Morsi: My Statements Saying Jews Are Descended from Apes and Pigs Were "Taken Out of Context"

What an unbelievable joke:

In the video, Morsi refers to "Zionists" as "bloodsuckers who attack Palestinians" as well as "the descendants of apes and pigs." He says Egyptians should nurse their children on "hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews. They must be breast-fed hatred." He also calls President Barack Obama a liar.

Morsi, who came to office in June, told the visiting U.S. delegation on Wednesday that the remarks were taken out of context, aimed at criticizing Israeli policies, and not Jews, according to presidential spokesman Yasser Ali.

Morsi told them distinction must be made between criticism of what he called the "racist" policies of the Israelis against the Palestinians and insults against the Jewish faith.

Morsi also told them the remarks were part of a speech against Israeli aggression in Gaza and "assured them of his respect for monotheistic religions, freedom of belief and the practice of religions," Ali said.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/01/16/2437581/egypt-morsi-comments-on-jews-taken.html#storylink=cpy

So he wasn't insulting the Jewish faith when he said Jews were descended from Apes and Pigs?  How about when he said:

They have been fanning the flames of civil strife wherever they were throughout history. They are hostile by nature.

Since Zionism is a relatively recent phenomenon, who is he referring to "fanning the flames of civil strife wherever they were throughout history" if not Jews?  Who is "hostile by nature"?  Out of context my a**.  What about when he prayed for the destruction of the Jews and their supporters, was that "out of context"? He is just a neo-nazi who is now head of a giant Islamic nation in the Middle East.  The worst part is, Senators McCain and Graham seem to be believing his garbage and are in favor of sending hard earned taxpayer money over there:

U.S. Sen. John McCain said a congressional delegation he led that met with Morsi expressed to him their "strong disapproval" about his 2010 comments. The delegation and Morsi had a "constructive discussion" about the remarks, he told reporters.

Still, despite calls by some in Washington to rein in aid to Egypt's Islamist-led government, McCain said the delegation will press in Congress for approval of some $480 million in new assistance to Cairo.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, also in the delegation, warned that "the Egyptian economy is going to collapse if something is not done quickly." He urged Morsi to finalize a repeatedly delayed deal with the International Monetary Fund for a $4.8 billion loan.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/01/16/2437581/egypt-morsi-comments-on-jews-taken.html#storylink=cpy

And what would be so bad to have the Egyptian economy collapse?  At least then they wouldn't be in a position to invade Israel (with American M1A1 tanks and F-16's), as they would have their own problems.  What's the worst that could happen after an Egyptian economic collapse?  They vote in a radical islamist government that is hostile to Israel and the Jews?  How exactly would we tell the difference from the current one? As soon as Egypt stabilizes watch for them to start making noise on Israel's southern border by massing troops there and overtly aiding Hamas.  Once again, McCain and Graham have things completely wrong.

Rand Paul is Aligned with the Israeli Right on US Aid to Israel

It's kind of funny that while some supposedly pro-Israel types in the US like to criticize Rand Paul for suggesting a weaning of aid to Israel, Naftali Bennett, head of the pro-settler, right wing Jewish Home Party (which hopefully will take 14-15 seats in the next knesset) says pretty much the same thing:

Perhaps because of his own experience with vigorous American Capitalism, Naftali Benett is in favor of cutting the 40-year-old umbilical cord that still connects Israel to the American Treasury.

"Today, U.S. military aid is roughly 1 percent of Israel's economy," Bennett says. "I think, generally, we need to free ourselves from it. We have to do it responsibly, since I'm not aware of all the aspects of the budget, I don't want to say 'let's just give it up,' but our situation today is very different from what it was 20 and 30 years ago. Israel is much stronger, much wealthier, and we need to be independent."

One major benefit of this would be that Israel would no longer feel the need to listen to the US as to where Jews should be allowed to settle in their own country.

Former DC Prosecutor: Strict Gun Control Laws Don't Work

A great piece from the WSJ on someone's actual experience with strict gun control laws:

As a former prosecutor in Washington, D.C., who enforced firearms and ammunition cases while a severe local gun ban was still in effect, I am skeptical of the benefits that many imagine will result from additional gun-control efforts. I dislike guns, but I believe that a nationwide firearms crackdown would place an undue burden on law enforcement and endanger civil liberties while potentially increasing crime.
The D.C. gun ban, enacted in 1976, prohibited anyone other than law-enforcement officers from carrying a firearm in the city. Residents were even barred from keeping guns in their homes for self-defense.

Some in Washington who owned firearms before the ban were allowed to keep them as long as the weapons were disassembled or trigger-locked at all times. According to the law, trigger locks could not be removed for self-defense even if the owner was being robbed at gunpoint. The only way anyone could legally possess a firearm in the District without a trigger lock was to obtain written permission from the D.C. police. The granting of such permission was rare.

The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.

The Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department also waged a war on firearms by creating a special Gun Recovery Unit in 1995. The campaign meant that officers were obliged to spend time searching otherwise law-abiding citizens. That same year, the department launched a crackdown called Operation Cease Fire to rid the District of illegal firearms. But after four months, officers had confiscated only 282 guns out of the many thousands in the city.

Civil liberties were endangered. Legislative changes empowered judges to hold gun suspects in pretrial detention without bond for up to 100 days, and efforts were made to enact curfews and seize automobiles found to contain firearms. In 1997, Police Chief Charles Ramsey disbanded the unit so that he could assign more uniformed officers to patrol the streets instead, but the police periodically tried other gun crackdowns over the next decade—with little effect.

In 2007, a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the city's gun ban was unconstitutional. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote in the majority opinion that "the black market for handguns in the District is so strong that handguns are readily available (probably at little premium) to criminals. It is asserted, therefore that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns."

...

Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976. The decline resulted from a variety of factors, but losing the gun ban certainly did not produce the rise in murders that many might have expected.

The Downside of Learning History

(h/t Reaganite Republican)

Obama: "Israel Doesn't Know What Its Own Best Interests Are"

Yes, Obama really said that in response to news that Israel will be building apartments in the suburbs of Jerusalem, in an area that would remain part of Israel no matter what happened with peace agreements with the Palestinians.  The arrogance of the man knows no bounds.  As if he has the best interests of the Jewish State at heart?  That's why he allowed the Palestinian state to get upgraded at the UN and why he recently nominated a known anti-Israeli anti-semite to be his Secretary of Defense.  That's why he sends M1A1 tanks and F-16's to an admitted genocidal anti-semite in Egypt.  Are these the actions of someone who has the best interests of Israel at heart?  Maybe if you think it's in Israel's best interest for Israel to cease to exist.

NY Post: Rand Paul's Israeli Surprise

Looks like Rand Paul's trip to Israel was a success and people are seeing him as being a huge improvement over the current administration:

What a contrast with Joseph Biden.

On his 2010 trip to Israel, the vice president erupted in a bitter denunciation of the government in Jerusalem because of its settlement policies. But when Sen. Rand Paul, whom the Left likes to accuse of being the most anti-Israel figure in the Senate, was in Israel last week, there was nothing but sweetness and light on the settlements — not even much quarreling over foreign aid.

...

In Jerusalem last week, the senator met a broad range of leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres, as well as Naftali Bennett, a rising right-wing leader aligned with the settler movement.

The Jerusalem Post quoted Paul addressing questions about what Israel should do about the settlements and Gaza. "Well," he replied, "America should and does have an opinion about these things, but ultimately these are decisions you have to make."

There hasn't been such a supportive comment on Israel's settlements in the West Bank and in Jerusalem since Sarah Palin last spoke on the subject. Her comments drove the left up the wall.

Paul also voiced support on Gaza: "I don't think you need to call me on the phone and get permission to stop missiles raining down from Gaza." He seems to want Israel to have a free hand in its own affairs, which dovetails with his wariness on foreign aid.

When he talked about foreign aid, he stood by his longtime contention that it would be a good thing to reduce such transfers. This view has been pressed by some pro-Israel voices in this country, in that aid has subsidized statist economic measures and retarded free-market development.

Indeed, Netanyahu himself, in a 1996 speech before Congress, vowed to work to reduce Israel's dependence on US aid — and then kept his word: It's now restricted mainly to military aid.

Paul cited that Netanyahu speech in Jerusalem as he talked in a straightforward way about America's own predicament: "The biggest threat to our nation right now is our debt."

"To me, it has always been about whether it makes sense for me to borrow money from China to give to Pakistan," he said at one point.

In The Jerusalem Post's account, he said the debt problem means "that we have to reassess who to give aid to, and when we do reassess that, I would begin with countries that are burning our flag and chanting 'Death to America.'"

Then, he added, "No one is accusing Israel of that."

He didn't want his visit to be about "touting and spouting" cutting aid to Israel, saying, "I came here to show that I am supportive of the relationship between Israel and America," The Jerusalem Post reported. He signaled the same in a recent letter to the managing editor of Commentary, Jonathan Tobin.

Meantime, the Obama administration is moving its foreign policy sharply to the left. Secretary of State-designate John Kerry would be the most left-wing figure ever to run State. And Defense Secretary-designate Chuck Hagel has a far more worrisome record on Israel than the most determined libertarian.

Mark Levin: Obama's Tyrannical Presidency

A worthwhile interview on Fox News:

Iran May Have Successfully Developed 8 Strains of Biological Agents

Some scary stuff that, while unverifiable, seem to show that Iran's nuclear program isn't the only danger to humanity:

Iranian scientists, working under orders from the radicals running the Islamic regime, have genetically altered microbial agents in a nightmarish scheme to bring the West to its knees.
According to a source in the Revolutionary Guards intelligence unit with knowledge of Iran's microbial research and development, the scientists, with Russian and North Korean help, currently possess eight extremely dangerous microbial agents that, if unleashed, could kill millions of people.

As reported on RadicalIslam.org, the source revealed the existence of a plant in Marzanabad, Iran, where 12 Russian and 28 Iranian scientists are working on microbial agents for bombs. At that time, the source disclosed that Iran was working on 18 agents, with four completed. He has now provided information that with work at two other plants, Iran has created a total of eight microbial agents, with research on insects to be used as the vector to infect the societies of its enemies.

The eight agents are anthrax, encephalitis (the blueprint of this virus, Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis, was provided by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in an agreement two years ago with the Islamic regime), yellow grain (developed with the help of North Korea), SARS, Ebola, cholera, smallpox and plague.

Iran, with North Korea's help, has genetically altered the smallpox virus that makes current vaccinations useless against it. And research at two facilities that act as drug companies but are fronts for the deadly research shows insects can be used as the vector to carry plague, infamous as the "Black Death," according to the source.
...
The Revolutionary Guards source added that the Islamic regime has already armed 37 of its ballistic missiles with microbial agents, which upon launch would spray targeted areas as opposed to an explosion. It has also armed cluster bombs with such agents, which could be dropped from fighter jets spraying an intended area.

What makes it worse, the source said, is that Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist proxies of the regime have now been armed with microbial weapons. As reported in the Washington Times in August, chemical and microbial weapons have been transferred to Iran's proxies in the region.

The West, with its soft approach on the radical regime in Iran, has provided the needed time not only for it to arm itself with some of the most deadliest biological weapons but also, with the help of North Korea, to get the nuclear bomb, and, despite what the West believes, is now working to arm its missiles with such weapons of mass destruction, the source said.

The Trillion Dollar Platinum Coin Creates an Incentive For the GOP to Not Increase the Debt Ceiling

For those of you who haven't been following this, there's a loophole that exists in current law which grants the Treasury the power to mint platinum coins of whatever denomination they choose.  Both Congress and the Federal Reserve would be powerless to stop them given the way the law is right now and the fact that any change in the law would have to pass a Democratic Senate and be signed by Obama.  As you can expect, many on the left (like Paul Krugman) seem positively giddy about the prospect as they think the GOP would never be able to use debt ceiling votes as a lever to control spending again.  What they don't realize is that there is a big unintended consequence of minting the coin and that is it would decrease the downside for the GOP if they don't increase the debt ceiling.

As I wrote before, simply not increasing the debt ceiling and forcing the government to reduce spending by 40% in a matter of days would be disastrous for the GOP politically, especially if it went on for longer than a few days or a week.  The change would be too sudden and some Republican-friendly constituencies, like seniors, could be out of cash making them change their votes markedly in the 2014 elections.  And we know for certain that the GOP would receive the vast majority of the blame if this were to happen (unlike with the fiscal cliff, only Republicans are really talking about not increasing the debt limit).  

But then what happens if the Republicans vote against increasing the debt ceiling and Obama whips out a trillion dollar platinum coin?  First, the government doesn't decrease spending and all the usual checks go out on time. Second, the Democrats will suddenly be blamed for using an obscure loophole to circumvent Congressional oversight of spending, the will of the people and the Federal Reserve.  They will also be blamed for any uptick in prices (especially oil and food) as the coin would be viewed as increasing the money supply markedly (37% per trillion).  And it's not like one coin will be enough.  The last two trillion dollar debt ceiling increase lasted less than two years so they would have to probably mint coins regularly to keep there drunken sailor rate of spending up.  

Sure, there is no guarantee that Obama will agree to mint a coin but it seems that pressure from many of his core constituencies and the media (but I repeat myself) will force him to do it.

Egyptian Magazine: Muslim Brotherhood Operatives Have Infiltrated Obama Administration

While this doesn't come as a surprise to us, as we have written about this before, it's interesting that an Egyptian magazine is bragging about it:

The six named people include: Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development; Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland SecurityAdvisory Council; Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference; Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Eboo Patel, a member of President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.

Alikhan is a founder of the World Islamic Organization, which the magazine identifies as a Brotherhood "subsidiary." It suggests that Alikhan was responsible for the "file of Islamic states" in the White House and that he provides the direct link between the Obama administration and the Arab Spring revolutions of 2011.

Elibiary, who has endorsed the ideas of radical Muslim Brotherhood luminary Sayyid Qutb, may have leaked secret materials contained in Department of Homeland Security databases, according to the magazine. He, however, denies having any connection with the Brotherhood.

Elibiary also played a role in defining the Obama administration's counterterrorism strategy, and the magazine asserted that he wrote the speech Obama gave when he told former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave power but offers no source or evidence for the claim.

According to Rose El-Youssef, Rashad Hussain maintained close ties with people and groups that it says comprise the Muslim Brotherhood network in America. This includes his participation in the June 2002 annual conference of the American Muslim Council, formerly headed by convicted terrorist financier Abdurahman Alamoudi.

He also participated in the organizing committee of the Critical Islamic Reflection along with important figures of the American Muslim Brotherhood such as Jamal Barzinji, Hisham al-Talib and Yaqub Mirza.
Regarding al-Marayati, who has been among the most influential Muslim American leaders in recent years, the magazine draws connections between MPAC in the international Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure.

Magid heads ISNA, which was founded by Brotherhood members, was appointed by Obama in 2011 as an adviser to the Department of Homeland Security. The magazine says that has also given speeches and conferences on American Middle East policy at the State Department and offered advice to the FBI.

Rose El-Youssef also said that Patel maintains a close relationship with Hani Ramadan, the grandson of Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, and is a member of the Muslim Students Association, which it identifies as "a large Brotherhood organization."

Despite the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt was voted into power on an anti-U.S. and anti-Israel platform, it is about to receive 20 F-16 fighter jets from the U.S.

Obama Gives Armored Vehicles to the Lebanese

I guess since he is sending F-16's and M1A1 tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt then sending armored vehicles to Lebanon, where they could potentially be used by Hezbollah, isn't so surprising:

The United States has given 200 armored vehicles to Lebanon, the Lebanese army said on Monday, bolstering forces that have been struggling to deal with sectarian violence inflamed by the war across the border in Syria.

The M113 armored personnel carriers (APCs) arrived by ship to Beirut on Sunday, the army said in a statement. A Lebanese security source said the army now had 1,200 APCs.

A US diplomat said the shipment of vehicles would support the Lebanese armed forces' "capabilities and their mobility and ability to respond to crises. It is also to protect borders and internal stability".

The United States has provided more than $140 million in equipment and assistance to the Lebanese armed forces in the past six months, including six Huey 2 helicopters, a 42-metre coastal security craft, more than 1,000 guns - including grenade launchers - and 38 million rounds of ammunition.

Former Diplomat: Maybe Western Civilization IS Morally Superior

Some wonderful politically incorrect heresy from one of my favorite bloggers, who spent decades in the foreign service of this country.  Here are some key excerpts from a post he wrote back in 2005 and just re-posted on his experience on station in Indonesia in the aftermath of the tsunami:

We have all heard how the quake-tsunami that has cost perhaps as many as 160,000 lives, thus far, has produced an unprecedented outpouring of global generosity. But has it, really? As we have tried to document, for example, the UN bureaucracy has not shown itself particularly concerned with saving lives, but more with preserving its status as a politically correct over-paid elite. But even more troubling than the antics of the increasingly incompetent, cynical and irrelevant UN has been the tepid or non-existent response to the disaster from the majority of mankind, including from citizens within the most affected countries.

In Western countries, we see not only governments pledging sizable sums of money, but private individuals, as well. I can't count, for example, the number of letters, emails, and calls we have received from private Americans wanting to help in anyway they can to save lives. All across America, Australia, and Europe private citizens have raised enormous sums for tsunami relief. Local branches of American companies have raised large amounts of money and donated expensive machinery and other supplies to the effort. At the Embassy, we have seen American staff voluntarily cancel leave plans (often at considerable financial cost); cut short vacations; and volunteer for duties such as manning phones in our 24 hr. opcenter; helping load and unload trucks and C-130s; or spending days working and sleeping under exceptionally grim conditions in the areas most affected. And, of course, Australian and American military personnel, at great monetary cost and personal risk, have led the way in the massive relief effort underway.

I see, however, no outpouring of support in most of the world's countries. The oil-rich Arabs? Where are they? But most frustrating and even angering is the lack of concern exhibited by average and elite members of the societies most directly affected. This was driven home in the course of an interminable meeting a few days ago discussing some silly resolution or another calling on the UN to appoint a "Special Representative for Tsunami Relief." A relatively senior Sri Lankan official leaned over and said to me, "Why do we want to bother with this? We all know you Americans will do everything." A nice compliment, I suppose, but on reflection a sad commentary not only about the rest of the world but presumably about Sri Lanka, itself. One would expect the affected countries to take the lead in relief efforts. None of the most seriously affected countries (Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Maldives) is a dirt poor country; all have well-established governments and national identities.

In Jakarta, aside from flags at half-staff, we have seen no signs of mourning for the victims: while employees and dependents of the American embassy spent their holiday loading trucks and putting together medicine kits, the city's inhabitants went ahead with New Year's parties; nightclubs and shopping centers are full; and regular television programming continues. At least 120,000 of their fellow countrymen are dead, and Indonesians hardly talk about it, much less engage in massive charitable efforts. The exceptionally wealthy businessmen of the capital -- and the country boasts several billionaires -- haven't made large donations to the cause of Sumatran relief; a few scattered NGOs have done a bit, but there are no well-organized drives to raise funds and supplies. We have seen nothing akin to what happened in the USA following the 9/11 atrocity, or the hurricanes in Florida of this past year.

The Sri Lankan's words echo in my mind every day, ""Why do we want to bother with this? We all know you Americans will do everything." With the exception of handful of Western countries, most of the world would appear inhabited by the sort of Eloi-type creatures depicted in that old sci-fi flick based on H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, passively watching as flood waters or Morlocks drag their fellows away.

Begging the pardon of the cultural relativists, but might we not be allowed to raise -- ever so gently, of course -- the possibility that these differing reactions to human suffering, show Western civilization as the best we have on the planet? Maybe, just maybe Western civilization is morally superior.

A Psychiatric View of the Anti-Gun Mentality

A friend sent me this great piece by a psychiatrist on the anti-gun mentality titled, "Raging Against Self Defense".  Below are some excerpts as it is quite lengthy, read the whole thing:

How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect? How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought? One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.

...

Defense Mechanisms

Projection

About a year ago I received an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn't want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a "bad day". (I don't know that this person is a "he", but I'm assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of course, got no response. The truth is that he's statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn't legally carry a firearm(1) and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.(2)

How does my correspondent "know" that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn't. What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection – unconsciously projecting one's own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn't have to own them.(3)

Denial

It's obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, victimized. It's equally obvious that law enforcement can't protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you(10) and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family.(11) There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide.(12) Nonetheless, the anti–gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that "the police will protect you", "this is a safe neighborhood" and "it can't happen here", where "it" is everything from mugging to mass murder.

Anti–gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that "the government will never confiscate my guns" are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable.

...

Reaction Formation

Reaction formation is yet another defense mechanism common among the anti–gun folks. Reaction formation occurs when a person's mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite.(13) For example, a child who is jealous of a sibling may exhibit excessive love and devotion for the hated brother or sister.
Likewise, a person who harbors murderous rage toward his fellow humans may claim to be a devoted pacifist and refuse to eat meat or even kill a cockroach.(14) Often such people take refuge in various spiritual disciplines and believe that they are "superior" to "less civilized" folks who engage in "violent behavior" such as hunting, or even target shooting. They may devote themselves to "animal welfare" organizations that proclaim that the rights of animals take precedence over the rights of people.(15) This not only allows the angry person to avoid dealing with his rage, it allows him actually to harm the people he hates without having to know he hates them.

This is not meant to disparage the many wonderful people who are pacifists, spiritually inclined, vegetarian, or who support animal welfare. The key issue is not the belief itself, but rather the way in which the person experiences and lives his beliefs. Sincere practitioners seek to improve themselves, or to be helpful in a gentle, respectful fashion. They work to persuade others peacefully by setting an example of what they believe to be correct behavior. Sincere pacifists generally exhibit good will towards others, even towards persons with whom they might disagree on various issues.

Contrast the sincere pacifist or animal lover with the strident, angry person who wants to ban meat and who believes murdering hunters is justified in order to "save the animals" – or the person who wants to outlaw self–defense and believes innocent people have the obligation to be raped and murdered for the good of society. For example, noted feminist Betty Friedan said "that lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence."(16) The truly spiritual, pacifist person refrains from forcing others to do what he believes, and is generally driven by positive emotions, while the angry person finds "socially acceptable" ways to harm, abuse, or even kill, his fellow man.

...

Ultimately, your goal is to take the anti–gun person shooting. Some people will accept an invitation to accompany you to the range, but others are too frightened to do so, and will need some preliminary experience.

First, you want to encourage the anti–gun person to have some contact with a firearm in whatever way feels most comfortable to him. Many people seem to believe that firearms have minds of their own and shoot people of their own volition. So you might want to start by inviting him simply to look at and then handle an unloaded firearm. This also provides you the opportunity to show the inexperienced person how to tell whether a firearm is loaded and to teach him the basic rules of firearms safety.

Encourage the newcomer to ask questions and remember that your role is to present accurate information in a friendly, responsible and non–threatening way. This is a good time to offer some reading material on the benefits of firearms ownership. But be careful not to provide so much information that it's overwhelming. And remember this is not the time to launch into anti–government rants, the New World Order, conspiracy theories, or any kind of political talk!

Next, you can invite your friend to accompany you to the shooting range. (And if you're going to trust each other with loaded guns, you should consider yourselves friends!) Assure him that no one will force him to shoot a gun and he's free just to watch. Let him know in advance what he will experience and what will be expected of him. This includes such things as the need for eye and ear protection, a cap, appropriate clothing, etc. Make sure you have a firearm appropriate for your guest should she/he decide to try shooting. This means a lower caliber firearm that doesn't have too much recoil. If your guest is a woman, make sure the firearm will fit her appropriately. Many rifles have stocks that are too long for small women, and double–stack semi–autos are usually too large for a woman's hand.

Remember that just visiting the range can be a corrective experience. Your guest will learn that gun owners are disciplined, responsible, safety–conscious, courteous, considerate, and follow the rules. He will see people of all ages, from children to the elderly, male and female, enjoying an activity together. He will not see a single "beer–swilling redneck" waving a firearm in people's faces.

Egyptian President Morsi: Jews are Bloodsuckers and are Descended from Apes and Pigs

Why did we abandon Mubarak again? And why do we continue to throw money at Egypt?  The new Egyptian President is a vicious and likely genocidal anti-semite.  From MEMRI:

And here are some key excerpts:

This [Palestinian] Authority was created by the Zionist and American enemies for the sole purpose of opposing the will of the Palestinian people and its interests.
...
No reasonable person can expect any progress on this track. Either [you accept] the Zionists and everything they want, or else it is war. This is what these occupiers of the land of Palestine know – these blood-suckers, who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs.
...
Therefore, these negotiations must stop once and for all. Everybody must turn to the support of the resistance, which is the option chosen by the Palestinians and by us all – the Arabs and the Muslims, Palestinians and others. We must all realize that resistance is the only way to liberate the land of Palestine.
...
We want a country for the Palestinians on the entire land of Palestine, on the basis of [Palestinian] citizenship. All the talk about a two-state solution and about peace is nothing but an illusion, which the Arabs have been chasing for a long time now. They will not get from the Zionists anything but this illusion.
...
They have been fanning the flames of civil strife wherever they were throughout history. They are hostile by nature.
...
The Zionists understood nothing but the language of force.

The Senate Doesn't Even Want to Know How the Secret FISA Courts Operate

It's just amazing that we have a shadow court system that is essentially operating without any sort of oversight and the Senate doesn't even want to know anything.  I'm sure there are no abuses going on.  You can always trust government functionaries after all:

FISA courts operate in secret, which is to be expected. What is not to be expected is that the elected branches of the federal government will conduct a debate about the proper scope of the law without knowing how the law is actually interpreted in practice.

 

We might as well have a debate about the Constitution with a secret Supreme Court. (Well, that probably wouldn't be all that different from the current state of affairs.)

 

Sen. Jeff Merkley asked that we be given some window into what the important rulings and precedents of the secret court might be, with the understanding that nothing endangering national security would be declassified. If we are going to discuss these issues, it would be awfully sporting to know what we are talking about.

 

Nah, the Senate decided. Merkley's amendment was defeated by a vote of 54 to 37. Who needs to know these things anyway? That's why the government hires national-security professionals, who will always act in our interests.

 

So Sen. Ron Wyden, a fellow Democrat from Oregon, offered a different amendment. He just wanted some general reporting on the privacy impact of the law, some more disclosure. Transparency, the president tells us, is a good thing, right?

 

"I think we ought to know, generally, how many Americans are being swept up under the legislation," Wyden said on the Senate floor. Not explicit tips on ongoing terror investigations. Just making sure the surveillance is focused on, you know, terror investigations.

 

"One of the biggest misconceptions about NSA is that we are unlawfully listening in on, or reading e-mails of, U.S. citizens," the National Security Agency told CNN in a statement. "This is simply not the case. NSA is unwavering in its respect for U.S. laws and Americans' civil liberties."

 

No one should think the targets are U.S. persons," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Thirteen members of the intelligence committee who have voted on this do not believe this is a problem."

 

Okay. Well, then that's what some small measure of transparency will show us, right? Or do we just have to take the NSA and the Intelligence Committee's word for it? (Wyden incidentally serves on Intelligence and he still has a wee bit of a problem with these assurances.)

 

Turns out that the Senate didn't want to know. Wyden's amendment was defeated by a vote of 52 to 43.

 

By now, you might be able to sense a pattern developing here. So you would probably not be surprised to learn that only a dozen senators supported Rand Paul's proposal that emails and text messages be subject to the same Fourth Amendment protections as telephone calls.

 

...

 

I guess if you believe government powers are never abused, or that Democrats will protect our civil liberties even when a president of their own party is in power, it's fine not to do "this."
Just reauthorize the sunsetting provisions so we can all find out what's in them.

 

Our government is run by Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes.  I know nothing!

Do We Really Need a $60 Billion Sandy Relief Bill?

I know some big government Republicans like Peter King and Chris Christie are all upset that the $60 billion Sandy relief bill didn't get voted on in the House, but really, is it even necessary?  As Dan Burton writes in the National Review:

Consider that FEMA already has about $7.8 billion in an emergency relief fund, plus another couple billion it can tap in an emergency-emergency relief fund, and that by the end of November it had already disbursed $664 million of that, mostly to New York. Consider also that nearly $250 million was raised by charities (plus the attendees of my ten-year high school reunion) in the first month after the storm, and that another $50 million or so was raised by the 12-12-12 concert and distributed to more than 160 organizations. This is nothing to sneeze at.

 

So why all the shouting? Let's be clear: the Sandy "relief" bill is really a Sandy "recovery" bill. It's about the size and shape of the second wave of Sandy spending, which can and should be much more deliberate than the the first wave. The first wave of Sandy spending is already happening.

So FEMA already has billions for just such an emergency and that money is already being disbursed.  Plus, I would think much of the damage is covered by insurance, isn't that what insurance is for?  I understand that some policies don't cover flood damage but still, FEMA does have funding and is disbursing for just this eventuality.  I just don't understand why it's the job of the Federal Government to throw dollars borrowed from China at every area that ever has anything bad happen to it.  And I happen to live in the NY/NJ area and so this aid dollars would help my local economy but even I think its mostly a big waster with little benefit to those who are actually in need.  Check this list out from Senator Tom Coburn's office of what is in the bill:

•$2 million to repair damage to the roofs of museums in Washington, D.C., while many in Hurricane Sandy's path still have no roof over their own heads.
•$150 million for fisheries as far away from the storm's path as Alaska.
•$125 million for the Department of Agriculture's Emergency Watershed Protection program, which helps restore watersheds damaged by wildfires and drought.
•$20 million for a nationwide Water Resources Priorities Study.
•$15 million for NASA facilities, though NASA itself has called its damage from the hurricane 'minimal.'
•$50 million in subsidies for tree planting on private properties.
•$336 million for taxpayer-supported AMTRAK without any detailed plan for how the money will be spent.
•$5.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers – more than the Corps' annual budget – with no statement of priorities about how to spend the money.
•$12.9 billion for future disaster mitigation activities and studies, without identifying a single way to pay for it.
"All told, 64 percent of the $60.4 billion in 'emergency' spending in this legislation will not be spent for nearly two years.

It seems like the Sandy relief bill can be much much smaller without any of the victims of Sandy being any worse for wear, assuming they even need more appropriations at all from the Feds.

Ideally, we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling, but because of our state-dependent society, it's going up at some point, no matter what

I have to admit, I'm very attracted to the idea of not raising the debt ceiling.  In one fell swoop, we could cut the lifeblood of Leviathan through what is essentially a balanced budget mechanism.  If we are at the debt limit, government receipts have to equal government expenditures.  So even though Obama would have won the November election, our government would be as limited (at least on an expenditure basis) as it would be under Ron Paul.  Unfortunately, the realities of electoral politics and the fact that 70% of the Federal budget goes to some sort of dependence program, any victory will be short lived.  Let's say enough of the GOP goes along and keeps us from increasing the debt ceiling (which is far from likely given most House Republicans voted against the cliff and it still passed thanks to a RINO-Democrat coalition), then what?  We'd have to cut government spending by 40% (about $1.3 Trillion!) in order to not have our debt limit breached.  Our deficit is so big that if we cut out ALL discretionary spending, all defense and just about every cabinet department, just focusing on interest and entitlements, we just balance the budget.  So realistically, we'd have to take a knife to medicare and social security in order to balance the budget, immediately.  As we all know seniors vote, how would you expect them to react in 2014?  We could easily end up with a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate (heck it even could be big enough to amend the Constitution, won't that just be a hoot!) and a massive majority in the House.  Plus, most people probably won't be happy with their parents and grandparents suddenly cut off from their income.  They will blame the people cutting off the funds now, not the people who raided the trust fund in the first place.  So after 2014, not only will the debt ceiling likely be permanently increased, but we would get socialist programs that would make the French blush.  Essentially we would be winning a battle but losing a war.  Badly.

Perhaps we could have gotten away with not raising the debt ceiling in 2007, when we would have only had to cut spending by 6% to balance the budget, but those days are long gone.  Obama has spent our money like a conman who just had a big haul after a long dry spell.  It's simply not a realistic vehicle for long term restraint of the government.

What's With All the Rejoicing? Taxes Are Still Going Up by 1% of GDP on All Working Americans

Despite all the celebration, none us have avoided a tax increase.  What?  You don't make anywhere near $450,000 a year?  Well unfortunately the Bush Tax Cuts were only about a third of what I liked to call Taxmaggedon though it probably got 100% of the media coverage.  People completely seemed to forget the payroll tax was scheduled to go up as well, by 2% on the first $110,000 of income, which makes it quite a regressive tax (rich people actually pay a smaller percentage than people making less).  This amounts to an estimated $124 billion in tax increases in a single year, just from the payroll tax.  Just by itself it is the largest tax hike in over 40 years as a % of GDP.  When you take into account the Obamacare tax that has now become law ($22 billion in 2013) and the tax increase for those making over $450,000 a year (unclear but probably around $50 billion) we are talking about an increase of 1.3% of GDP, the largest in at least 60 years! The economic impact may be anywhere from 1.3-3.9% of GDP, which is enough to get us into another recession

Way to go Washington, DC, you just screwed the American people and the economy.  And why are we supposed to be happy about it?

Only 12 Senators Seem to Believe in the 4th Amendment

Rand Paul had recently introduced the 4th Amendment Preservation and Protection Act, which essentially just reiterated our 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.  Of course, it was defeated by a vote of 12 yeahs to 79 nays.  It's stunning how people have completely forgotten our constitutional protections.  If this is an example of bipartisan cooperation, I want no part of it. 

Just a reminder, here is the text of the fourth amendment:

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Seems pretty clear.  You can't just do a search without a warrant, which has to be based upon probably cause.  And here is the text of the key portions of the 4th Amendment Preservation and Protection Act:

Congress finds that the right under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures is violated when the Federal Government or a State or local government acquires information voluntarily relinquished by a person to another party for a limited business purpose without the express informed consent of the person to the specific request by the Federal Government or a State or local government or a warrant, upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

...

 

The Federal Government or a State or local government may obtain, and a court may admit, information relating to an individual held by a third-party in a system of records if--
    (A) the individual whose name or identification information the Federal Government or State or local government is using to access the information provides express and informed consent to the search; or
    (B) the Federal Government or State or local government obtains a warrant, upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

ll seems pretty consistent right?  The government can't just snoop on you because it feels like it, not without probably cause and a warrant.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of the Senate doesn't seem to like the 4th Amendment and the Supreme Court is nowhere to be seen.  What's happened to this country?

Santelli: I'd Like to See Geithner Count to a Million, Much less $16.4 Trillion

Another entertaining rant from Rick Santelli: