It’s Friday, January 11th, 2013….and be certain to catch the three video clips accessed through the numbered boxes on our home page at www.thedailygouge.com.

Now, here’s The Gouge!

First up, The Washington Times offers additional insight into why, to borrow a phrase from the perpetual protesters on the Left, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Chucky Hagel has got to go”:

Hagel’s Group Sees Iran As Future Ally

Which makes him an ideal choice for an utterly irresponsible Commander-in-Chief.

The Washington think tank overseen by President Obama’s defense secretary-designate predicts that Iran one day will be a “natural partner” for the United States and could possess nuclear weapons. It also puts the onus on Israel to make peace with Palestinians, many of whom are governed by Hamas, an Iran-backed terrorist group bent on the destruction of the Jewish state.

The views are contained in a major policy paper by the Atlantic Council, for which former Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska serves as chairman. The paper shows the foreign policy culture from which Mr. Hagel emerges to face Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearings. The paper also may explain the underpinnings for Mr. Hagel’s dovish views on Iran for which he will receive close scrutiny by fellow Republicans.

Mr. Obama on Monday presented Mr. Hagel as the nominee to replace Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta. Mr. Hagel has taken a far less hawkish stance than Mr. Panetta, who has vowed that Tehran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and talks of a military option to stop the regime. Iran’s Foreign Ministry on Tuesday approved of Mr. Hagel’s nomination, saying it hopes his appointment as Pentagon chief would improve relations between the US and the Islamic republic.

Mr. Hagel upbraided President George W. Bush for not offering unconditional talks with Iran’s hard-line Islamic leaders. He does not emphasize a military option to counter Iran’s nuclear program, and he has suggested that Iran one day will own atomic weapons.

In December, the Atlantic Council issued the major position paper — part advice to Mr. Obama in his second term, part vision for the world in the next 17 years. Mr. Hagel did not write “Envisioning 2030: US Strategy for a Post-Western World,” but it corresponds with his and the Atlantic Council’s efforts to seek global cooperation, not confrontation.

The paper predicts that Iranian hard-liners will be unable to insulate the population from democratic movements in Egypt, Tunisia and other neighboring states. “It is difficult to envision an already globalized Iranian public not being inspired by regional examples of popular democratic governance,” the Atlantic Council says. “For US strategy, Iran should be viewed as a potential natural partner in the region…A post-mullah dominated government shedding Shia [Muslim] ideology could easily return to being a net contributor to stability by 2030.” 

Yeah….you know….

….like Egypt!

In a related item, as the AEI‘s Danielle Pletka suggests, if you….

Don’t like Chuck Hagel’s views? Wait a few

Hmmmm….which of my core beliefs would it be politically-expedient to change today?

“Courage”: A word we hear tossed around promiscuously about Chuck Hagel. About his Vietnam career? Nope. About personal travails? Nope. Chuck Hagel is a “courageous” man because he changes his mind. A lot.

Bret Stephens of the WSJ was among the first to detail Hagel’s lemming-like political transformations. Hate the gays when no one cared; love the gays when they do. Hate gays in the military when it was cool; love it when it isn’t. Iraq war? Yes, then no. And today, Eli Lake has a fine piece up on the Daily Beast detailing Hagel’s determined climb up the greasy pole of political favor. In 2000, he reportedly begged to endorse George W. Bush. But when John McCain’s star began rising, Hagel clambered over Bush and endorsed McCain.

Now that he’s up for SecDef, Hagel is busy repudiating all of his old views, leaking via Obama administration officials and cronies in DC that he has once again grown in office, showing the courage that is his hallmark. Suddenly, he’s tough on Iran.  Believes strongly in the US-Israel alliance. Loves the gays. It remains to be seen whether he will learn to love abortion and hate guns, but anything is possible.

Hagel’s, er, mercurial nature is yet another reason to wonder why Barack Obama wished this man to hold a cabinet posting. Because one thing is for certain, it will only be a matter of time before he changes his mind about the principles he insists upon today.

As we’ve opined previously, he’s a distraction….from Benghazigate, higher taxes, a tanking economy and ballooning deficits and debt.  Oh, and for the record, the Purple Heart is awarded to soldiers wounded or killed in action….not for courage….under fire or otherwise.

Next up, as FOXNews reports, it’s another ministerial migraine for the Marxist-in-Chief, and one more Sign The Apocalypse Is Upon Us:

Pastor withdraws from Obama inauguration after sermon on homosexuality surfaces

A Georgia pastor selected to deliver the benediction during President Obama’s inauguration has pulled out of the ceremony after comments surfaced in which he described homosexuality as a “sin.” The Rev. Louie Giglio, pastor of Passion City Church in Atlanta, was announced as part of the inauguration program on Tuesday. But the website ThinkProgress subsequently published a lengthy sermon of Giglio’s from the ’90s.

In the sermon, he purportedly said: “If you look at the counsel of the word of God, Old Testament, New Testament, you come quickly to the conclusion that homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle… homosexuality is not just a sexual preference, homosexuality is not gay, but homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin according to the word of God. You come to only one conclusion: homosexuality is less than God’s best for his creation.”

Giglio, under fire by gay-rights groups, announced Thursday he was withdrawing from the Jan. 21 inauguration. “Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration,” Giglio said in a statement to Fox News. “Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past 15 years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ.” (?!?)

After Giglio withdrew, the Presidential Inaugural Committee claimed it was unaware of the pastor’s past statements and had originally asked Giglio to deliver the benediction in part because of his work combating human trafficking.

Although there are numerous references in the Bible to homosexuality, each one constituting an unambiguous condemnation of what God clearly defines as sin, we could find nary a mention of the evils of human trafficking, let alone any commandment to combat it.

This should in no way be interpreted as our condoning slavery; we only point out a supposed minister of the Gospel has found it prudent to mute his message on the realities of what God calls sin in the face of contemporary political correctness.

Moving on, a brilliant piece of commentary, even by Ann Coulter’s already elevated standards:

Doing the Research the New York Times Won’t Do

In Sunday’s New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, “More Guns = More Killing.” She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times: (1) anecdotal observations; and (2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.

There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws. The Times will never mention this study.

Instead, Rosenthal’s column proclaimed that armed guards do not reduce crime because: “I recently visited some Latin American countries … where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, ATM, restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.” So there you have it: The cock crowed, then the sun came up. Therefore, the cock’s crowing caused the sun to come up. Rosenthal went to Harvard Medical School.

Here’s a tip: High-crime areas are often bristling with bulletproof glass, heavy-duty locks, gated windows and armed guards. The bulletproof glass doesn’t cause the crime; it’s a response to crime. On Rosenthal’s logic, hospitals kill people because more people die in hospitals than outside of them. (In any event, the Lott-Landes study didn’t recommend armed guards, but armed citizens.)

Rosenthal also produces a demonstrably false statistic about Australia’s gun laws, as if it’s a fact that has been carefully vetted by the Newspaper of Record, throwing in the true source only at the tail-end of the paragraph:

“After a gruesome mass murder in 1996 provoked public outrage, Australia enacted stricter gun laws, including a 28-day waiting period before purchase and a ban on semiautomatic weapons. … Since, rates of both homicide and suicide have dropped 50 percent …,” said Ms. Peters, who lobbied for the legislation.“

“Ms. Peters” is Rebecca Peters, a George Soros-funded, Australian anti-gun activist so extreme that she had to resign from the International Action Network on Small Arms so as not to discredit the U.N.-recognized organization — which isn’t easy to further discredit.

Could the Times’ public editor weigh in on whether unsubstantiated quotes from radical activists are now considered full and complete evidence at the Times? It would be as if the Times headlined an article, “Abortion Increases Risk of Breast Cancer” with the sole support being a quote from Operation Rescue’s Randall Terry. (Except Terry would have evidence.)

Whether or not the homicide rate went up or down in Australia as a result of strict gun control laws imposed in 1997 is a fact that could have been checked by Times researchers. But they didn’t, because facts wouldn’t have given them the answer they wanted.

Needless to say, the effect of Australia’s gun ban has been extensively researched by Australian academics. As numerous studies have shown: After the gun ban, gun homicides in Australia did not decline any more than they were expected to without a gun ban. Thus, for example, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, the homicide rate has been in steady decline from 1969 to the present, with only one marked uptick in 1998-99 — right after the gun ban was enacted.

The showstopper for anti-gun activists like Ms. Rosenthal and Ms. Peters is the fact that suicides by firearm seemed to decrease more than expected after the 1997 gun ban. But so did suicides by other means. Something other than the gun ban must have caused people to stop guzzling poison and jumping off bridges. (Some speculate that it’s the availability of anti-depressants like Prozac.)

Curiously — and not mentioned by Rosenthal — the number of accidental firearms deaths skyrocketed after Australia’s 1997 gun ban, although the law included stringent gun training requirements. It turns out, until the coroner has certified a death as a “suicide,” it’s classified as “unintentional.” So either mandatory gun training has led to more accidents, or a lot of suicides are ending up in the “accident” column.

Most pinheadedly, especially for a graduate of the Harvard Medical School, Rosenthal says: “Before (the gun ban), Australia had averaged one mass shooting a year. (Since then,) there have been no mass killings.” Mass murder is a rare enough crime that any statistician will tell you discerning trends is impossible. In this country, the FBI doesn’t even track mass murder as a specific crime category.

After Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood” killers slaughtered the entire Clutter family in Holcomb, Kan., the murder rate in that quiet farming town went up 400 percent in a single year! Was it Holcomb’s big showing at the 4-H club competition that year?

Totally unbeknownst to Elisabeth Rosenthal, Australian academics have already examined the mass murder rate by firearm by comparing Australia to a control country: New Zealand. (Do they teach “control groups” at Harvard?) New Zealand is strikingly similar to Australia. Both are isolated island nations, demographically and socioeconomically similar. Their mass murder rate before Australia’s gun ban was nearly identical: From 1980 to 1996, Australia’s mass murder rate was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000 people and New Zealand’s was 0.0050 incidents per 100,000 people.

The principal difference is that, post-1997, New Zealand remained armed to the teeth — including with guns that were suddenly banned in Australia. While it’s true that Australia has had no more mass shootings since its gun ban, neither has New Zealand, despite continuing to be massively armed.

The only thing Australia’s strict gun control laws has clearly accomplished is increasing the amount of violent crime committed with guns immediately after the ban took effect. Of course, Times reporters don’t have to worry about violent muggings, rapes and robberies because they live in doorman buildings.

For those who can’t afford fancy doorman buildings, bad journalism kills.

Let alone the hypocrites who hide behind taxpayer-funded 24/7 armed security….

….while denying the rest of us the right to protect ourselves and our families.

Meanwhile, the NRA finally woke up and smelled the coffee:

Fairfax, Va.– The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again.  We attended today’s White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals. 

We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment.  While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners – honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans.  It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems.  We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen.  Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works – and what does not.

We’ll leave the last word on the subject this week to the WSJ‘s Kimberly Strassel, who weighs in on….

The Real Gun-Control Consensus

Despite the press’s best efforts to parse his statements, Harry Reid has committed himself to nothing more than a ‘thoughtful debate.’

“The next time you hear a fellow American bemoaning the lack of Washington bipartisanship, tell him to cheer up. There is one issue on which Congress still resoundingly agrees: gun rights. Bear that in mind, too, the next time you read a story about the “new” political debate over gun control….”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578234010962821032.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

And in today’s Money Quote, Pat Buchanan, in a definite Trent Lott moment, once again demonstrates why no one’s taken him seriously for over 20 years:

“We are here tonight to celebrate the centennial of a statesman, a profile in courage and an extraordinary man we are all proud to have served: the 37th president of the United States, Richard Milhous Nixon.“

Yeah….

On the Lighter Side….

Then there’s today’s installment of Tales From the Darkside, and one more incredible bit of hypocrisy from yet another incurable Leftist from the Fourth Estate:

And here we thought Supreme Court Justices were supposed to uphold and defend the Constitution, not rule on behalf of special interest groups or ethnic identity.  Silly us.

Finally, we’ll call it a week with the Sports Section, and yet another reason we hope Pete Rose never sees Cooperstown:

Magoo