Thursday, January 31, 2013



Americans Against the Tea Party

“Responsible” Gun Owner Points Assault Rifle At Daughter Over Her Grades (video)

Kirill Bartashevitch, 52, of St. Paul, Minnesota was arrested for allegedly pointing his newly purchased assault rifle during an argument with his 15 year old daughter over her report card. Also found in the home on January 24th, a 9-millimeter, ammunition and receipts showing that Bartashevitch sold two assault rifles on January 22nd to two different local gun dealers: Bill’s Gun Shop, and Frontiersman Sport, Inc. Bill’s Gun Shop confirmed that Bartashevitch sold them an AK-47 style gun (7.62X54R) for $150. The other gun, a Cal-Zastava PAP 70 7.62X39 (AK-47-type), was sold to Frontiersman Sport, Inc. for $375. Bartashevich faces two charges of terroristic threats. No word on whether the Gun Owners Of America, or the NRA will pay for his defense.
Bartashevitch AATTP



Soledad O’Brien SLAMS TEApublican: Minorities Don’t Like GOP! AWESOME! (video)

AATTP Soledad O'brien
Soledad O’Brien knocks another interview out of the park, completely destroying a TEApublican’s claim that minority voters don’t “know” the GOP, but instead know exactly who and what they are – and just don’t like them. Former RNC Chair Mel Martinez spins his wheels trying to whitewash his party’s racism and bigotry. Soledad doesn’t let him get away with it saying, “You say it’s because they don’t know you. But could it be that they do know you, and they’ve decided they don’t like you?”


Oh the insanity and inanity of Hannity! The trite, banal and insipid Fucktard!


Sean Hannity completely loses it, when he gets confronted by a senior reporter at Think Progress on cowardly backing out of his offer to be waterboarded back in 2009.
Here is the audio:
Transcript via Think Progress:
SCOTT KEYES: Before we get started I wanted to say one quick thing. Back in April 2009, you’d made a very generous offer. To prove that it’s not torture, you agreed on your television show to be waterboarded for charity and to donate the proceeds to the troops’ families.
HANNITY: I said Charles Grodin could do it. Sean, when are you planning to hold the event?
HANNITY: You’re obviously taping this. I’m not getting into your five-year-old issue. Here I am bringing you on the program and give you an opportunity to give your pretty radical left-wing point of view, that’s kind of the way you treat me. But that’s all right.
KEYES: Sean, I’m just curious because you don’t think this is torture.
HANNITY: Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. I get to ask the questions on the program.
GRODIN: You’re for torture.
HANNITY: I am for enhanced interrogation.
GRODIN: You don’t believe it’s torture. Have you ever been waterboarded?
HANNITY: No, but Ollie North has.
GRODIN: Would you consent to be waterboarded? We can waterboard you?
GRODIN: Are you busy on Sunday?
HANNITY: I’ll do it for charity. I’ll let you do it. I’ll do it for the troops’ families.
This is why right wing media doesn’t like having guests on from the left or middle. Hannity, like his guests, is used to never being called out on anything. When someone from the left or middle invades the conservative bubble of ignorance, their world dissolves into chaos. Their only response is to label the questioner a radical left winger. It sounds like Hannity was this close to screaming socialist and running out of the room.
Hannity offered to be waterboarded for the “troops’ families,” and then he showed his cowardice by rewriting the history of the offer to claim that he never made it. He is not only letting his fans down. He is hurting the troops. Sorry Sean, you offered to be waterboarded. America is waiting for you to follow through on your promise. A true patriot wouldn’t let his country down like this.
Come on, Hannity. Waterboarding isn’t torture, right? So wrap yourself in the flag and do it for the troops.



A state senator in Idaho is expressing her distaste for President Obama’s health care reform law by drawing a comparison between the private insurance companies participating in Obamacare and the “Jews boarding the trains to concentration camps” during the Holocaust.
According to Sen. Sheryl Nuxoll (R), Idaho should refuse to set up a state-run health exchange under Obamacare because, although the federal government is using private insurers for the time being, the Obama administration will eventually “pull the trigger” on those companies to establish a socialistic health care system.
Nuxoll posted her comments on Twitter, as well as included them in an email blast to 120 supporters:
The insurance companies are creating their own tombs. Much like the Jews boarding the trains to concentration camps, private insurers are used by the feds to put the system in place because the federal government has no way to set up the exchange.Based on legislation and the general process that is written toward this legislation, the federal government will want nothing to do with private insurance companies. The feds will have a national system of health insurance and they will eliminate the insurance companies.
When the Idaho Spokesman-Review asked Nuxoll to clarify her comments, she doubled down on them. Nuxoll said she didn’t mean to disrespect any group of people with her analogy, and explained she said itbecause “I felt badly for the Jews — it wasn’t just Jews, but Jews, and Christians, and Catholics, and priests. My thing was they didn’t know what was going on. The insurance companies are not realizing what’s going to end up in their demise.”
Idaho’s Senate President Pro-Tem, Brent Hill (R), also stood behind Nuxoll. “This is a very emotional issue for a lot of people,” Hill told the Spokesman-Review. “There’s a lot of ‘stuff’ going around, a lot of information, a lot of viewpoints being expressed. As we get closer to making that decision, the rhetoric’s going to get more dramatic.”
While Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R) is a vocal critic of health care reform, he has agreed to set up a state-run exchange under Obamacare because he has acknowledged it will allow Idaho to retain more control over its own insurance market. The federal government will simply step in and set up exchanges in the states that refuse to do so themselves. Obamacare’s health exchanges, along with the health law’s optional Medicaid expansion, seek to extend health care to an estimated 30 million low-income Americans who are currently uninsured.

Monday, January 28, 2013




By Zack Beauchamp ( 

Legislation aimed at reducing gun violence is “a limitation on a God-given right of man that has existed throughout the history of civil society,” according to an article published in the leading conservative opinion journal National Review.

The author, David French, interprets the Christian Bible as granting everyone a right to self-defense. He suggests that this, if true, means that God’s will is that people have access to guns, as they are the means for self defense:

In fact, Jesus’s disciples carried swords, and Jesus even said in some contexts the unarmed should arm themselves…What does all this mean? Essentially that gun control represents not merely a limitation on a constitutional right but a limitation on a God-given right of man that has existed throughout the history of civil society. All rights — of course — are subject to some limits (the right of free speech is not unlimited, for example), and there is much room for debate on the extent of those limits, but state action against the right of self-defense is by default a violation of the natural rights of man, and the state’s political judgment about the limitations of that right should be viewed with extreme skepticism and must overcome a heavy burden of justification.

Even if French is right about the Christian view of self-defense (though Jesus did have choice words about “turning the other cheek“), it’s a logical fallacy to say this implies anything about restrictions on access to guns. Saying that people have a right to defend themselves if attacked isn’t the same thing as saying they should have a right to possess any conceivable means of defending themselves – presumably, French is fine with banning grenade launchers. The burden, instead, is on French to prove that universal background checks or limitations on assault weapon ownership somehow prevent people from defending themselves; to prove, in other words, that gun regulation is actually a restriction on the right of self-defense proper rather than a crime-prevention statute.

Moreover, French is wrong about the role of “self-defense” in a democracy. He cites John Locke, enlightenment philosopher and inspiration for the American Revolution, to suggest that gun rights are “fundamental rights of nature.” But as Ari Kohen, a professor of political theory at the University of Nebraska, points out, French radically misinterprets Locke:

But for people to establish a political community, Locke asserts that people must give up to the government their natural right to punish criminal behavior and agree to have the government settle grievances. This is why we have standing laws that are meant to be applied equally by independent officers of the law and by the courts.

Locke, as Kohen says, held that our right to use force was necessarily limited by the creation of legitimate government — that’s why we have police. This means that the government can limit access to certain weapons as means of discharging its responsibility to keep the peace. While the government may not be able to legitimately ban you from say, killing a home invader who’s brandishing a gun, it also can take reasonable steps to prevent criminals from being able to threaten you with arms in the first place without having to overcome a “heavy burden of justification.”

This isn’t the first questionable gun piece published in National Review. After the Newtown shooting, its editors suggested that mass school shootings were the price we pay for the Second Amendment. One of its writers, Charlotte Allen, infamously wrote that the Newtown massacre happened because there were too many female teachers.




Man accidentally shoots himself during argument with teen

Times Staff Report
Published: Friday, January 25, 2013 at 6:38 p.m.
A 27-year-old man accidentally shot himself Thursday after starting an argument with and then pointing the weapon at a juvenile, according to a press release from Gadsden Police Capt. Bobby Jackson.

A 17-year-old male told police he was at a friend’s house on Shahan Street when the older man asked him to step into a room to talk. The juvenile said the man accused him of breaking into his house and pulled out a pistol and pointed it at his head. They struggled and the gun went off, striking the 27-year-old in the arm.

Both men ran off in different directions and both eventually went to the emergency room for treatment. The investigation is ongoing.


comments_image 613 COMMENTS

Man Shopping With Rifle, Glock at Utah JC Penney "Pretty Much an Idiot"

If you have to scare the pants off of shoppers with your intimidating AR-15, your Glock, and your abundance of ammo to prove they're not scary, then they're scary.
Photo Credit: Cindy Yorgason
If you have to bring big, dangerous guns to a store to prove that “they are not dangerous in the hands of law abiding citizens,” then that pretty much proves that they are dangerous… in anyone’s hands.
If you have to scare the pants off of shoppers with your intimidating AR-15, your Glock, and your abundance of ammo to prove they’re not scary, then they’re scary.
Just ask Cindy Yorgason, who was shopping at a Utah JC Penney store when she glanced up and saw Mr. 22-Year-Old Gun Guy standing in front of her schlepping a big ol’ rifle. Then she noticed his ammunition clips and another firearm in his holster. So what’s an unnerved woman to do? She grabbed a couple of photos and posted them on Facebook.
They went viral.
The Salt Lake City Tribune (link isn’t working, sorry) is reporting that a clerk refused him service and all nearby customers wanted to “get away” from him. Gee, can’t imagine why.
Gun Guy had been in the military, had a concealed-carry permit, and had checked with police dispatch prior to his little outing. They confirmed to him that he had the right to parade around with his oh-so-harmless portable arsenal, which he says he carries to protect his kids and everyone else from “criminals, cartels, drug lords” and other “evil men.”
As Olive Oyl would say, “What a man!”
At least that’s what he seems to think of himself.
Wait… so there are no evil women? And who knew drug lords shopped at JC Penney?
Yorgason said the following about The Self-Appointed Protector: “ I thought that he was pretty much an idiot. You do not need to do something like this even if you are against any potential bans.”
GottaLaff is a regular blogger for Cliff Schecter's Blog

Saturday, January 26, 2013



Man accidentally shoots own penis, testicle

 | By  |7 comments
© stock.xchng
An 18-year-old has shot himself in the penis and left testicle.

Michael Smeriglio in Port St. Lucie, Florida was cleaning his new gun when he accidentally pulled the trigger.

The bullet lodged itself in his thigh after traveling through his genitals, according to WTSP.

At first, Smeriglio - now recovering from the injury - lied to police claiming another person shot him before admitting he did it himself.

Investigating the scene of the accident, police found marijuana in the house leading to the arrest of 22-year-old homeowner Joseph Lamar James.

Last year, Joshua Seto shot himself in the penis while grocery shopping in Chandler, Arizona.


Man arrested after accidentally shooting own penis

 | By  |2 comments
© Rex Features
A man in Trinidad and Tobago has been arrested by police after accidentally shooting his own penis.

The 33-year-old security guard was caught illegally carrying a gun without a licence.

The gunshot from his .38-calibre weapon prompted a nearby resident to contact authorities at around 8am, reports theTrinidad and Tobago Guardian.

When police arrived, they found the man bleeding in his car.

He received treatment at San Fernando General Hospital under police guard.

It is not the first time a man has shot his own penis. An 18-year-old in Florida accidentally fired while cleaning his weapon last year, while an Arizona man shot himself in the groin with his fiancĂ©e's pink pistol in 2011.

Read more:
Follow us: @digitalspy on Twitter | digitalspyuk on Facebook


For The Sixth Time In One Week, Man Shot At Gun Show

Gun activists designated last Saturday “Gun Appreciation Day” in an attempt to highlight their opposition to gun safety laws. The PR stunt proved to be more of an embarrassment, however, when 5 people were shot at 3 different gun shows on Gun Appreciation Day. On Friday afternoon, an Iowa gun dealer closed out the week by becoming the sixth person shot at a gun show. The man claims he was “showing off a .25 caliber pistol he thought was unloaded when he slid the action of the gun.” The gun was not unloaded, and a bullet went through his left palm.
After this incident, police found a second loaded weapon on the wounded gun dealer’s table.



There are times when listening to right-wing ideologues quote (and misquote) the Bible in support of their political agenda offers almost a perverse moment or two of comic relief. Today is not exactly one of those times.
In the latest installment of Republicans/Tea Partiers talking Biblical smack, we bring you the wit and wisdom of Mike O’Neal, GOP speaker of the Kansas House of Representatives. O’Neal, who dabbles in theology when not gaveling lawmakers to order, decided to quote the Good Book recently in regard to President Obama.
According to Brent Wistrom of the Wichita Eagle, O’Neal thought it would be funny to send out an e-mail to other Republicans in need of a bit of levity. O’Neal quoted Psalm 109:8, albeit a little roughly, and applied it to Mr. Obama:  “Let his days be few and brief; and let others step forward to replace him.”
As Wistrom points out the Bible quote “has been used on bumper stickers and widely circulated on the Internet.” But the context from the King James Version of the Bible has been pointed out by critics. The next verse, which was not in the e-mail, reads, “May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.’”
When a pair of Topeka ministers got wind of the e-mail and somehow failed to appreciate O’Neal’s sparkling humor, they quickly gathered 30,000 signatures on online petitions, calling for the budding comedian to step down. O’Neal did some quick back pedaling, like Pharaoh’s soldiers before the Red Sea came crashing down over them. He apologized to the House Republican Caucus. He apologized to House members individually. He said he felt bad, real bad. In a brief statement released by his staff he explained that — of course — he respected “both the President and the Office.” The statement continued:  “The forward contained a single verse and was only intended as election commentary regarding the President’s days in office. I have apologized, and I am sincerely sorry.”

“He also faced criticism [a few months ago] for forwarding an e-mail that compared a photograph of first lady Michelle Obama with windswept hair to the Grinch and referred to Mrs. Obama as ‘Mrs. YoMama’.”
Of course, we all realize by now that the right-wing fringe loves to quote the Bible when it serves their purposes. Still, as one Topeka minister noted, “If the Scripture is going to be used in this way, it ought to be used competently.”
That’s the key, really.
If you’re going to thump the Bible, you ought to thump it competently. Let it be your guide when making all kind of political decisions. (Well, maybe not when it comes to burning witches.) How about raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans?
“And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)
See? Raising taxes on the top 1% (people like the billionaire Koch brothers) isn’t creeping socialism? You’re actually doing them a positive good. You’re increasing their chances of getting to heaven.
You can quote to good purpose on all kinds of present day issues. What about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s lousy 47%, those “moochers” on welfare, and the whole right-wing orthodoxy of makers vs. takers?
Like Zipporah, let’s go to the well again:
“Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:  and come and follow me.”  (Matthew 19:21)
How about health care for all? What would God’s only Son say about Obamacare?
“And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.”
“And his fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.”  (Matthew 4:23 and 4:24)
This was before HMO’s. So Christ healed the lepers and gave sight to the blind without asking for co-pays and cast out devils even in cases where possession was a pre-existing condition.
You can dig into the Bible on just about any page and find lessons that can still be applied thousands of years later. It just depends on which pages and which lessons. Take Wall Street reform — here you have the whole story of Jesus entering the temple and overthrowing the tables of moneychangers.
What about that deal with the five loaves and two fishes? You kind of figure Jesus would oppose any cuts to the school lunch program.
What about gun control? What about the new “castle doctrine” so popular with conservative lawmakers? What about turning the other cheek instead of opening fire? St. Matthew says Jesus would be for it (5:39) and so does St. Luke (6:29) if you check a little farther. As for cuts to defense spending and increased funding for, oh, say, the Head Start program, maybe O’Neal could consider the whole concept of beating swords into ploughshares and spears into pruning hooks (Isaiah 2:4).
Who knows, if Speaker O’Neal and his class of politicians would only dig a little deeper into the Good Book they might even uncover a verse that applies to reasonable limits in regard to gun ownership under the Second Amendment.