Ex-NRA leader compares assault weapons ban to racial discrimination

By Arturo Garcia/Raw Story

The former president of the National Rifle Association invoked both conspiracy theories and racial discrimination to decry a potential ban on assault weapons on an NRA radio show Friday.

“Banning people and things because of the way they look went out a long time ago,” Marion Hammer told host Ginny Simone. “But here they are again. The color of a gun. The way it looks. It’s just bad politics.”

According to Media Matters, Hammer’s interview was in response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) proposed ban, which is based on a firearm’s capacity, rather than its appearance.

However, Simone encouraged Hammer’s inaccurate claim.

“They even admit this is about banning the ugliest guns, it’s about cosmetics and it has nothing to do about how a firearm works,” the host said.

As Feinstein explained in a press release last month, her proposed ban — a revival of legislation she authored that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 — names specific types of “military-style” weapons, while exempting both legally-bought weapons and weapons specifically used for hunting.

Hammer said the previous law “paled in comparison” to Feinstein’s new proposal, a response to last month’s mass school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in which the gunman used an AR-15 assault rifle, among other weapons.

“We’ve tried to tell people that in order to control the masses they have to take your guns,” she insisted. “We saw it in Cuba. I mean we have so many Cuban-Americans who understand. But there are just too many people who don’t believe it can happen here. And I hope they are right, but in order to keep it from happening here it’s going to be a massive, expensive and long fight.”

Watch Hammer’s interview with Simone, as posted by Media Matters on Friday, here.

Republican Congressman Claims Hammers Could Be Outlawed Under Assault Weapons Ban

By Scott Keyes/Think Progress
A Republican congressman lambasted the push for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, stating on Friday that if lawmakers wanted to ban assault weapons, they would have to outlaw “hammers” and “machetes” as well.

Appearing on the Dennis Miller Show, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) told guest host Larry O’Connor that he “refuse[s] to play the game of ‘assault weapon.’ That’s any weapon,” said the Texas congressman. “It’s a hammer. It’s the machetes.”

O’CONNOR: I want to ask you a question about one of your colleagues, Rep. Peter King in New York. He’s a very passionate guy, a great defender, he’s a great patriot. But he’s on board with this assault weapons ban. He was actually on MSNBC yesterday, openly saying, “I don’t understand why anybody would need an assault weapon.” I personally get nervous whenever a politician is asking me as a citizen why I need my right, but can you answer that question for your colleague? He might need some help here. Why would anyone need an assault weapon as they’re defining it?

GOHMERT: I refuse to play the game of “assault weapon.” That’s any weapon. It’s a hammer. It’s the machetes. In Rwanda that killed 800,000 people, an article that came out this week, the massive number that are killed with hammers.

Listen to it:

According to the FBI, in 2010, there were 8,775 people who were murdered with guns, compared to 540 people who were killed with blunt objects, a small minority of which were people armed with hammers. The exponentially-higher number of people killed by guns also includes many innocent people killed by indiscriminate gunfire, such as drive-by shootings. After all, there are no “drive-by hammerings.”

Still, hammers are not the only “weapon” that conservatives are equating with firearms in an attempt to undermine any gun control legislation. A state representative in New Hampshire,warned of another deadly weapon: credit cards. “Anything can be used as a deadly weapon, said Rep. Dan Dumaine (R). “A credit card can be used to cut somebody’s throat.”

Newly Elected Republican Says Government Should Be Less Involved In Disaster Relief

By Igor Volsky/Think Progress

Newly-elected Rep. Trey Radel (R-FL), who ran his campaign on a pledge to cut spending and reduce the debt, said on Friday that he would vote to increase borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Program by $9.7 billion to help victims of Hurricane Sandy, but argued that disaster relief is best left to the private sector.

Appearing on CNN, Radel explained that government does have a role to play in the aftermath of natural disasters, but argued that people are too dependent on Washington for federal funding:

HOST: Will you in favor of the $61 billion Sandy aid bill today?

RADEL: Yes, I will. This is the national flood insurance program, it is something promised by the federal government and we need to release those funds to the people that are suffering in the northeast. … But ultimately, what we need to be doing, at the federal level, is weaning people off the federal government and allowing this not to just be left up to the states, but ultimately up to the private sector.

HOST: So you want to pass FEMA off to the private sector? You don’t think the government should be involved in federal relief at all?

RADEL: It should in some areas, but this is a case of insurance, just like in Florida, where you even have state-run programs that are out of control such as citizens where again, I’m sure you’ve covered many times, it ends up where middle class families end up paying for insurance for multimillionaires to have their homes on the beaches. It’s just not fair. We need to allow it to be in the private sector.

Watch it:

The private sector does play an important role in relief, but it cannot single-handedly finance or organize national disaster preparedness. For instance, while Walmart donated $25 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, the company’s aid made-up only a small fraction of thehundreds of billions of dollars the federal government spent in the aftermath of the tragedy. FEMA director Craig Fugate has embraced a “whole community approach to emergency management nationally,” integrating “all aspects of a community (volunteer, faith, and community-based organizations, the private sector, and the public, including survivors themselves).” But ultimately, only the federal government can coordinate and organize disaster response that spans across state lines and inflicts billions of dollars in damage.

Washington is even more directly involved in providing flood insurance to vulnerable populations. The federal government established the National Flood Insurance Program in 1968, after private insurers deemed the peril of floods “uninsurable,” noting that they couldn’t possibly “earn excess premiums to cover their cost of capital (they have to pre-fund losses), whereas the U.S. government can easily borrow money to cover catastrophic flood events after they occur.” It can also require homeowners in flood hazard areas to purchase insurance and avoid the problem of adverse selection (wherein only high-risk homeowners buy coverage) that private insurers face.

The program is far from perfect, but if it’s disbanded, Randel’s Florida constituents, some of whom undoubtedly live in flood-prone areas, would be left with no insurance at all.

Report: States With Stand Your Ground Laws See More Homicides

By Rebecca Leber/Think Progress

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and others like it have gained notoriety since the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin and a number of other similar cases. The laws, which exist in two dozen states, give gun-holders more authority to shoot and kill in self-defense and police wide latitude for interpretation.

Over a 10-year period there was an 8 percent increase in homicides in the states that passed Stand Your Ground laws, according to new research from Texas A&M University. The law did not deter burglary, robbery or assault either.

As to why this is the case, economist Mark Hoekstra told NPR that Stand Your Groundencourages more lethal force by lowering its costs:

“One possibility for the increase in homicide is that perhaps [in cases where] there would have been a fistfight … now, because of stand your ground laws, it’s possible that those escalate into something much more violent and lethal.”

In some instances the National Rifle Association has literally subsidized this cost by handling perpetrators’ legal bills in Stand Your Ground cases.

Undeterred By Court Order, Iowa Official Tries Again To Push Through Voter Purge

By Nicole Flatow/Think Progress

When Secretary of State Matt Schultz attempted to purge voters from the rolls in advance of the November 2012 election, a county judgetemporarily blocked the move, finding that the rules issued by Schultz created fear and uncertainty and could deter legitimate voters. But that risk of voter suppression hasn’t stopped Schultz from proposing a new slightly tweaked rule to remove registered voters in the name of alleged voter fraud.

The rule would allow Schultz’s office to challenge the legitimacy of registered voters who are listed as noncitizens in the Department of Transportation database. Citing a DOT list of some 3,000 registered voters labeled noncitizens, Schultz said, “I have to do something. I can’t just sit back and do nothing when we know people are taking advantage of the system.”

But Schultz’s testimony just last month before the Senate Judiciary Committee shows that he doesn’t know people are taking advantage of the system. When probed by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) for evidence of voter fraud, Schultz cited just six arrests — not convictions – out of 1.6 million votes cast. And this was after a special agent was designated to specifically target voter fraud.

As for the list of 3,000 people, that claim was easily dismissed by the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund’s Nina Perales during the same hearing:

Secretary Schultz … said he had identified 3,500 noncitizens using the driver’s license rolls. He did not. He identified 3,500 people who were noncitizens at the time that they obtained their driver’s licenses. And we know that since that time and before they registered to vote, the overwhelming majority and perhaps all of them have become naturalized citizens. So at this point, anyone who undertakes to accuse people of non-citizenship based on driver’s licenses should be on notice that this is not correct and should not be done. It’s fundamentally unfair.

Attempts to prove voter fraud nationwide have fallen similarly short, with less than 20 instances of fraud charges offered in most states. Florida GOP officials have even publiclyadmitted voter suppression was the goal of that state’s aggressive and inaccurate purge.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups are also arguing that Schultz cannot implement a purge without going through the state legislature. The ruling that blocked Schultz’s last attempt said that, at the very least, Schultz should have gone through the proper rulemaking procedure that allows for public input instead of going forward on his own. Schultz is now going through that procedure, but the court could still hold this process insufficient.

The Return of The Clinton Crazies

ERIC BOEHLERT/Media Matters for America

At least most of them aren't snickering about the blood clot.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was recently hospitalized after doctors found a blood clot in her head, a condition that ABC News reported was "potentially 'life-threatening.'" The hospitalization came in the wake of the news in December that Clinton had suffered a concussion after catching a virus, becoming dehydrated, and fainting.

The news of Clinton's blood clot condition simply highlighted the cavalier and uncaring way her critics reacted to the concussion news, insisting itwas fabricated to keep her from testifying before Congress about the terrorist attack in Benghazi. But the blood clot disclosure has done little to spark introspection or remorse among her detractors.  

Maybe they're still busy laughing about Clinton's head trauma?

It's true. That story was marked by an unusual amount of laughter and merriment among conservatives. It's not often (ever?) that news of a United States cabinet member suffering a concussion elicits widespread delight in partisan media offices. But that's what happened when the State Department revealed the facts about Clinton's condition: right-wing guffaws.

The unhinged concussion response seemed to mark the unofficial return of the Clinton Crazies, that marauding mindset among conservatives who spent the 90's launching endless attacks against the Clintons; vicious and wildly personal attacks that went far beyond partisan debate. (i.e. Accusations of killings and mass murder.)

With Bill Clinton out of office and Hillary Clinton retreating from domestic politics in her role as Secretary of State, the Clinton Crazies temporarily shelved their hate of the former First Couple and focused their misguided attention on President Obama and his family.

But with Hillary Clinton's overseas term coming to an end and growing speculation about her future political plans in America, we're witnessing the unsightly resurrection of the Clinton Crazies, or Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Now there seems to be a conservative competition to see who can be the most offensive while operating under the guise of "political debate."

What else explains the conservative media's decision to treat Clinton's head trauma as being side-splittingly funny? There's something very disturbing about how it coalesced around its strategy to make fun of her health. I'd suggest there's also something very distasteful about gleefully mocking the health of a woman in her mid-sixties.

But boy, Fox News' Laura Ingraham thought the story was a hoot:

Ingraham loved the tasteless "Immaculate Concussion" quip so much she went on The O'Reilly Factor that same night and shared it with a national television audience, delighting in the phrase. Host Bill O'Reilly couldn't contain his laughter. "I haven't heard that! That's good!" roared O'Reilly.

Still laughing, Ingraham responded, "Did she really have a concussion? Maybe she did. I mean, who knows."

In truth, it might be easier to list the Fox talkers who didn't laugh out loud while discussing Clinton's faltering health last month. On The Five, Dana Perino chortled when co-host Greg Gutfeld joked Clinton couldn't have a concussion since she'd been "ducking everything" regarding Benghazi. Later that same night, Sean Hannityshared a chuckle with Fox's Charles Krauthammer for mocking Clinton's "acute Benghazi allergy." (A "good line," Hannity assured his guest.) It was noteworthy that Fox host Greta Van Susteren went out of her way, via her blog, to distance herself from the "sarcastic" and "snarky" Fox News comments about Clinton's health.

The topic of Clinton's faltering condition became a running joke for weeks. Right up until the day the troubling blood clot news was revealed, National Review Online editor Jonah Goldberg was still making light of her condition:

In the December 31 issue of The Weekly Standard, readers were encouraged to laugh at the news of Clinton's head trauma. The magazine produced a parody in the form of a fake Washington Post sports page article, pretending Clinton was being tested for a concussion the way athletes are. (Apparently the topic of head injuries in general is one big joke at The Weekly Standard.)

Blogger and USA Today columnist Glenn Reynolds recently made sure to share with readers a photoshopped picture of Clinton (with her head attached to a burly man's body) that suggested she was "drunk as skunk" when she fell and suffered a concussion:

Reynolds also hyped the blatant lie that that Clinton had flown to a "Caribbean resort" for New Year's Eve.

Reynolds' baseless behavior was not unexpected. Two weeks earlier he had treated the concussion revelation as one big joke, writing, "HELP, I'VE FALLEN AND I CAN'T TESTIFY ABOUT BENGHAZI"

When Clinton's doctor recently announced a blood clot had been found during an exam, Reynolds quickly linked to right-wing conspiracist Ann Althouse, who in a pair of blog posts wondered if the "oddities" surrounding Clinton's health reports stemmed from "fakery." When critics lampooned her rumor mongering, Althouse insisted she'd been sponsoring "political debate" by raising baseless doubts about the Clinton story.

In the New York Times report about Clinton's blood clot, the newspaper quoted David Rothkopf, an acting Commerce Department under secretary in the Bill Clinton administration, who noted the heated politicization of Hillary Clinton's health. Beseeching common decency, Rothkopf urged partisans to stop the unseemly behavior and to just act like "human beings."

For the Clinton Crazies, that's not always an option.

GOP struggling to find way forward

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Michigan, Virginia pass backdoor abortion restrictions

But Nolan Finley said I was the greatest
governor ever on the planet in history.

BY IRIN CARMON/Salon

On the Friday before the long  holiday weekend, the Republican governors of Michigan and Virginia snuck in a little New Year’s surprise for the women of their states, quietly signing abortion legislation that helped make 2012 the second most restrictive year for reproductive rights.

In Michigan, Rick Snyder signed a bill passed by the lame-duck Senate — the same one whose anti-union legislating dominated headlines in recent weeks — requiring clinics that perform more than 120 abortions a year to become surgical outpatient facilities, a level of licensing intended to be onerous and put clinics out of business. He also approved a bill that purports to screen for women being coerced into abortions.

Snyder did veto another bill limiting insurance coverage in private employee plans, which would have required purchase of a separate abortion rider. He objected to that on the grounds that rape victims would have to pay out of pocket if they didn’t buy the rider, and because, “As a practical matter, I believe this type of policy is an overreach of government into the private market.” Overreach of government into other realms, of course, is another matter entirely. (According to Michigan resident Emily Magner, one legislator interrupted her to cry, “THIS ISN’T ABOUT WOMEN! THIS IS ABOUT PROTECTING FETUSES!”)

Virginia’s similar, hospital-level restrictions on clinics were somewhat overshadowed by the ultrasound requirements for women seeking abortions. Under threat of forever having the word “transvaginal” attached to his name, Gov. Bob McDonnell tried to split the difference on the ultrasound legislation, but in the final days of the year signed off on the clinic regulations. This followed months of conflict between the Board of Health and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli over whether existing clinics would be grandfathered into the legislation. The governor’s office called the regulations “common-sense”; NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia said in a statement,  “After two years of shocking backroom deals and bullying public health servants, Governor Bob McDonnell is clearly proving his disregard of Virginians’ opinions about women’s health care.”

Clinic regulations are the most insidious of abortion restrictions, because they’re harder for the layperson to understand and tend to incite less outrage as a result. And opposition to them tends to fall into antiabortion narratives about back-alley butchers resisting safety standards. But research has suggested that they also tend to be the most effective: It’s difficult to talk a woman out of having an abortion, but if you make access near impossible, you might take the choice off the table altogether.

According to Guttmacher’s year-end review, 2011 was the worst year for reproductive rights restrictions on the state level, with 2012 coming in second. Last year might have been worse, had it not been for the backlash, Guttmacher noted:  ”Against the backdrop of a contentious presidential campaign in which abortion and even contraception were front-burner issues — to a degree unprecedented in recent memory — supporters of reproductive health and rights were able to block high-profile attacks on access to abortion in states as diverse as Alabama, Idaho, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Virginia.” There’s no reason to believe this year will be much better:  According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, 21 states will have the trifecta needed for antiabortion legislation to sail through: House, Senate and governor opposed to abortion rights and access. The question is, without the urgency of a national election, will anyone be paying attention?

House GOP blocks Violence Against Women Act

By Steve Benen/The Maddow Blog

 

Congress had a lengthy to-do list as the end of the year approached, with a series of measures that needed action before 2013 began. Some of the items passed (a fiscal agreement, a temporary farm bill), while others didn't (relief funding for victims of Hurricane Sandy).

And then there's the Violence Against Women Act, which was supposed to be one of the year's easy ones. It wasn't.

Back in April, the Senate approvedVAWA reauthorization fairly easily, with a 68 to 31 vote. The bill was co-written by a liberal Democrat (Vermont's Pat Leahy) and a conservative Republican (Idaho's Mike Crapo), and seemed on track to be reauthorized without much of a fuss, just as it was in 2000 and 2005.

But House Republicans insisted the bill is too supportive of immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans -- and they'd rather let the law expire than approve a slightly expanded proposal. Vice President Biden, who helped write the original law, tried to persuade House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to keep the law alive, but the efforts didn't go anywhere.

And so, for the first time since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act is no more. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the Democratic point person on VAWA, said in a statement:

"The House Republican leadership's failure to take up and pass the Senate's bipartisan and inclusive VAWA bill is inexcusable. This is a bill that passed with 68 votes in the Senate and that extends the bill's protections to 30 million more women. But this seems to be how House Republican leadership operates. No matter how broad the bipartisan support, no matter who gets hurt in the process, the politics of the right wing of their party always comes first."

Proponents of the law hope to revive the law in the new Congress, starting from scratch, but in the meantime, there will be far fewer resources available for state and local governments to combat domestic violence.

As for electoral considerations, Republicans lost badly in the 2012 elections, thanks in large part to the largest gender gap in modern times, but if that changed GOP attitudes towards legislation affecting women, the party is hiding it well.

Update: Reader AG asks about the House version that was approved several months ago. AsI reported at the time, the House gutted the bipartisan Senate bill with a watered-down version, which was widely seen by everyone involved as a joke that undermined the interests of victims. It had no support in the Senate and drew a White House veto threat. House Republicans knew this, and instead of revisiting the issue and/or working with the Senate on a compromise, GOP leaders simply decided the law was not a priority. The result was this week's outcome. 

Civil rights attorney shuts down Fox News segment by covering ears

By Stephen C. Webster/Raw Story

Civil rights attorney and radio host Leo Terrell figured out on Wednesday night an unusual way to shut down racially inflammatory content on the Fox News Channel: he simply covered his ears on live television.

Amid a heated discussion of gun control that stacked the Republican talker Sean Hannity and conservative attorney Jay Sekulow against him, Terrell seemed like he was really trying to offer a sincere counterpoint.

Talking about the New York newspaper that published a database of gun permit holders in two counties last month, Terrell said he supports the move because it alerts parents to potential threats in their neighborhood. The paper employed similar logic, saying that readers have a right to know following the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

Hannity’s other guest naturally objected and a heated argument erupted, with neither man going a sentence before interrupting one another. And that’s when Hannity randomly decided to change topics.

Instead of guns, or anything even remotely connected to the topic at hand, the Republican host suddenly wanted to talk about O.J. Simpson’s role in one of the most racially charged murder cases in modern U.S. history — a case that notably did not involve guns.

“Wait, you were friends with O.J. Simpson,” Hannity said, cutting Terrell off mid-sentence. “Did you know he was gonna be liable?”

That appeared to be one step too far for Terrell. “Here we go with O.J. Simpson,” he exclaimed before covering his ears.

“What? Hello? Leo?” Hannity said before laughing. “Alright, we gotta go.”

The segment was not published to Hannity’s online videos page as of Thursday morning.

This video is from Fox News’s’ “Hannity,” aired Wednesday, January 3, 2012. Embed courtesy of Mediaite.

Ten People We Are Grateful Are No Longer Members Of Congress

By Ian Millhiser and Annie-Rose Strasser/Think Progress

Under the Twentieth Amendment, “[t]he terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January.” Accordingly, as of this very moment, many members of 112th Congress are now unemployed. Here are ten that we are particularly grateful will no longer be able to contribute to federal legislation:

Jim DeMint

It’s more ‘see you soon’ than ‘goodbye’ for former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who will take his far-right, tea party-loving persona over to the conservative Heritage Foundation. DeMint leaves a bleak legacy. Over his time in Congress, he’s gained notoriety for his anti-union, gay-bashing, anti-abortion, anti-obamacare, pro-austerity positions, among the most extreme in the Senate.

Todd Akin

Former Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) thought he was moving up in the world when he abandoned his House seat to seek a spot in the Senate. Instead, Akin’s campaign made a crash landing after he told a radio host that victims of “legitimate rape” can’t get pregnant because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Ron Paul

Most members of Congress leave politics with a few new laws to their credit if they are lucky, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), however, can take credit for reviving generations worth of terrible ideas and building a national movement behind his poor grasp of the Constitution and basic economics. Paul believes the Departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Labor are all unconstitutional — as are Social Security and Medicare, which he compared to “slavery.” He would return to the gold standard. And he thinks states can simply nullify federal laws they don’t feel like following. Yet it is a testament to the grip Paul has on America’s lunatic fringe that his supporters will whip themselves into a frenzy every time anyone dares to question his ill-considered views. Don’t believe us? Just wait and see what they write in comments on this very post.

Joe Lieberman

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) likes war, a lot. He was a leading proponent of the war in Iraq. He cheerleaded for war in Iran, and even pushed for more belligerence against Syria. Lieberman once defended waterboarding. He accused President Obama of “encourag[ing] Israel’s enemies.,” and he once called for Social Security cuts to pay for “war with Islamist extremists.” Lieberman loves Fox News, and he ended his tenure in the Senate will a call toraise the Medicare retirement age.

Joe Walsh

Now-former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) got himself kicked out of Congress by continuously bashing his opponent, a female war veteran and amputee who Walsh said was not a “true hero.” The tough-talking Congressman also once said that Muslims are “trying to kill Americans every week,” and once screamed at his own constituents.

Cliff Stearns

Former Rep. Cliff Stearn’s (R-FL) leaves the House with a reputation for stirring up unnecessary controversy. Stearns was among the birthers in Congress, publicly questioning the validity of President Obama’s birth certificate. He also advanced the Republican witch hunt over failed energy company Solyndra, a part of his anti-climate agenda.

Jean Schmidt

Newly former Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) is another birther departing the House today. On Schmidt’s highlight reel? She once called a Congressman and decorated marine a “coward,” insisted that China is drilling off the coast of Florida, and wept with joy over the (incorrect) news that Obamacare had been repealed.

Roscoe Bartlett

An avowed tenther, former Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) not only claimed — falsely — that federal student loans are unconstitutional, he compared helping students pay for their education to “[t]he Holocaust that occurred in Germany.” Bartlett also apparently studied at the Todd Akin School of Medicine, as he once minimized the need to ensure rape and incest survivors have access to abortion by claiming that “there are very few pregnancies as a result of rape, fortunately, and incest.”

Allen West

As an Army lieutenant colonel, former Rep. Allen West (R-FL) was relieved of his command, fined $5,000 and eventually allowed to retire in order to avoid court martial for allegedly abusing a prisoner in Iraq. Upon entering Congress, West emerged as one of the body’s top Islamophobes. He also compared food stamps and Social Security to slavery, opposed early voting as an “entitlement,” claimed 80 House Democrats were “members of the Communist Party,” and called Obama supporters a “threat to the gene pool.”

Dan Burton

Former Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) spent most of the 1990s conducting increasingly bizarre investigations to prove that President Clinton was engaged in criminal activity. Burton did not simply buy the conspiracy theory that former Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster was murdered, he tried to reenact the crime in his own backyard by firing a pistol into a pumpkin. Additionally, Burton’s investigation into the supposed Whitewater controversy was based on research conducted by the founder of Citizens United. Yes, that Citizens United. When Burton wasn’t conducting forensic ballistics investigations using large orange gourds, he was terrified of contracting AIDS — so terrified that he reportedly refused to eat soup at restaurants. Because soup transmits AIDS.

With Millions Still Waiting For Sandy Relief, Republicans Reintroduce Obamacare Repeal

By Adam Peck/Think Progress

The 112th Congress gaveled to a close on Thursday afternoon without passing a relief package for victims of Hurricane Sandy or reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, but Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) isn’t too concerned about finishing what Republicans had left undone. Instead, at 12:00 PM she introduced the very first piece of legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which states are now busily implementing.

House Republicans have unsuccessfully voted 33 times in the last two years to eliminate health care reform and wasted at least 88 hours and $50 million, while failing to pass a single piece of job creation legislation in the last session of Congress.

Dozens of Republicans, including 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, ran against Obamacare, yet the party suffered losses every step along the way. The Supreme Court upheldthe law, House repeal efforts went nowhere in the Democratically-controlled Senate, and President Obama has pledged to veto any effort to rescind the measure. Even newly reelected Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) was compelled to admit in November that Obamacare is now the law of the land (though he later backed away from his own comments and pledged to do everything in his power to undermine it).

But House Republicans are apparently not quite ready to give up the fight. At this rate, they could be on track to becoming even less productive than the least productive Congress in U.S. history.

NRA Hypocritcally Slams Violent Pop Culture, Even As It Puts On ‘Hollywood Guns’ Exhibit

By Alyssa Rosenberg/Think Progress

I wrote yesterday about how darkly, sickly hilarious it is that National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre decided to try to divert calls for gun control by blaming decades-old pop culture ephemera like Mortal Combat and American Psycho for recent mass gun killings. And after I hit publish on that post, the Hollywood Reporter pointed out an even more pointed hypocrisy: the NRA may hope that everyone blames media violence for inspiring killings, rather than guns for being the instruments of them, but it’s had multiple exhibits celebrating famous movie weapons at its National Firearms Museum, and apparently has no immediate plans to take the current one down.

Media Matters for America, jumping on the case, grabbed an amazing video of Phil Schreier, the curator of the NRA Museum, talking about the exhibit, which has since been deleted from the NRA’s YouTube feed:

Notably, he doesn’t exactly draw a distinction between the guns employed by good, law-abiding citizens, and badass, deeply transgressive villains: guns used for mayhem against innocent civilians are apparently just as awesome as guns used by law-abiding citizens in self-defense or officers of the peace in pursuit of criminals. “We have the Joker’s shotgun, the one that Heath Ledger used in The Dark Knight, a role that he won the academy award for,” Schreier says. “And speaking of Academy Awards, we have the silent shotgun that Javier Bardem used in No Country For Old Men.”

Now, maybe the NRA has reversed itself and decided that it no longer wants to be seen expressing enthusiasm for the Joker’s gun and his deployment of it the week before the preliminary hearings in the trial of alleged Aurora shooter James Holmes, who reportedly drew inspiration from Ledger’s depiction of the Joker for his attack on the audience of a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises. Maybe it’s going to pull the exhibit in accordance with its new principals, and stop selling the catalogue of it, Hollywood Guns, for $14.95 in the museum gift shop. Maybe the NRA’s member companies will have a massive change of heart, and stop licensing images of their products for use in films and video games, on the grounds that no one should see a gun being used to commit violence against innocent people or authority figures who are portrayed as duplicitous in a way that’s framed as admirable, lest they be inspired to commit bad acts of their own in the real world.

Or maybe they’ll ultimately conclude that it’s worth more money to them to keep people showing up at the museums to look at outlaws’ weapons, to keep raking in those licensing fees, and to stop talking about how deplorable pop culture violence is. I’d bet on the latter, more because the NRA likes money than it likes a sober, common-sense assessment of risk.