Loesch for her comments.

Loesch herself has said that the left’s attack on her is all unfair. “There is a difference in advocating for the Marines to break the law, which I didn’t do, and defending them from overly-dramatic hysteria,” she said.

Sadly, this faux controversy gave the Illinois Policy Institute cold feet for the weekend breakfast meeting and they told her she was no longer welcome at the event. Worse, the group never even made a public comment on the disinvitation. They just, in the dead of night, disinvited her.

FTR Radio had the opportunity to interview Andrew Breitbart this weekend and got his reaction to the disinvitation of his editor. Needless to say, he felt the Illinois Policy Institute had abandoned “our own” with its actions.

“It’s one thing to not having people coming to your defense, it’s another thing to watch — as they are with Dana Loesch — throwing her under the bus actively. And there’s a group, I believe it’s called the Illinois Policy Institute, built an entire event around fundraising to bring people in to see Dana speak today, on Saturday. And just last night they disinvited her because of the pressure coming from Politico making it its number one story, Huffington Post making it one of its top stories, this is part of the activist left making a mountain out of a mole hill.”

Andrew is exactly right. We need to stand behind our own and get a little perspective in this fight against the left. Loesch’s comments were not the sort of outrageous comments that should have gotten her disinvited from the event. This is not to say that we should stick by anyone that is ostensibly on our side no matter what outrageous thing they say. But let’s not fold like a cheap tent with every tiny controversy, shall we?

What Dana Loesch said was nothing compared to things said by the left in America. And they never disown theirs. Why are we so quick to throw ours under the bus?

I’ve known Dana for several years, now, and have also posted many times at under her editorship. She’s a firebrand prone to humorous rants used to make her conservative points. But she is not someone that we should be ashamed of. She is not our version of a Ed Schultz, for instance. By his measure, she is tame, indeed.

The Illinois Policy Institute should be ashamed for its weak spine.

** UPDATE **

Dana Loesch Replies to the Illinois Policy Institute’s Disinvite

"You are defying the King holiday. Shame, Shame, Shame. This is a racist act"
Occupy Wall Street Stealing From The Poor to Give to Themselves!
  • Piss on ’em.

    • GarandFan

      Rats!  Beat me to it Rodney!  🙂

  • Commander_Chico

    Well, of course she COULD join the Marines, but has “other priorities.”

    • warnertoddhuston

      … and that has anything to do with anything… how? Or do you just type to see your name on the page?

      • Some things in life, chicka most certainly among them, are best ignored.

      • Commander_Chico

        Well, she says that she would like to piss on dead Afghans, why doesn’t she take steps toward going to Afghanistan and getting the opportunity to do it?

        I am disgusted with the vulgar grandstanding by both the likes of Loesch, who never served and has no idea of the requirements of military discipline, and by the fake outrage of Clinton and Panetta, who are prejudicing any fair consideration over the cases of the Marines.

        How could those Marines ever get a fair hearing? I say give them Article 15s/”Office Hours” and be done with it.

        When you send young people into war, bad things are going to happen. Clinton and Panetta are among those ordering them into war, do they expect etiquette? We call the dead “Taliban” when for all we know they are just guys pissed off about foreign invaders in their country. After you’ve killed someone, pissing on them is minor. I question why we are killing Afghans resisting our foreign occupation, but the Marines doing the work should not be scapegoated.

        • herddog505

          I agree with you about the Article 15.  Seems appropriate.

          But as for the rest, DO try to remember, will you, that this is NOT nineteenth century Prussia and people have a right to their opinions (yes, even on military affairs) despite having never worn the uniform.

          • Commander_Chico

            She’s got a right to speak, and I’ve got a right to point out her point of view is from ignorance.

            Although I’ve always been an admirer of 19th century Prussia.

          • herddog505

            No, you didn’t criticize her “ignorance”: you pulled the old chickenhawk argument.  Actually, you’ve doubled down on that: when leveled against Bush, Cheney et al, it was “if you haven’t served in combat, you can’t morally order other people to do so”.  Now, it’s “if you haven’t served in combat, you can’t even express a remotely valid opinion about it.”

            If you want to argue ignorance, then who other than the Marines themselves can speak about what they did and why?  How many people, even on active duty, have been in that EXACT situation?  Can Allen West opine about it?  David Petraeus?  Jean-Francois Kerry?

            What the Marines did was either right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable because of the act itself.  Their guilt or innocence is NOT determined by the personal history or qualifications of the person who makes the charge.  Further, because our national policy is set by civilians, it’s likely that many – probably most – of those responsible for it will NOT be combat veterans; their views will, to borrow your phrase, be “from ignorance”.

            As for Prussia, my admiration is limited to their army (the first truly professional one in modern history) and especially to the person of Moltke, who seems to have possessed a rare combination of professional skill, intelligence, vision and drive along with personal humility, charm, intellect, and rectitude; he was quite an admirable man.

          • Commander_Chico

            I object to civilians endorsing breakdowns in military discipline that work against the mission, no matter how relatively minor, just as I object to high ranking officers expressing opinions on pending cases.

            The act itself was wrong under military law. Law of War training is conducted in all of the services.  Media personalities who make rabble-rousing comments endorsing violations of the Law of War are not worthy of respect.

            As a visceral matter, tough-talking, bloodthirsty armchair warriors give me the creeps.

            I’d love to hear what the Marines say themselves. After a period of reflection, and when they’re outside the military and its constraints.

  • Wild_Willie

    Chico, Obama didn’t serve. By your barometer, he cannot criticize the troops either.

    She did exactly what Breitbart said she does, she ranted. She made a point. You put it in context. I have no criticism for her and I’m a veteran. ww

    • Commander_Chico

      Rants like hers can have an effect on military discipline and accomplishment of the mission.

  • I rather doubt they could empanel a Court that would convict them at Trial by Courts Martial, rather like the SEAL’s who refused flag grade NJP and demanded Trial over an alleged (all were acquitted) beating of a captured terrorist.  I’d give letters of reprimand to those video taped.  For the moron who taped it and whoever released / published the tape, I think reduction in rate (as far as the awarding officer can) would be called for.

    I further think the President should accept the resignations of Paneta and Clinton over this matter for having commented before an investigation could be completed.

    • Commander_Chico

      Exactly.  Improper command influence on a pending UCMJ case. Panetta has a habit of shooting his mouth off.

      I would give them all extra duty, deferred until two months after they come home.

      And I would do it quickly, so it’s not hanging over their heads while they’re in a war zone.

      • herddog505


  • Commander_Chico

    This article sums up why I find comments from a motormouth like Loesch on this so objectionable:

    • Jwb10001

      So let’s take away her right to speak by all means….. How about your right to call people chickenhawks can we take that away from you , your comments undermine civilian authority over the military and could lead to a military over throw of our govenment. … geez chico

      • @Jwb10001:disqus Please tell me you didn’t really expect logic or consistency from chicka…

        • hyperboliszt

          When you feminize someone’s name as an attempt at insulting them, you a) fail; and b) show the world that you have a low opinion of women.

      • Commander_Chico

        Did you read the S&S article?

        Hey, let me say this again, since you haven’t got it the last ten times I’ve said it: 

        When I say I despise comfortable civilian cheerleaders for breakdowns in military discipline that may end up getting more troops killed, I’m not taking away any “rights” from the cheerleaders. They can babble on.

        I’m not the State, I’m not the dictator.  Criticizing someone is not taking away their rights.  Calling them ignorant is not taking away their rights.  Saying they should join the Marines is not taking away their rights.

        • Jwb10001

          Oh so you don’t want to take anyone’s rights away you just want to put conditions on them?  I see. I know you can’t take people’s rights away but you’d like to just because they don’t measure up to your standards for speaking out.