Muslim Brotherhood's Mohammed Morsi Declared Winner in Egypt's Presidential Election

Well, this is blog-worthy.

The main news stories are at the New York Times, "Morsi Is Winner of Egyptian Presidency," and Telegraph UK, "Muslim Brotherhood's Mohammed Morsi."

And from the blogs, at Atlas Shrugs, "MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD'S MURSI DECLARED EGYPT PRESIDENT," and Legal Insurrection, "Muslim Brotherhood candidate elected President of Egypt."

Plus, an analysis from Jonathan Tobin at Commentary, "U.S. Must Avoid Embrace of Morsi":

Many in the Obama administration may have heaved a sigh of relief this morning when Egypt’s election commission declared Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi the winner of the country’s presidential election. There were justifiable fears that the Egyptian military would complete the coup d’état it began when the country’s high court tossed the Islamist-controlled parliament out of office by stealing the presidential contest for its preferred candidate. By choosing to attempt to live with the Brotherhood rather than attempt to destroy it, the army may have avoided a bloody civil war that would have drowned Egypt in blood and destabilized the region even further.

But as much as Washington is relieved that the next stage of life in post-Mubarak Egypt will not be one in which the military rules alone, President Obama must resist the impulse to embrace Morsi or to behave in any manner that might lend support to the Brotherhood leader in the power struggle in Cairo that will undoubtedly ensue. As much as the United States should support the principle of democracy, Morsi and his party are no apostles of freedom. Though worries about the U.S. being tainted by association with a military that wishes to perpetuate authoritarian rule are well founded, the danger from a rising tide of Islamism in the wake of the Arab Spring is far more dangerous to American interests.

There's more at the link.

And Tobin links to Eli Lake's piece from earlier, which illustrates the naivety of this administration: "Member of Egyptian Terror Group Goes to Washington."

Plus, lots at Memeorandum.

Until Later Roundup...

I don't see too much I want to blog about this morning, so until later check the roundup at Pirate's Cove: "Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup."

And here's some Kelly Brook News, at London's Dail Mail, "You'd bet on her! Kelly Brook looks fabulous in florals and a flamboyant hat at Royal Ascot," and Celebrity Gossip, "Kelly Brook Talks Curvy Figure With LOOK."

And skip over to Althouse and Instapundit to cover all the bases.

For a bonus, Robert Stacy McCain's latest is here: "Neal Rauhauser’s Bizarre Suspicions, and Profiling the (Hypothetical) ‘UnSub’."

I'll have more later. I have to pick up my kids' cousins in Los Angeles today. They're down here visiting family and will be staying with us for a couple of days, on their own, until their mom (my kids' aunt) get here.

Until then...

Street Legal? Jessica Simpson Posts Smokin' Mommy Walking Baby 'Around the Block' Photo on Twitter

Simpson used to be a favorite for Rule 5 blogging. I think she's attempting a comeback.

See US Magazine, "New Mom Jessica Simpson Flaunts Major Cleavage During "Walk Around the Block."

And the direct link, "Jessica Simpson's Photo on Lockerz."

The Epic 'Fast and Furious' Clusterf-k

Lee Doren comments (via Nice Deb):

Since he keeps pointing down, here it is: Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up.

Prediction in Political Science is Doomed to Fail

If you study political science, and especially the more fundamental philosophies of social science that underlie professional political science research, you will learn that (for many) scientific prediction is the ultimate goal of political science scholarship. That's perhaps a more contentious thesis nowadays (with the surge in popularity of radical postmodernism), but in the first couple of decades after the behavioral revolution in the 1960s, the claim was rarely challenged except by those on the margins of the discipline. Folks can get a feel for the epistemological primacy of scientific prediction by skimming over the first few pages of Carl Hempel's, "The Functioning of General Laws in History" (1942).

After the end of the Cold War, international relations scholars underwent a foundational crisis in the field. No one --- not a single scholar of international politics in the political science profession (with the exception perhaps of Stephen Rock) --- had published a prediction of the end of the Cold War conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. There were huge debates on this in the pages of scholarly journals for a few years, but one of the most important essays to come out at the time was from the historian John Lewis Gaddis. His essay, "International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War," was a magisterial review of the literature that explained why each of the major paradigms was unsuccessful in predicting the biggest historical change since the end of World War II. (And see Chapter One of Gaddis 1997 book, We Now Know: Rethinking the Cold War.)

In any case, I'm remembering all of this upon reading Jacqueline Stevens' essay at the New York Times, "Political Scientists Are Lousy Forecasters." This paragraph is especially good:

Many of today’s peer-reviewed studies offer trivial confirmations of the obvious and policy documents filled with egregious, dangerous errors. My colleagues now point to research by the political scientists and N.S.F. grant recipients James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin that claims that civil wars result from weak states, and are not caused by ethnic grievances. Numerous scholars have, however, convincingly criticized Professors Fearon and Laitin’s work. In 2011 Lars-Erik Cederman, Nils B. Weidmann and Kristian Skrede Gleditsch wrote in the American Political Science Review that “rejecting ‘messy’ factors, like grievances and inequalities,” which are hard to quantify, “may lead to more elegant models that can be more easily tested, but the fact remains that some of the most intractable and damaging conflict processes in the contemporary world, including Sudan and the former Yugoslavia, are largely about political and economic injustice,” an observation that policy makers could glean from a subscription to this newspaper and that nonetheless is more astute than the insights offered by Professors Fearon and Laitin.

Critiques like this were kicking up pretty hard at the end of the 1990s, and things really came to a head with the "Perestroika Movement" in political science around 2000.

It's been a while now, and I'm not sure how deep an impact that movement's had, notwithstanding the launching of a new journal at the APSA geared toward methodological pluralism. And frankly, in a lot of respects, I don't care that much any more. The top scholars in my subfield of international politics have largely perverted the discipline with thinly veiled ideological commitments. I discussed this the other day in my essay on Kenneth Waltz: "A Nuclear-Armed Iran May Be the Best Path to Stability to the Middle East." And the kicker here is the Professor Stevens illustrated her own radical commitments in an commentary piece at the New York Times last month, "Citizenship to Go." Basically, state sovereignty over migration should be abolished. That is, borders don't matter --- get rid of them. So while Stevens' new essay argues that positivist political science, now under threat with the loss of National Science Foundation funding, has largely failed and is undeserving of continued government support, her alternative of government funding of "those who use history and theory to explain shifting political contexts, challenge our intuitions and help us see beyond daily newspaper headlines" would likely result in reams of research just like her own, research questioning the legitimacy of the national state and the hegemony of the U.S. in the international system.

The irony is that's much of the basic rational for stripping government for political science research in the first place. I gather Stevens isn't making that connection.

Bill Whittle's Afterburner: 'Follow the Ideology'

Theo Spark posts the clip.

But check the headline from Linkmaster Smith, "Can I Recall a More Pissed Off Whittle Than In This Fast & Furious Essay? No, I Cannot."

"Have you no shame," reporters and journalists?

Smokin' Rosie Jones Rule 5

I should probably throw some linkage around, which I haven't done in a while.

Check Pirate's Cove, "If All You See…is the sustainability of the world being threatened by catching a fish, you might just be a Warmist."

And see Reaganite, "RED HOT Conservative Chicks: Townhall Editor Katie Pavlich!" And Randy's Roundtable, "Thursday Nite Tart: Lisa Cazzulimi."

Plus, at Guns and Bikinis, "Great Bikini Pics a Rule 5 Offering." And Daley Gator, "DaleyGator DaleyBabe Misa Campo."

Bob Belvedere has a smoker! "A Little Hump Day Rule 5: Berit Birkeland."

BONUS: At Proof Positive, "Saturday Linkaround."

RELATED: At The Other McCain, "E-Mails Expose MSNBC Host’s Involvement in #StopRush Boycott." (I think Robert just wanted to post hottie Krystal Ball!)

If I missed you, add your links in the comments for the update!

'Debunking Rachel Maddow's Lies' Trending at 'Bad Blue' and 'Twitchy'

Cool, my Rachel Maddow smackdown is getting some traction!

See Bad Blue:

And Twitchy, "Self-imposed blinders shield media elite from Fast and Furious scandal."

Plus, getting some linkage. At Blazing Cat Fur, "MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Doubles Down on 'Fast and Furious Lies, Gets Schooled by Reason's Nick Gillespie."

And at Protein Wisdom, "“Is President Obama A Pathological Liar?”"

Looking for a Memeorandum link, but not yet, not yet.

And looking for some linkage at AoSHQ, Instapundit, The Other McCain, and Weasel Zippers.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Doubles Down on 'Fast and Furious Lies, Gets Schooled by Reason's Nick Gillespie

Well, Maddow's epic left-wing crazy never stops.

See NewsBusters, "Reason's Nick Gillespie Schools Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher on Fast and Furious." There's a short clip at that link, but the whole show's been uploaded to YouTube. The "Fast and Furious" segment opens the panel discussion, at just after 17:00 minutes:

And here's my smack down from last night: "Debunking Rachel Maddow's Lies About 'Fast and Furious': MSNBC Hack Falsely Claims Scandal Just Like Shirley Sherrod 'Conspiracy'."

Jerry Sandusky Convicted on 45 Counts of Child Sexual Abuse

At the Los Angles Times, "Jerry Sandusky convicted of child sexual abuse":

BELLEFONTE, Pa. — Closing a chapter in a scandal that shocked the nation and tarnished a prestigious university, a jury convicted Jerry Sandusky on 45 counts of sexual abuse Friday night, believing the graphic testimony of young men over a defense team that portrayed the celebrated former Penn State assistant football coach as devoted mentor.

Moments after the verdict was read in the courtroom, Sandusky, 68, rose from his seat with tears in his eyes, one of his lawyers said. When his bail of $250,000 was revoked, Sandusky gave a small wave to his family and was led away in handcuffs to a waiting sheriff's car to be taken to the Centre County jail.

Jurors convicted Sandusky on all but three of 48 charges that he sexually abused 10 boys over a period of 15 years. He could be ordered to spend the rest of his life in prison when he is sentenced in three months.

"From the beginning, we knew what we were facing, so the surprise would have been the opposite," lead defense lawyer Joe Amendola told reporters on the steps of the courthouse, just miles away from the Penn State campus.

"Sandusky said nothing after the verdict was delivered," said Amendola, who promised an appeal. "I think Jerry was prepared for this."

And at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Guilty: Ex-Penn State coach Sandusky could spend the rest of his life in prison."

Plus, at Business Week, "Penn State May Have to Compensate Sandusky's Victims."

More news at Memeorandum and PennLive.

Debunking Rachel Maddow's Lies About 'Fast and Furious': MSNBC Hack Falsely Claims Scandal Just Like Shirley Sherrod 'Conspiracy'

Tim Graham reports at NewsBusters, "Maddow Begs Media to Ignore Fast and Furious: Just Another 'Paranoid Delusion' Like Sherrod Scandal":

In a ten-minute rant on her show Thursday night, Rachel Maddow tried to explain the long NBC and ABC blackout of “Fast and Furious” scandal news by somehow tying it to the Shirley Sherrod controversy. The American people should move along, since this scandal is only a “paranoid delusion” and shouldn’t be covered by anyone other than Fox News. It should be carefully quarantined.

The graphic behind Maddow read “WHAT YOUR UNCLE WHO WATCHES FOX NEWS ALL DAY IS ALL WORKED UP ABOUT.”

Maddow began: “The great Fox News conspiracy about Shirley Sherrod, the racist, that nobody else was covering, was, in fact, a paranoid delusion of the conservative movement and the conservative media machine. And so now, we find ourselves, a couple years later, facing another test for the news media. Do you take the bait again? Do you follow the latest Fox News conspiracy theory?”

Actually, if there's a conspiracy, it's at Rachel Maddow's show, not Fox News. And I want to reiterate something I've said many times: Maddow truly is one of the most sinfully malicious hacks on cable TV --- and that's saying a lot, considering the competition on the left.

First, on the Shirley Sherrod "conspiracy," see William Jacobson, "Saturday Night Card Game (Repeat after me: “The Shirley Sherrod tape was not misleading”)." The tape wasn't misleading, so Maddow's typical left-wing claim of "conspiracy" is bogus.

Second, Maddow claims that "Fast and Furious" was all about conservatives screaming that the Obama administration was going to take away their guns. She calls it a "cockamamie conspiracy theory" and then highlights [Sipsey Street Irregulars blogger] Michael Vanderboegh from Alabama [as if he's some kind of prototypical right-wing loon]. Yeah, that's the Maddow model: the extreme-right is populated with birthers, militia-men, and gun rights cuckoos. All the rest is just a hoax. There is no "Fast and Furious" scandal. It was cooked up by the right to create fear that guns were going to be taken away.

The only problem? Well, it's the Democrats who claimed it was all about guns, U.S. guns and gun shops. These were the source of the Mexico drug cartel crisis, and the thousands of people murdered south of the border were victims of the "90 percent" of weapons that originated in America. Who said that? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama, for starters.

According to Katie Pavlich, in her new book, Fast and Furious, the Obama administration claimed that "90 percent" of the guns in Mexico came from America. Pavlich highlights a 2009 Andrea Mitchell interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Asked what the U.S. was going to do about assault weapons being sold to Mexican drug cartels, short of new legislation banning high-power automatic weapons. Clinton said:

We're going to start tracing these guns, we're going to start cracking down on illegal gun sales, and we're going to go after the straw men and women who go in and buy these guns. ... We're going to use every tool at our disposal...

That exchange is at the clip, at 4:00 minutes:

And get this!

Rachel Maddow interviewed Andrea Mitchell on her own program just minutes after Mitchell conducted her interview with Secretary Clinton. Thus, Maddow knows with 100 percent certainty that the Obama administration initiated a gun-running program with the intent to slow gun traffic to Mexico, and ultimately to make the case before the Congress to ban these weapons:

And here's a CBS News interview with Homeland Security Secretary Janet "The System Worked" Napolitano, who talks about tracking guns going over the U.S. border into Mexico. The interview was conducted on the day President Obama arrived in Mexico for the summit:

And finally, here's Obama's press conference with Mexican President Phillipe Calderon. The president announced that "More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared borders":

According to Pavlich, on p. 32 of Fast and Furious, the actual figure for U.S. guns traced to Mexico is 25 percent, not 90 percent. Pavlich cites Senator Chuck Grassley's report, "ATF Mexico Gun Statistics Flawed."

And Pavlich concludes that section on p. 32:

Regardless of the actual facts, it was clear the Obama administration was united in its enmity toward American gun shop owners. Close them down, as NRA President David Keane says, and you close down the Second Amendment. After all, he maintained, what good is the right to own firearms if there is no place to purchase them?

See also last night's bombshell report, "The Fast and Furious Coverup."

CORRECTION: My apologies to Michael Vanderboegh, who is a blogger at Sipsey Street Irregulars, not a no-name weirdo. Thanks to Jimmie Bise at Sundries Shack for the heads up.

The Lies of Scott Eric Kaufman — Leftist Hate-Blogger Sought to Silence Criticism With Libelous Campaign of Workplace Harassment

ICYMI, here's yesterday's entry: "Scott Eric Kaufman Hates Smokin' Hot Babes — And Negotiated Legal Agreements Too, Apparently." And here's the relevant post at Lawyers, Guns and Money: "Because really important news always involves bikinis."

Hopefully this will be the only update, but SEK continues to lie about everything that went down previously, so as usual, I need to get this out for the record. It's all lies. You have to fight the endless stream of malicious progressive lies.

SEK has posted a purported "order of operations" in response to commenters. This so-called order of operations is the basis for all of the libelous allegations that both he and Carl Salonen have made. Read the lies here. I'll state the facts:

1) I wrote in 2009 that I used to occasionally use an ACADEMIC BLOG POST as a lecture launcher in class. And IN THE PAST, I placed my blog's URL in the syllabus. But shortly thereafter I stopped making any reference to my blog in writing or in class, because people like Erik Kain had launched campaigns of workplace intimidation at my college.

2) In 2010, SEK began a series of attacks alleging that I had "festooned my virtual office" with pictures of "scantily-clad" women, and that created a hostile work environment for my female students. (This kind of stuff is an obsession, obviously.) By this time, after Erik Kain tried to get me fired, I had already met with my vice president of academic affairs. Blogging WASN'T A PROBLEM for my college, but I chose to no longer make reference to the blog in class. This is a matter of record. In February 2010, libel-blogger David Hillman launched his campaign of workplace harassment, alleging that I was "racist." At that time I had then met with the college's vice president of human resources, who handles civil rights and sexual harassment complaints. It turns out now that BLOGGING COULD BE A PROBLEM, not because any student complained, but because progressives with absolutely no business at the college filed false allegations of racism and sexism.

3) I kept blogging as usual, and in May 2010 I noticed the SEK was awarding points to students in his classes who used profanity in their work. This practice --- awarding class credit for profanity --- is highly inappropriate, in my opinion, and it's clearly not good teaching practice. SEK thought he could blow this off as if I'd caught him "cursing." See: "Busted!" Seeing that, I called bullshit in a follow-up: "Scott Eric Kaufman ASFL!!" As I noted at the entry:

"BWAHAHA!!! 

Only the dolts at LGM would fall for Scott Eric Kaufman's witless dodge, "Busted!" 

And since Scott's a member in good standing of the left's Israel-bashing ASFL cadres, I'll spell it out for the idiots: It's not SEK's deployment of f**king profanity, but his AWARDING students college credit for vulgar language, which for the assignment in question replaced anything remotely requiring hard thinking. In other words, that's sh*tty instruction, if folks catch my drift."

4) Clearly alarmed, SEK decided to take action. Note that he'd previously claimed that he wasn't "actually petty enough" to file sexual harassment complaints (ain't that a laugh riot). But I had drawn blood pointing out his hypocrisy, and SEK apparently had plans to hit the job market for a full-time academic position. He planned on going balls out at the Modern Language Association's annual conference (and I use "balls out" loosely here) and he couldn't afford me blogging about him any longer. So what could he do to protect his job market prospects? He could launch a campaign of lies designed to intimidate and harass me at my workplace. SEK submitted his letter to my department chairman on June 3, 2011 --- exactly 10 days after he'd posted his stupid "Busted!" post. (And ICYMI, the letter of complaint is here.)

5) That's the factual record, not this bullshit "order of operations" SEK's been claiming. The f-ker attacked me because I had blogged the truth about him --- and THAT WAS THREATENING. The timing of his complaint to my college is no coincidence. And I thus ended up dealing with legal issues for the remainder of summer 2011, and of course entered into a (bogus) legal arrangement to stand down from blogging about him. But now it turns out that SEK was locked out of the academic job market --- he apparently can't find a full-time position in the current down-market --- so he's apparently decided to leave academe altogether, or he's at least abandoned any hope of become a tenure-track professor. That's why he's felt free to violate any purported legal agreement to stand down --- he's got no prospects on the tenure-track and any past agreements don't mean jack.

Now, recall that I've had about a half-dozen episodes of left-wing assholes contacting my college in a sustained effort to silence me with threats of loss of employment. That's why I'm extremely firm on my contention that the whole Brett Kimberlin controversy is indeed a partisan fight. And while I agree in principle that it's a matter of free speech, I contend that progressives hold entirely different conceptions of what the First Amendment should protect --- and from that follows Democrat-progressive policy commitments to repeal free speech provisions for conservative political advocacy. It's as simple as that. The Kimberlin affair is of a natural piece of the left's ideological commitments. Conservatives need to think clearly about this point.

And despite the claims of racist ringleader Walter James Casper (commenting at LGM), my battles with the left are intimately related to the attacks to which folks like Aaron Worthing and Robert McCain have been subjected. As Mandy Nagy wrote on Twitter last night:

@AmPowerBlog Glad you wrote about this. Been telling some folks about your own harassment experience, trying to get ppl to see all sides :)
— Mandy Nagy (@Liberty_Chick) June 22, 2012

Mandy wrote a blockbuster piece on the Kimberlin network in 2010: "Flashback: Progressives Embrace Convicted Terrorist." Since that time Mandy's life has been a never-ending nightmare of intimidation, harassment, and threats to her safety. And over the last year, Mandy's been a source of encouragement for me in standing my ground against the left, as has Robert Stacy McCain, who wrote about the left's attacks on Amy Alkon early last year: "Carl Salonen & the Left-Wing Trolls Who Smeared ‘Advice Goddess’ Amy Alkon."

I continue to blog the Kimberlin story, and contribute financially, because I personally know what it's like to have a target on your back. And most of all, I know from personal experience that the left will do anything to stop good people from speaking the truth. It's a simple matter concerning the freedom to blog, as Michelle Malkin has pointed out. Progressives are being beaten badly, online and at the ballot box. And violence and threats of violence and intimidation against conservatives are escalating by the day. But conservatives are rallying. As Ladd Ehlinger pointed out today, "The Best Defense is Offense." To see where that began, recall Aaron Worthing's post from May 17th: "Summary/Preview of my Post 'How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime (And How You Can Help!)'."

For more information, see: "Bloggers Defense Team Goes After the Left's Criminal Harassment Network."

TOP PHOTO CREDIT: Ralph Nowell, SEK's father-in-law.

Bloggers Defense Team Goes After the Left's Criminal Harassment Network

This just in, from Ladd Ehlinger: "Dest Defense is Offense."

And following the links takes us to Bloggers Defense Team, "Defending Free Speech Against Lawfare And SWATting."

DB Capitol Strategies, in partnership with Right Solutions, a 501c3 public charity, is building a nationwide team of lawyers to defend the victims and taking the fight to Kimberlin. To win this battle in courtrooms around the country, we need your support. We’ve fired the first salvo in defense of Aaron Walker by filing a federal lawsuit against Kimberlin and seeking an injunction to prevent the state from arresting an American exercising his right to free speech. This is only the first step. We are committed to helping Aaron Walker and others expose Kimberlin and his well-funded allies in their efforts to silence their foes.

JOIN US in this fight!

There's a Paypal link at the post, which folks might want to make note of, as many are suspicious of the motives of Ali Akbar and the National Bloggers Club.

And check out Aaron Worthing as well:

I am fight back against an unconstitutional restraint on my freedom of speech. If you'd like to help go here: allergic2bull.blogspot.com
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) June 22, 2012

The full post is here: "A Victory For the Free Expression Coming?"

RELATED: David Hogberg, at IBD, "Kimberlin vs. Walker: Walker Fights Back."

Politico Suspends Joe Williams Over Alleged 'Controversial' Comments About Mitt Romney

Actually, the part about feeling more comfortable around white people isn't very controversial. But Williams' tweets are genuinely disgusting. Williams set his Twitter feed to private, but Victoria Taft has the offensive tweets: "Why Is Politico Reporter Sending RACIST Tweets to Romney?"

And see John Nolte at Breitbart, "Politico Reporter Tweets Ann Romney Penis Joke."

Also at NewsBusters, "Politico Suspends Reporter Joe Williams for 'Controversial Comments' About Mitt Romney." (Via Memeorandum.)

The Fast and Furious Coverup

Here's the big entry from last night at The Right Scoop, "BOMBSHELL: Proof Obama and Holder knew about gun walking in 2009":

And see Rush Limbaugh from yesterday as well: "Holder Retracts Lie that Bush's Attorney General Knew About Gun Walking."

Update: The Right Scoop explains why this video got pulled here.

Moody's Investors Service Downgrades 15 Global Banks

At The Hill, "Moody's downgrades 15 of the world's biggest banks." (Via Instapundit.)

And check the San Francisco Chronicle: "Bank Investors Dismiss Moody's Cuts as Coming Years Too Late."

New York Times Blows Off Obama Fast and Furious Coverup as 'Pointless Fight'

Well, would you expect anything less from the editors of the Times?

See: "A Pointless Partisan Fight":

Mr. Issa has relished making this investigation a political fight. Last week, he seemed to bait Mr. Holder when he said in a statement, “the Obama administration has not asserted executive privilege or any other valid privilege,” so it could not refuse to produce the materials.

On Wednesday, for the first time since he was elected, President Obama invoked executive privilege on the disputed documents. Doing so now bars prosecution of Mr. Holder in federal court should the full House vote to hold him in contempt of Congress.

Executive privilege cannot and should not be allowed to shield the executive branch from regular, valuable Congressional oversight. There was no reason the House committee and the Justice Department could not work out a deal to produce the documents requested, or some form of them. Instead, they show again that every issue, large or small, can be turned into ammunition for political combat.

Actually, Obama's invocation of executive privilege is clearly an obstruction of justice.

Check Power Line on the likely explanation of White House evasion: "THOSE FAST AND FURIOUS DOCUMENTS MUST BE DYNAMITE."

#StopRush Turns on Itself

I've been watching this story and Twitter, and it's nasty.

See William Jacobson, "#StopRush was infiltrated, audio recordings and other evidence released."

RELATED: At Serr8d's Cutting Edge: "The OFFICIAL STOP RUSH SLIDESHOW!"

Twitter Superstar Kelly Oxford

This lady shows how it's done, at the Los Angeles Times, "Twitter sensation Kelly Oxford hooks Hollywood":

From a snow-crested corner of Alberta, Canada, Kelly Oxford made her Hollywood screenwriting dream come true. She did it without leaving her close-knit family or giving up her free nationalized healthcare. She did it without toiling in Westside coffee shops or confronting painful rejections.

She did it 140 characters at a time.

Oxford, a suburban housewife and mother of three, is a Twitter superstar (@kellyoxford), with more than 350,000 followers. Oscar winners, late-night talk show hosts, even film critic Roger Ebert follow her on the social media service, eager to read wry observations about daily life and celebrity culture.

The worst part about having kids is that they magnify every single thing that's wrong with you. And they wake up early.

If you have a taxidermy marlin and you've never tried to joust someone with it, you're wasting everyone's time.

If the majority of your followers are idiots and you like wine, you're probably more like Jesus than you think.

Those are a few of the 2,900 tweets she's sent since she discovered the medium three years ago.

NBC hired Oxford to write a pilot last fall, Harper Collins will release her first book of essays ("Everything's Perfect When You're a Liar") next April, and in April she sold her first movie script to Warner Bros. It's about a pot-smoking young woman suddenly confronted with the prospect of motherhood.

Her success points to an appetite for humor from a female point of view. But unlike stars such as Tina Fey and Kristen Wiig, who honed their craft in the"Saturday Night Live" writers' room, Oxford found and shaped her comedic voice in online chat rooms and blogs and on Twitter.

Continue reading.

Update on Road Rage Freeway Brawl

See the Los Angeles Times, and scroll down at the post for previous updates: "'Road rage' freeway brawl: Victim arrested on warrant."

Fox & Friends Gets Results!

When you draw the ire of the nation's unofficial newspaper of record, you know you're over the target.

See NYT's thinly veiled attack piece: "‘Fox & Friends’ Finds Ratings and Controversy."

Bus Monitor Karen Klein Interview on Fox News

Lonely Conservatives has the full clip: "Video: Mean Kids Make Bus Monitor Cry."

And here's Steve Doocy's interview on Fox & Friends:

And at Storify, "Bullied Bus Monitor Karen Klein Sees the Best and Worst of Humanity in 24 Hours," and Dateline News: "Karen Klein Update: Online Donations Crosses $400,000 After Bullying Video Went Viral."

Sean Hannity Interviews Parents of Brian Terry, Slain Border Patrol Agent

Reliapundit has an abbreviated clip: "THE LATE BRIAN TERRY'S PARENTS TELL IT LIKE IT IS."

And here's the full interview:

RELATED: At Michelle's, "Latest Democrat who can’t remember murdered Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s name."

Scott Eric Kaufman Hates Smokin' Hot Babes — And Negotiated Legal Agreements Too, Apparently

"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
— Matthew 7:20

Last year, when I was defending myself against Carl Salonen's sick campaign of workplace harassment, I was also defending against an almost identical campaign of allegations launched by progressive douchebag Scott Eric Kaufman at Lawyers, Guns and Money. I have blogged very little concerning Kaufman's allegations because my attorney negotiated an agreement between the parties not to contact each other, or in Kaufman's words, not to "engage each other online" in any way whatsoever. I thought that meant not blog about each other, but SEK complained to my attorney after I left a comment at his blog, Acephalous. He then claimed the rule meant no blogging, commenting, or anything at all related to each other. Well, maybe not after all. It turns out that SEK's got a new post at LGM, at the screencap, which clearly constitutes a willful abrogation of any previous legal arrangements (and SEK's own interpretation of those). See: "Because really important news always involves bikinis."

SEK links four posts there:

* Instapundit's recent entry linking to me, "PROF. DONALD DOUGLAS covers the really important news."

* John Hawkins' latest contest results at RWN, "The 20 Hottest Conservative Women In the New Media (2012 Edition)."

*Wonkette's hit piece against John Hawkins, "Here Are the Hottest Conservative Men to Judge the 20 Hottest Conservative Women."

* And SEK's own earlier hit piece against me, one of the posts that led up to his campaign of allegations against me at my college, "Last word on The Donalde (until the next one)."

Here's the letter SEK sent to my department chair, on June 3, 2011:

[PULLED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE]

One of the more interesting background details on this is that at one point SEK, in all of his attack blogging, claimed he wasn't "actually petty enough" to go after me at my job with allegations of sexual harassment like those above. See this comment, for example:

I was certainly threatening his job, just as as someone’s threatened mine in the past. I know, but can’t reveal, who wrote those anonymous letters to the chair of my former department because this person used the word “demonology” in a familiar way, and quite possibly quoted a post of a familiar someone, and used an easily identified address in an email sent from an IP address already identified with blah blah blah.

I’m not actually petty enough to go after his job, because I’m sure the chair of this person’s department — unlike the person who received this person’s emails, who was the chair of a department that wasn’t mine — but I’m sure this person’s chair has heard all these complaints before, from students and outsiders, and sincerely wishes this person was never granted tenure. I can’t prove that I’ve heard words to that effect … but keep in mind that I’m being advised by a lawyer about how to deal with this person’s actions, and he’s advising me write about this, and I quote, “in a way that makes it public knowledge, for the record, but without saying anything definitive.”

A screencap of that quote is here, for the record. And the original post is here.

Obviously, Scott Eric Kaufman is "petty enough" to do something despicable like that. And he's obviously so clinically obsessed with his politically correct jihad against babe blogging that he couldn't resist posting about me again --- after he announced a purported agreement to completely stand down from any interaction. What an idiot and an asshole.

Any such purported legal agreement is hereby null and void. Heretofore I had reluctantly held fast to the "stand down" arrangement, but that's no longer necessary, by no action of my own. (See the screencap of the traffic Kaufman's throwing me here.)

And for your reading pleasure, compare SEK's allegations to Carl Salonen's: "Carl Salonen Libelous Workplace Allegations of Child Pornography and Sexual Harassment at Long Beach City College."

Obama Job Approval Sinks to 43 Percent in Gallup's Daily Tracking

He's down 7 points in two weeks. It's probably not on account of Fast and Furious, but we can't preclude O's numbers dropping even further next week.

See: "Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval" (via Hot Air and Instapundit).

Michelle Malkin Slams Obama Administration on 'Fast and Furious' — And the Left Goes Bonkers

There's a lot at Twitchy.

See: "‘Just a blogger’ Michelle Malkin vs. ‘real journalist’ David Shuster; Sexist Shuster scores less than zero," and "Little Boy Tool: Keith Olbermann crawls from under irrelevant rock to try to bash Michelle Malkin."

And the source of leftist anger, a great clip:

And check out Michelle's blog: "Latest Democrat who can’t remember murdered Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s name."

More later...

A Nuclear-Armed Iran May Be the Best Path to Stability to the Middle East

According to the eminent political scientist Kenneth Waltz, at USA Today, "Iranian nukes? No worries":

The past several months have witnessed a heated debate over the best way for America and Israel to respond to Iran's nuclear activities. Although the U.S., the European Union and Iran have recently returned to the negotiating table, a palpable sense of crisis still looms.

It should not. In fact, a nuclear-armed Iran would probably be the best possible result of the standoff and the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.

The crisis over Iran's nuclear program could end in three ways. First, diplomacy coupled with sanctions could persuade Iran to abandon pursuit of a nuclear weapon. But that's unlikely: The historical record indicates that a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons can rarely be dissuaded. Take North Korea, which succeeded in building its weapons despite countless rounds of sanctions and U.N. Security Council resolutions. If Tehran decides that its security depends on possessing nuclear weapons, sanctions are unlikely to change its mind.

The second possible outcome is that Iran stops short of testing a nuclear weapon but develops a breakout capability, the capacity to build and test one quite quickly. Such a capability might satisfy the domestic political needs of Iran's rulers by assuring hard-liners that they can enjoy all the benefits of having a bomb (such as greater security) without the downsides (such as international isolation and condemnation).

Reconsider Israel

Israel, however, has made it clear that it views a significant Iranian enrichment capacity alone as an unacceptable threat. It would likely continue its risky efforts at subverting Iran's nuclear program through sabotage and assassination— which could lead Iran to conclude that a breakout capability is an insufficient deterrent, after all, and that only weaponization can provide it with the security it seeks.

The third possible outcome of the standoff is that Iran continues its course and publicly goes nuclear by testing a weapon. U.S. and Israeli officials have declared that outcome unacceptable, arguing that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel. Such language is typical of major powers, which have historically gotten riled up whenever another country begins to develop a nuclear weapon. Yet every time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it. In fact, by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less.

Continue reading.

Professor Waltz is the father of "structural realism," and the appearance of his piece has set off a little flurry of awe around the web. (Note that Harvard's Stephen Walt was a student of Professor Waltz at UC Berkeley back in the day. At one point these "neorealist" scholars were the envy of international relations theory. Now, not so much, not least because such systemic theories are wildly out of vogue, but from my perspective, because such abstract theorizing has been fodder for the most literally diabolical attacks on the Jewish state, the only democracy in the Middle East.)

Jonathan Neumann at Commentary has a bit on Waltz, for example, "The Reality of Structural Realism." And this is good:

The problem with structural realism – its limited analytic value notwithstanding – (as with all structural theories) is that it largely evacuates notions of ideas and agency from world affairs: facts such as Israel’s democratic politics as compared with Iranian theocracy, or the caprices of dictators, or domestic politics, and so forth, do not drastically change a state’s aspirations and behavior. Yet these facts are so critical to any reasonable observer – and, in the case of the Middle East, that includes all the Arab regimes, who have never shown the sort of alarm toward Israel’s supposed nuclear capability that they have toward Iran’s. This reality fatally undermines Waltz’s thesis.

Incidentally, the case of Israel has also undermined the approach of another structural realist, John Mearsheimer. Though his perspective differs slightly from Waltz’s, his obsession with the power of the ‘‘Israel lobby’’ in the United States is inconsistent with his theory that domestic politics are largely irrelevant to the actions of states.

Exactly.

And also at Commentary, from Rich Richman, "Do Iranians Read “Foreign Affairs”?"

And following the links takes us to Waltz's full-length version of his Iran argument at Foreign Affairs, "Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability."

I prefer to read the full essay in hard copy, but mine hasn't arrived yet. More on that later. The contents to the new edition is here.

Meanwhile, an earlier version of Waltz's beneficial proliferation thesis is here: "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better."

Progressives Cry 'Witch Hunt' After House Committee Holds Eric Holder in Contempt

See the roundup at Twitchy, "#DarrellIssainThreeWords: Unhinges vicious liberals."

And more, at Huffington Post, "Nancy Pelosi Slams Contempt Vote: 'I Could Have Arrested Karl Rove ... But We Didn't'." (Via Memeorandum.)

Plus:

* Angry Black Lady, "Fast and Furious Hurts Both Sides

* Balloon Juice, "We’re Playing Different Games."

* Charles Pierce, "What the Gobshites Are Saying: Fast & Spurious Edition."

* Firedoglake, "Regardless of Fast and Furious Witch Hunt, Executive Privilege Claims Deserve Scrutiny."

* The Impolitic, "Contemptible Congress."

* Little Green Footballs, "Breaking: Republican ‘Fast and Furious’ Inquisition Finds Eric Holder in Contempt."

* Mahablog, "Impeachment by Proxy."

* Moderate Voice, "Pure Politics."

* No More Mister Nice Blog, "EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE: IT'S BEEN CLAIMED FOR NON-PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS AND ON BEHALF OF PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS."

* RADAMISTO, "THE F&F 'SCANDAL'."

* Think Progress, "FACT CHECK: Executive Privilege Does Not Apply Exclusively To Presidential Communications."

* Washington Monthly, "FastnFuror."

Actually, I think some of the progressives are actually digging this. It's all a joke. Nothing to see here, move along. And Obama's president --- so the laws don't apply anyway.

MSNBC Nutjob Chris Matthews: Eric Holder 'Trial' Looks Like Racist 'Stop and Frisk' on Capitol Hill

The dude's a freak.

At NewsBusters, "Matthews Slimes GOP as Racist for Going After Holder: An 'Ethnic' 'Stop-and-Frisk'."

Holder's Many Privileges

The lead editorial, at the Wall Street Journal:

The Attorney General is supposed to protect a President from legal and political snares, a part of his job description that Eric Holder seems to have missed. He's now succeeded in drawing President Obama into a brawl with Congress by invoking "executive privilege" to withhold documents.

For weeks, Mr. Holder has resisted Congress's subpoena for documents investigating the botched drug-war operation Fast and Furious. But he expressly stopped short of claiming executive privilege, a power invoked only 24 times since the Reagan era that typically protects communications directly with the President or his senior aides. Mr. Holder instead claimed "deliberative privilege" within a Cabinet Department, a vague and much weaker claim that neither courts nor Congress have honored.

But suddenly on Wednesday, facing the threat of a criminal contempt vote in the House, Mr. Holder asked the President to invoke executive privilege after all. This is no small claim, and it raises a few new questions. Such as:

Did White House officials know and approve Fast and Furious before it went awry, and did they advise the Justice Department on how to respond to Congress's investigation into the operation's failure?

How can the President invoke a privilege to protect documents he and the White House are supposed to have had nothing to do with?

And what is so damaging or embarrassing in those documents that Mr. Obama is now willing to invest his own political capital to protect it from disclosure—at least until after the election?

Keep in mind that this uproar began over an obscure 2009 operation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to let some 2,000 illegal weapons get into the hands of a Mexican drug cartel in an effort to track the guns to other traffickers and kingpins. In December 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed during a gunfight, and two of the operation's illegal weapons were linked to the crime.

Congress decided to investigate, and in a February 4, 2011 letter to Congress, the Justice Department flatly denied that the operation existed. Ten months later it admitted that wasn't true and retracted the letter.

Since that modified, limited mea culpa, Mr. Holder has acknowledged that the program was fatally flawed and said he was the one who ended it. But rather than cooperate fully with the investigation, Mr. Holder's department began an epic stonewall to block Congressional attempts to find out what really transpired.

Yeah, keep in mind.

More at the link.

VIDEO: Smokin' Kate Upton Cover Shoot for GQ Magazine July 2012

She's a sensation:

And ICYMI: "Kate Upton's 'Raunchy' at GQ Magazine."

NewsBusted: 'Obama Administration Will Stop Deportation of 100s of Thousands of Illegal Aliens'

Via NewsBusters:

Joe Biden Rallies Public Employee Unions in Los Angeles

He's a thug himself, speaking to the 40th International Convention of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (via Los Angeles Times).

At AoSHQ, "Joe Biden Channels His Inner Al Gore and Screams at People."

And Weasel Zippers, "Video: Joe Biden In Full Train-Wreck Mode, Screams His Way Through Speech to Union Supporters…"

Update on Ali Akbar and Bloggers Against #BrettKimberlin

I hadn't planned on writing about this again so soon, but then again, I wasn't expecting the aggressive push back against the post.

But before I get into the details, let me stipulate a few important things.

First, it's not my intention to keep spinning out these internecine battles on the right. This is about clarification and truth. It turns out the statement that Paul Lemmen had been advised to STFU generated a good bit of controversy, and while folks kept it cool overall, I thought Ali Akbar came out of the gate like lightning and was getting too hot to handle. Now, to repeat, I'm not judging Ali. This isn't my fight. Again, this isn't my fight. In fact, I've blogged numerous times in his support throughout the last month. But Ali suggested I was posting lies at the blog --- and linking to liars. Moreover, he wasn't just aggressive in trying to contain any fallout, but also came off highly defensive even though unprovoked. Ali doesn't follow me and I didn't tweet the post to him, but he quickly DM'd me and asked that I call him. I couldn't send back a DM so just kept tweeting, to @Ali and @Vermontaigne mostly. Interestingly and unprompted, as seen below, Ali denied he's been "going to each blogger" who's blogged about him. No problem. I wouldn't want to come off looking like Brett Kimberlin either:

@AmPowerBlog And just FYI. I'm not going to each blogger. You post though came up in an email from a victim who was concerned. @vermontaigne
— Ali A. Akbar (@ali) June 20, 2012

Second, I'm interested in the truth. I wouldn't be writing if folks hadn't questioned the veracity of my statements. And I especially wouldn't be writing if folks hadn't questioned my veracity and then mocked me at the same time:

If you're going to link a post, please read it folks. Lord, have mercy.
— Ali A. Akbar (@ali) June 20, 2012

Actually, I did read the Da Tech Guy's post, which is the one Ali's referencing at that tweet. But my information was at odds with the statements there. For the record, I was told that both Ali and Stranahan advised Paul to stand down. So, I'm just out to set the record straight. Please don't impugn my integrity people. And don't bullshit me or lie to me --- or, as Robert Stacy McCain might say, don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. Damn straight. I take my conservatism seriously. I value honestly and integrity and standing up for what's right. That doesn't seem to be happening among a lot of folks out here, and in fact, it looks like we've got a swarm of weasels trying to piss all over some decent folks just trying to get a place at the table. That's not right and most of all that's why I'm posting this update.

Third, I doubt folks appreciate being pushed around by self-appointed "bosses" of the conservative 'sphere. As I said last night, all of us have a job to do, and that's to provide backup to those who are under fire. For me, that was Aaron Worthing from the get go, and then later Robert after he went underground to continue his reporting without being either served or shot. And let me tell you: I love that guy. Robert's one of the most interesting bloggers going and I'm glad he's my friend. I'd go to hell and back with him at this point, he means that much to me. And I think Robert would be the first to say that's it's a community out here. We carry each other. All this infighting is only making bad blood and is certainly not helping the larger battles. And I've been fighting those battles, so folks can hold off on the pissing matches. I'm talking to you Scott Jacobs! When the California Attorney General investigates you like she has me, you'll know what I'm talking about. It takes guts to stay in the fight when the left puts a target on your back. I know what it's like. So when I read Aaron's initial 28,000 word post I knew the stakes. So let's keep some perspective. I want to beat the left --- I want to pound those f-kers. I want to see these criminals face justice. And for that to happen, folks engaged need to stand up and stop with the lies. "Don't tell me that today, if you know what's good for you you'll get out of may way, 'cause, I'm crazy and I'm hurt..."

And if it's not lies, or allegations of lies, it's at least cross-talk and missed signals, and while that may be the case, I'm still substantiating what I was told for the record. For example, during last night's Twitter exchange Paul commented at the blog:

Thank you Don. I have no words beyond there that will be believable by those who found it necessary to repeat their blacklist of me from March. I get it, okay? "STFU and go away" is the order of the day. They want and need the intel I have gotten but can't be seen putting me in any positive light.

That's okay with me, the fight is not about me but about Brett Kimberlin and his associates. That is what should be remembered instead of the rhetoric about me.

I didn't notice that Paul had commented until I signed off for the night, and by that time I'd promised folks an update. So, I sent Paul an email to get a statement on the record. I asked him if indeed there were crossed signals or mixed messages, and he wrote back:

lemmen 9:53 AM (9 hours ago)

to me

It wasn't mixed at all. Lee Stranahan: "Leave Ali alone, don't pay attention to him, just blog about something else, leave the Ali situation alone." Ali: "Who are you? I hadn't even heard of you two weeks ago." And the attached tweet that is the heart of it.

Paul

I also reached out to Zilla, who's been viciously thrown under the bus during the latest iterations of this mess. I asked her what she knew of Paul's statements, and so forth. She wrote back:

I saw with my own eyes in Ali's twitter feed where he attacked Paul and others on Saturday night, and if he hasn't deleted them then they should still be there. He implied that Paul Lemmen was working with Brett Kimberlin, he made nasty remarks about Paul's criminal record (as if he himself doesn't have one) and he implied that Paul's criticism of the NBC (which is legitimate criticism regardless of the source) was motivated by racism.


The National Blogger's club, long before any of this stuff started with BK and the gang, touted itself as an organization to help bloggers to be less marginalized; they gave out press credentials, and appeared on its surface to be a force for good in the dextrosphere, but there was never any discernible way for bloggers to request membership, there was no website or contact information made publicly available and they only had a basically blank facebook "like" page. I repeatedly asked people who said they were members how an interested blogger might apply for membership and they all said that they didn't know. Apparently, nobody knows, so it looks as if the NBC simply hand-selects whoever they deem fit for whatever reason to join their esteemed ranks. I suppose it's their prerogative to do so, but you can't claim to be an organization representing the conservative blogging community at large while at the same time deliberately excluding the majority of bloggers. There are many legitimate questions about the NBC that people should not be afraid to ask, or attacked for asking.

Finally, I contacted Ladd Ehlinger as well, especially with regard to his essay, "Good Luck National Bloggers Club." I told him that Ali had called him a liar on Twitter and asked I for clarification. He wrote back:

Hey Donald,

Super-busy at the moment, which is why I haven't written a follow up post from my last, but I did want to say this, which you can quote me on.

1) I firmly believe that Lee Stranahan did not pressure Lemmen to be silent. Just the opposite. Lee's been quite consistent with the notion that everyone should assist and unite in the effort to go against Kimberlin, and from what I gather from Lee, that includes Lemmen and Akbar both. Lee wants to reduce the infighting, and I believe whatever calls he made to Lemmen came from this motivation.

2) Unless there's something I don't know, I don't think that Ann Barnhardt wrote her piece (nor do I believe that Big Fur Hat posted it) in order to deflect attention away from Akbar's past crimes. The timing was based merely on Lemmen's high-profile involvement in the Kimberlin story. Both Ann and BFH have had a long history with Lemmen, and I believe they were motivated purely by that. They wanted to warn everyone about Lemmen's history as a con-man, which they honestly believe continues to this day. Lemmen disputes their characterizations of his recent behavior, but I think even he would agree that he still has a long road to walk before some will even consider looking at the details.

3) Like Ann and BFH, I have a history of observing the machinations of Akbar. If he were truly honorable and "all about the cause," he would've stepped down from the NBC when his crimes were revealed by the bad guys, and handed the reigns of it and its legal defense fund over to someone else by now, rather than dragging this out, and doing things like trolling for Lemmen's attorney via Twitter. A lot of good people are being asked to play the role of Madeline Albright in a game of "not a single time" or "the rap sheet isn't really as bad as it looks." I understand that Akbar claims he submitted his resignation twice to the board of the NBC and twice he was refused. Is it really that hard to step down? Really?

I would like to know why the following questions have never been directly answered:

1) How much money was raised by NBC in its Kimberlin effort?
2) How much money has been spent by the NBC from the legal defense fund, and on what? I'm told that money has been dispersed to victims, and that's a good thing - depending upon the whole entirety (i.e., how much has been raised, how much spent on overhead, etc.)
3) How does the NBC determine who is a Team Kimberlin victim, and who is not?
4) By what criteria does NBC decide who gets to be an NBC member, and who doesn't? Are such decisions made on the whims of a convicted felon who paints himself as a top blogger (who doesn't seem to blog), or is there a more up-front process? You know - a voting process. With by-laws. I know there are no fees to join. Other than that, how?
5) Why has there never been a website for NBC? Is it a serious organization or was it a throwaway thought, a branch-off publicity effort for Akbar's for-profit company?
6) Is it true that NBC shared its private email list of bloggers with Akbar's political clients?
7) Is it true that Akbar charged his political clients for introducing them to high-profile bloggers at events like CPAC? If yes, did any of that money make its way to the bloggers themselves?

I know a lot of people think this is an unnecessary distraction from the Kimberlin story.

I agree.

Ladd

So there you go. That's the record. People can sift through themselves. I wasn't posting lies last night, despite the allegations. And while there may still be some concerns about cross-talk and mixed messages, at least people can get this information straight from the principals involved.

And to close this out, see Paul's post, "A Simple Request."

House Oversight Committee Holds Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress

Michelle updates to her entry from this morning: "House panel votes 23-17 to place Holder in contempt."

And check Michelle on Twitter for all the action.

Michelle links to this piece at Congressional Quarterly, "Contempt Citation Would Carry Limited Legal Consequences."

And at LAT, "House panel votes to find attorney general in contempt":

WASHINGTON -- The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform voted to find Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress for failing to provide subpoenaed documents in the flawed Fast and Furious gun-tracking case, just hours after President Obama asserted executive privilege and backed the attorney general’s refusal to release the material.

The vote for contempt and the White House insertion into the growing Southwest border “gun-walking” scandal set up a significant constitutional clash between the two branches of the federal government, one that ultimately may not be resolved until it reaches the courts.

The Republican-led committee, headed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), voted strictly along party lines in finding Holder in contempt. It now sends the matter to the full House for a floor vote to ask the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., or a special prosecutor to force the Obama administration to provide the documents.

“The committee has uncovered serious wrongdoing by the Justice department,” Issa said of his investigation into Fast and Furious, in which several thousand illegally purchased firearms were circulated on both sides of the Southwest border and many wound up with Mexican drug cartels. “That wrongdoing has cost lives on both sides of the border.”

But Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the panel, said the Republicans caused the standoff by demanding the release of internal Department of Justice records. “The administration was forced into this position by the committee’s unreasonable insistence on pressing forward, “ he said.

Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), put it on a more personal level and said she was “extremely disgusted” that her committee had come to this. “I am horrified you are going through with this contempt charge,” she said. “This shouldn’t be a witch hunt.”

All 23 Republicans on the panel voted for contempt, and all 17 Democrats against the contempt resolution.

A "witch hunt."

The family of Brian Terry begs to differ: "Family of murdered Border Agent lashes out at President Obama."

Greek Coalition Takes Power

At Telegraph UK, "Debt crisis: Greece clinches coalition deal to battle bailout":

Conservative leader Antonis Samaras was sworn in as the prime minister of new Greek coalition on Wednesday, as he took up the challenge of trying to revise the terms an unpopular EU-IMF bailout deal.

"I wish you good luck because the problems you have ahead of you are many and difficult," President Carolos Papoulias said before swearing in Samaras at a ceremony int he presidential palace following three days of coalition talks.

Samaras and his New Democracy party, the winners of an election on Sunday, are the senior partners in a coalition with the socialist Pasok party.

The government will also have the parliamentary support of the small Democratic Left party.

"I have the majority to form a long-term government of stability and hope," said Samaras, a US-educated former foreign minister.

Pasok leader Evangelos Venizelos said the new government would begin the battle to get the bailout deal rewritten at an EU summit next week.

"In those two days in Brussels we will carry out a major battle for revision of the loan and negotiate a framework that will boost the recovery and the fight against unemployment," Venizelos said.

Also at Business Week, "Greece's Samaras Becomes Premier of Three-Party Coalition."

More at Der Spiegel, "Same Parties in Charge: New Government, But No New Beginning in Athens."

BONUS: At Telegraph UK, "Debt crisis: markets bet Germany will be dragged down with everyone else."

Sounds lovely.

Arianny Celeste Revisited at Maxim's 'Maximum Exposure With April Rose'

Some hotties to tide folks over until later this afternoon.

I have a big post planned to update from last night's debate on bloggers against Brett Kimberlin. If you haven't yet, check out Robert Stacy McCain's interview with Lisa Graas on Blog Talk Radio: "What The….????"

And see Robert's latest: "‘Persona Management’ for Wackjobs: Rauhauser’s Methods of Deception."

Until then...

Microsoft Tablet Launched to Rival Apple's iPad

At the Wall Street Journal, "Microsoft Unveils Surface Tablet to Rival iPad":

HOLLYWOOD, Calif. — Microsoft Corp. on Monday unveiled the first computer it has ever made, a tablet called the Surface that comes with a keyboard and other features designed to stand out in a market dominated by Apple Inc.

The new device, unveiled by Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer at an event for journalists here, is a sign of the new tactics the software giant has been forced to embrace as it tries to make up lost ground in the mobile market.

Microsoft said the smallest Surface tablet is 9.3 millimeters thick and weighs 1.5 pounds, which is similar to Apple's iPad, at 9.4 millimeters thick and 1.44 pounds. The Surface has a 10.6-inch screen compared with the iPad's 9.7-inch screen.

The Surface has a built-in kickstand and magnetic cover, which also acts as a touch keyboard. Microsoft didn't say whether the device would connect to cellular data networks or would be Wi-Fi only.

The Surface will "be priced like comparable tablets," Windows Chief Steve Sinofsky said. Microsoft will sell the tablets itself at Microsoft's handful of retail stores and through some online channels.

Microsoft didn't identify contractors who will manufacture the hardware, or provide much clarity on timing—except to say that the first Surface models will arrive when Windows 8 is generally available, which is expected to be in the second half of the year.

Mr. Ballmer styled the new tablet device as a vehicle to exploit its forthcoming Windows 8 operating system, and a variant called Windows RT that relies on different kinds of computer chips. The software is the first from Microsoft designed with tablet computers in mind, offering an interface called Metro that is designed to be controlled by a user touching a display.

Mr. Ballmer and other Microsoft executives repeatedly use the words "no compromises" to describe the tablet computers they envision running Windows 8 and Windows RT—which means that users will be able to use work-oriented tools like Microsoft Word and Excel programs, not just be used for watching movies and surfing the Web.

Continue reading.

All the latest on this is at Techmeme, "Live from Microsoft's Windows Phone summit." Also, "Microsoft kept PC partners in dark about Surface."

BONUS: At Business Week, "Why Microsoft's Surface Tablet Shames the PC Industry."

Desperate Much? Obama Attacks Romney as 'Corporate Raider'

Obama can't run on his record, so we'll be seeing a variation of these ads for the next four and a half months.

At ABC News, "Obama attacks Mitt Romney as a ‘corporate raider' in a pair of new ad":

President Barack Obama's reelection campaign redoubled its assault on Republican challenger Mitt Romney on Wednesday, assailing him in a pair of new attack ads as a fee-hiking "corporate raider" who oversaw jobs flight to China and Mexico. The former Massachusetts governor's campaign hit back hard with a long rebuttal document calling into question some of the commercials' core charges.

The ads will run in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada. While some high-profile Democrats, like former president Bill Clinton, have expressed doubts about the strategy of hitting Romney over his time at Bain Capital, a poll out earlier this month strongly suggested that the approach resonates with voters in pivotal battleground states.

The two ads -- the one about fees was dubbed "Mosaic," while the Bain-focused one bore the name "Come and Go" -- reflect the Obama campaign's core argument on the economy, the president's greatest political vulnerability. They aim to tear down Romney's claim that, as a wildly successful investor, he knows best what can steady the sputtering economy and create jobs, while warning voters that Romney would favor the wealthy where Obama aims to help the middle class. And one of the ads throws in a reference to the former Massachusetts governor's vast personal wealth for good measure. Romney "did cut taxes — on millionaires like himself. But he raised taxes and fees on everyone else" the narrator says.

The video says he raised fees and other duties: "On health care. On school bus rides. On milk. On driver's licenses. On nursing homes. On lead poisoning prevention. On meat and poultry inspection. On fishermen and gun owners. On nurses. On electricians. On hospitals. On funeral homes. On mental health services. On hospice care. On elevator repair."

And "as a corporate raider, he shipped jobs to China and Mexico."

The Romney campaign countered immediately, with spokeswoman Andrea Saul saying "these misleading ads are the latest effort by the Obama campaign to distract attention from the president's failed policies that have led to high unemployment and falling incomes."

"It's still the economy and the American people aren't stupid," she said.

Here's RCP's polling average nationally: "General Election: Romney vs. Obama." Something's badly wrong with that Bloomberg poll --- it's a complete outlier.

Obama has ever reason to be worried and all the incentive to go heavily negative. He may have bought a brief reprieve with the amnesty ploy, but Fast and Furious is now in the pipeline and he's going come out looking like the thug he is on this one.

More later on the horse race.

UPDATE: Here's Andrew Malcolm, "Obama's immigration ploy gains him nada."