Freedom to Blog Update July 3, 2012

Apologies up front, but my blogging's been a little off these past couple of days. It's hard to keep up with the left's war on bloggers, but conservatives are fighting back, and there's more today.

First, catch up a bit with Camp of the Saints from yesterday: "The #BrettKimberlin Report D+38: The Madness Of King Sockpuppet."

And then the big news today from The Other McCain, "Brandon Darby Defamed by Kimberlin Associate Neal Rauhauser; Pursues ‘All Legal Remedies’ Against SWATting Charge." And at Robert's previous entry, "Freedom Is Under Attack: Help the National Bloggers Club Fight Back." I commented there, mentioning why I wouldn't be contributing to Ali Akbar, and cited my entry: "Bloggers Against #BrettKimberlin Fracture Over Ali Akbar and the National Bloggers Club." And here's Robert's reply:

Donald: You go into battle with the army you have. The battle has been underway for more than six weeks. Personal criticisms against Ali have been aired widely, but do not detract from the valuable work that the National Bloggers Club has done, and will continue to do, to win this battle. There is a lot of backstory, of which you almost certainly are not aware, and I do not have time or inclination now to explain everything. However, you have my personal assurance that contributions to the National Bloggers Club are crucial to the effort now under way, and will be carefully utilized for that purpose.

There's a lot of "backstory" I don't have, actually. But that doesn't mean I'm incapable of an informed opinion on Ali. One lengthy Twitter exchange was really all it took, plus the non-replies to the update I posted: "Update on Ali Akbar and Bloggers Against #BrettKimberlin." Film Ladd posted a couple of times as well: "Good Luck National Blogger's Club: And See Ya Later." "Convicted Felon Ali Akbar: Kneel Before Zod." And I don't know the motive, and I don't know about the author (other than he's on the left), but folks can take a look at this piece, which was linked at The Other McCain and then removed: "Is There Anything Ali Akbar Has NOT Lied About?"

Enough about that. The main thing is that folks are fighting the battle, and with reference to Robert's comment above, I'm reminded of Winston Churchill's famous quote on Britain's alliance with Stalin against Hitler:

If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.

Now, there's been a lot of blogging at Patterico's as well. Check the link. I especially like Patrick's "accuse the accusers" post, "Stacy McCain on Accusing the Accusers":

The post is titled Lying Felon Brett Kimberlin Scores a Draw in Maryland Hearing, but the key part is Stacy’s description of the Rauhauser/Kimberlin strategy of accusing the accusers:

It is genuinely amazing to think that anyone could read that 1981 article by Indianapolis Star reporter Joe Gelarden — please print it out and read the whole thing — without recognizing that Kimberlin’s characteristic modus operandi has scarcely changed in the past 30 years.

By accusing others of wrongdoing, Kimberlin seeks to evade responsibility for his own wrongdoing. What I’ve called the “accuse the accusers” strategy – which is also witnessed in the actions of Kimberlin’s associate Neal Rauhauser — looks very much like obstruction of justice.

And Patterico's own flourish:

Stacy also has an interview with Brandon Darby which is very important ...

See how it works? If they think you’re about to reveal something about them, they start accusing you first so they can portray your reveal as retaliation. If they are going after someone associated with the FBI, they may be trying to set up a pre-emptive defense in case they are arrested by the FBI. “You guys are prosecuting us because we were revealing the truth about your informant Darby!” Something like that.

I posted on this previously: "'Accuse the Accusers': How It Works." Also here and here.

Finally, at Aaron Worthing's, "Exclusive: The Police Report on my SWATting," and "The Story I Couldn’t Tell, Part III: The May 22 Hearing and Brett Kimberlin’s Bigotry Towards Me."

And one more thing. Don't miss this Twitchy entry: "Brooks Bayne targets conservatives with Brett Kimberlin-style tactics." Books will be written later about this latest phase of the blog and Twitter wars, and the stakes have gotten extremely high. I suspect people will be going to jail when it's all done, and I hope that's soon.

South Africa Chimp Attack on Texas Grad Student Called 'Territorial Defense'

The alpha chimps are said to be six times stronger than humans. What's amazing is that these two pulled the victim, Andrew Oberle, under an electrified fence and then dragged him for a half a mile.

See London's Dail Mail, "American student mauled by two chimpanzees in South Africa was a victim of 'territorial defense'."

And at CNN, "U.S. student has surgery after savage attack by chimps."

Stop Shaming Me You Freak Homophobic Pink-Washers!

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so deeply troubling.

It turns out that the astonishingly stupid "queer" Muslim woman photographed at Toronto's homosexual parade picked up my post in a response to being called out for her sheer mendacity, not to mention disgusting anti-Semitism. This passage caught my eye:

Let me make this clear - my political views cannot fit on a sign, nor can my religious views. You want to talk about Muslim intolerance? Let’s do it. But don’t defend your support of Israel with “well, it’s the lesser evil.” And really, I’m not so sure about that. Despite Israel making an effort to advocate gay rights, they also take away the rights of Palestinians.

The woman's link goes to Sarah Schulman's op-ed from last year at the New York Times, "Israel and ‘Pinkwashing’." Remember Schulman's piece? I'm frankly perpetually astounded by the psychological contortions that progressives go though these days to uphold the mountains of ideological lies that are at base nothing more than the ideological program for the extermination of Israel. I've blogged about that many times, but the "pinkwashing" meme is so world-class stupid I think I just laughed at the time. But reading the Toronto "queer" Muslim's morally confused response, it's obvious that the left's progressive poison of anti-Semitism has twisted some minds beyond repair.

Here's the key absurdity at Schulman's piece:

The growing global gay movement against the Israeli occupation has named these tactics “pinkwashing”: a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violations of Palestinians’ human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life. Aeyal Gross, a professor of law at Tel Aviv University, argues that “gay rights have essentially become a public-relations tool,” even though “conservative and especially religious politicians remain fiercely homophobic.”

Pinkwashing not only manipulates the hard-won gains of Israel’s gay community, but it also ignores the existence of Palestinian gay-rights organizations. Homosexuality has been decriminalized in the West Bank since the 1950s, when anti-sodomy laws imposed under British colonial influence were removed from the Jordanian penal code, which Palestinians follow. More important is the emerging Palestinian gay movement with three major organizations: Aswat, Al Qaws and Palestinian Queers for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. These groups are clear that the oppression of Palestinians crosses the boundary of sexuality; as Haneen Maikay, the director of Al Qaws, has said, “When you go through a checkpoint it does not matter what the sexuality of the soldier is.”

What makes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies so susceptible to pinkwashing — and its corollary, the tendency among some white gay people to privilege their racial and religious identity, a phenomenon the theorist Jasbir K. Puar has called “homonationalism” — is the emotional legacy of homophobia. Most gay people have experienced oppression in profound ways — in the family; in distorted representations in popular culture; in systematic legal inequality that has only just begun to relent. Increasing gay rights have caused some people of good will to mistakenly judge how advanced a country is by how it responds to homosexuality.

Now, check James Kirchick's response at The Tablet, "Sarah Schulman's Pinkwashing Op-Ed Is Nonsense":

While accusing the government of Israel and pro-Israel activists of deceiving well-intentioned progressives, Schulman and her ilk are in fact using the issue of gay rights to forward an ulterior agenda. So consumed are they by hatred of Israel that they are willing to distort the truth about the horrible repression of homosexuals in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If there’s any cleaning of dirty laundry going on here, it is Schulman’s whitewashing the plight of Palestinian gays.

Schulman’s assertion that homosexuality has been effectively “decriminalized” in the Palestinian territories since the 1950s when Jordan revoked colonial-era sodomy laws, will come as cold comfort to the countless gay Palestinians who have fled to Israel after being tortured or receiving death threats by Hamas or Fatah agents. Schulman’s claim would certainly come as news to Maen Rashid Areikat, the PLO’s ambassador to Washington. When asked earlier this year if homosexuality would be tolerated in a future Palestinian state, Areikat replied, “This is an issue that’s beyond my [authority].” Hamas strategist Mahmoud Al-Zahar was blunter. In comments directed toward Westerners, Al-Zahar told Reuters last year that “You do not live like human beings. You do not (even) live like animals. You accept homosexuality. And now you criticize us?” And whatever law might be on the Palestinian Authority books has yet to persuade the leaders of Aswat, a Palestinian lesbian organization, to relocate their headquarters to Ramallah from Haifa. By making the absurd claim that the issue of gay rights is being “manipulated” by the Israeli government, Schulman ends up making excuses for people who kill homosexuals.

Recognizing the enormous gap between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on their respective gay-rights records, critics of the Jewish state have gone to tremendous lengths to propagate a massive lie in order to win over Western progressives....

Introducing the term “pinkwashing” into the mainstream debate about the Arab-Israeli conflict is edifying in at least one respect: It lays bare the delusion, paranoia, and cynicism of the Jewish state’s most earnest detractors. In their minds, any positive statement made about the country is necessarily part of a propaganda campaign in the service of a far-right agenda. For an increasingly large swath of the international left, there really is no good Israel can do, short of disappear.

Word.

Sure makes the Toronto "queer" Muslim woman look even more dense --- and fundamentally wicked.

PREVIOUSLY: "Toronto's Homosexual Muslims Would Be Hanged in Tehran and Beheaded in Riyadh."

And keep in mind, this is exactly what the radical homosexual left is all about. Anti-Semitism, pedophilia, racism, and hatred for tradition, decency, and values. People of faith and decency should be appalled that the progressive left foists off these sick depredations as human rights. It's literally criminal.

Anderson Cooper Reveals He's Gay in Email to Daily Beast's Andrew Sullivan

WyBlog nails the headline, "Anderson Cooper Finally Publicly Acknowledges the Secret Shame that We Already Knew Anyway." And following the link takes us to iOWNTHEWORLD:

[VIDEO PULLED]

Sullivan writes a piece at the Daily Beast where he applauds the way a recent CNN host came out – quietly, matter of factly and with little fanfare.

He says that this is the goal, to have gay people so mainstream that “coming out” is a ho-hum moment.

Andrew writes this in a long-winded essay that, if he could, would be accompanied by a soundtrack of “It’s Raining Men,” a police siren and a few cowboys, Indians and policemen in buttless chaps tossing rainbows into the air from a Rip Taylor shopping bag full of confetti.

The man who came out has it right. Andrew, on the other hand, is part of the coalition of gays who believe that it’s fruitless to be gay unless it’s the centerpiece on table one. If being gay actually becomes as ho-hum as he says he wants it to be, and he’s relegated to table 23 near the kitchen, he’s going to set the table on fire.

Here’s the stupid piece, if you must.

I like Anderson Cooper, actually. Andrew Sullivan? Not so much.

BONUS: At the Los Angeles Times, "Anderson Cooper comes out as gay. Does it matter? Yes." And the New York Times, "Revelation Signals a Shift in Views of Homosexuality."

Whoa! Jessica Alba Steps Out in Strapless Leather Dress at Versace Haute Couture Show in Paris

And she's showing up the fashion models there, it turns out.

Lovely.

See London's Daily Mail, "Stealing the models' thunder! Jessica Alba goes biker chic in strapless leather dress for Paris Fashion Week."

California State Sen. Mark Leno, Homosexual Rights Extremist, Pushes Legislation Legalizing Multiple Parent Families

San Francisco homosexual Democrat Mark Leno, long criticized as the Bay Area's "kiddie porn king," sponsored the bill. See the Sacramento Bee, "California bill would allow a child to have more than two parents":

Beaver had June and Ward.

Ricky had Ozzie and Harriet.

Mom and Dad, same-sex couples or blended families, California law is clear: No more than two legal parents per child.

When adults fight over parenthood, a judge must decide which two have that right and responsibility – but that could end soon.

State Sen. Mark Leno is pushing legislation to allow a child to have multiple parents.

"The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today," the San Francisco Democrat said.

Surrogate births, same-sex parenthood and assisted reproduction are changing society by creating new possibilities for nontraditional households and relationships.

Benjamin Lopez, legislative analyst for the Traditional Values Coalition, blasted Leno's bill as a new attempt to "revamp, redefine and muddy the waters" of family structure by a leader in the drive to legalize gay marriage.

Read it all at the link. While a number of difficult family situations could arise involving claims from more than two parents, obviously for Sen. Leno this is the main rationale for the law:

A same-sex couple who asked a close male friend to help them conceive, then decided that all three would raise the child.

Shoot, get enough "families" like that and you just have to change the laws again to allow all three of them to marry. The man will have two lesbian wives. Perfect!

This guy Leno is a homosexual extremist par excellence! California's children and families are in the best of hands.

Okay, check this out:

* Leno authored the highly controversial California legislation that forces schools to teach homosexual history to elementary school students. Long championed by progressive educators, the depraved homosexual lobby calls this "queering." More on that here: "California Wants Lesbians as Mandatory 'Role' Models."

* Leno introduced California's SB 1586, called "CeCe's Law," requiring the state to house transgender inmates in "opposite sex" facilities of the California Department of Corrections. Leno is quoted on this: "“It is time we moved past the archaic notion one’s genitals define their gender, especially in a correctional setting,” Leno stated. “CeCe McDonald may be a 6 foot 2 inch black man with a full complement of male genitalia on the outside but on the inside there’s a woman who cannot be safely housed inside a male prison…”"

* Leno opposed California's 2006 ballot initiative Proposition 83, an initiative statute protecting families against the worst of the worst child predators. Leno's alternative to the state's "Jessica's Law" received widespread attention at the time: "Sex Offenders Have a Friend in Sacramento!" As conservative columnist Catherine Seipp asked at the time, "Did you know that in California, child molesters and rapists are a protected class?" See: "The Sex Offender Next Door."

* Leno's "life partner," Douglas Jackson, died of AIDS in 1990, which given the arc of the disease, would have placed him (and Leno) as highly active during the height of the San Francisco AIDS "radical holocaust" that spread "like wildfire" through the city in the mid-1980s, according to David Horowitz in "The Plague Abettors."

* And here's the gay granddaddy of them all. Leno, among many homosexual rights leaders in San Francisco, embraced Larry Brinkin, the gay rights "icon" arrested last week on homosexual pedophile charges. According to this piece on Brinkin's retirement from the Human Rights Commission:

Framed proclamations to Brinkin were presented by representatives from the offices of Senator Tom Ammiano, Senator Mark Leno, and Mayor Gavin Newsom (declaring it “Larry Brinkin Day”). Supervisor Bevan Dufty appeared in person, giving his testimony of the many times he has called on Brinkin to solve problems in the past. Supervisor David Campos said, “It’s not just the work Larry did for the LGBT community that we applaud; it’s what he’s done for so many other communities.” As an example, Campos spoke of Brinkin’s work with immigration and sanctuary in San Francisco. “San Francisco government will never be the same without you,” he said. The Board of Supervisors officially declared it “Larry Brinkin Week.” SF Human Rights Commission presented a certificate of recognition as well. Brinkin received as a retirement gift two tickets to the Mexican Riviera aboard the Sapphire ship. “You know, I’ve done a lot of cruising, but I’ve never been on a cruise,” Brinkin jested.

Yeah. Cruising.

We know all about that. See: "Larry Brinkin, President of the California Association of Human Relations Organizations (CAHRO), Gay Rights Icon, Arrested on Child Pornography Charges," and "Larry Brinkin Update: Homosexual Pedophile Exposes Rank Hypocrisy of Radical Left's 'Social Justice' Agenda."As quoted at the latter entry:

Brinkin thrived for almost a quarter of a century in a setting that promotes the false premise that moral behavior is subject to individual judgment. He was well-respected in a community that makes heroes of people whose primary goal is to undermine traditional values such as marriage, portray as out-of-date the belief that heterosexuality is normal, and endorse all manner of perverse behavior by putting it all under the umbrella of "human rights."

Thrived.

And Sen. Leno has been spreading that same (depraved) thriving jive throughout the states for decades. How disgusting.

Photo Credit: Towleroad, "Sean Penn, Gay Leaders Push for 'Harvey Milk Day' in California."

Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'One For the Team'

Not sure if Whittle wanted to title this one "One For the Team." He doesn't seem to make the argument that the ruling in NFIB has anything good going for it, at least in the short term.

In any case, via Theo Spark:

Promote Free Markets as the Best Way to Reduce Poverty

I've run this video before, but hey, it's good. Here's Hadley Heath for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, via Astute Bloggers, "VIDEO: PROSPERITY IS A BY-PRODUCT OF LIBERTY":

And see Dan Mitchell, "Food Stamps, Handouts, and the Ever-Expanding Welfare State."

More From Toronto's Homosexual Pride Parade 2012

Communists and nude not-safe-for-children homosexual protesters, because, you know, you must be a bigot if you don't toe the line on the radical left's perverted values-destruction agenda.

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Did You Know Mao Was Big On Gay Rights?"

And, "Education Minister Laurel Broten's Pride Scrapbook!"

"I am so making your kids like this!"

Yep, that's what it's all about.

PREVIOUSLY: "Larry Brinkin, President of the California Association of Human Relations Organizations (CAHRO), Gay Rights Icon, Arrested on Child Pornography Charges." And, "Larry Brinkin Update: Homosexual Pedophile Exposes Rank Hypocrisy of Radical Left's 'Social Justice' Agenda."

Barclays Chairman Resigns

At the New York Times, "Chairman of Barclays Resigns."

Also at the Guardian UK, "Barclays boss quits over rate scandal: Marcus Agius steps down following the bank's £290m fine for its role in attempts to rig interest rates."

 And a UK Telegraph video is here.

Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party Claims Presidential Election Victory

This is interesting.

See the Los Angeles Times, "Enrique Peña Nieto wins Mexico's presidency, early results show."

And at Newsmax, "Pena Nieto Claims Mexico Presidential Win."

Plus, check London's Daily Mail, "U.S. fears the new Mexican government will 'go soft' on the drug cartels."

ZOMG! Obama Chief of Staff Jack Lew Ripped to Shreds Over ObamaCare Tax on FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace

Kudos to Chris Wallace. He had this guy Jack Lew pinned down like a slimy polecat, and boy was that dude squealing and squirming to get out from under the questioning. And note something: This is how it's going to be all year when Democrats are confronted with the fact of their massive "penalty" tax on people who go without insurance. It's going to hit millions of people. And the Dems, like this idiot chief of staff, just won't be able to defend it.

I think the Internet language for this is f-king pwned, and mercilessly.

Via Gateway Pundit, "Busted: Audio of Obama Lawyer Arguing Obamacare Is a Tax Stuns WH Chief of Staff Jack Lew (Video)."

Toronto's Homosexual Muslims Would Be Hanged in Tehran and Beheaded in Riyadh

These kinds of supremely stupid hard-left homosexual protests would only be permissible in the West. A "queer" Muslim woman like that --- if she's indeed a "queer" Muslim woman --- would be executed in countries under Islamic law like Iran (public hangings for homosexuals) or Saudia Arabia (public beheadings for homosexuals). (Although technically, a "lesbian" in such countries might simply face the firing squad, as methods of capital punishment vary depending on gender. The complete denial of human rights remains the same, but progressive don't really care about human rights. If they did, they'd be protesting the aforementioned Islamist regimes, and not Israel.) Only someone who is literally deranged and blinded by ideological hatred of conservatives and Jews would see otherwise, but God knows there are plenty of people around like that.

At Blazing Cat Fur, "So how did you spend your Canada Day?"

There's some background at the Wall Street Journal: "Anti-Israel Group Aims for Toronto Pride Demo."

ObamaCare and the U.S. Government Legitimacy Crisis

A great piece, from Glenn Reynolds at the Washington Examiner, "The Supreme Court, Obamacare and 'Legitimacy'."

The pundits were wrong on their Supreme Court ObamaCare predictions --- that striking down the law would destroy the legitimacy of the Court --- and if anything, it's the executive and legislative branches --- and we had a Democrat majority in Congress when the ObamaCare monstrosity was passed --- who have not only lost legitimacy, but worked to destroy it in the first place. Just read the whole thing at that link, via Instapundit and Memeorandum.

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies":

And see Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's Sunday Funnies," and Theo Spark, "Cartoon Round Up..."

BONUS: At Jill Stanek's, "Stanek Sunday funnies: “Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision” edition."

Bob Burnquist's Big Air X-Games Los Angeles 2012

This guy is one of the most amazing skateboarders in a generation.

See the Los Angeles Times, "X Games: Bob Burnquist comes up big in air." Burnquist was injured and in extreme pain, but he went on to skate and ...

He nailed a switch-backside-Ollie-180 over the 70-foot gap into the 30-foot tall quarter pipe, where he successfully executed an indy-720-fakie.

'Accuse the Accusers': How It Works

Brett Kimberlin was back in court this week. See Aaron Worthing, "Breaking: John Norton Obtains Peace Order Against Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin ... and Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin Obtains Peace Order Against John Norton."

And see especially Robert Stacy McCain, "UPDATE: Lying Felon Brett Kimberlin Scores a Draw in Maryland Hearing." The key quote:

By accusing others of wrongdoing, Kimberlin seeks to evade responsibility for his own wrongdoing. What I’ve called the “accuse the accusers” strategy – which is also witnessed in the actions of Kimberlin’s associate Neal Rauhauser — looks very much like obstruction of justice.

Now in my blogging I've been relating some uncanny similarities between Kimbelin's criminal activities to the workplace harassment I've been dealing with. I wrote about an unnamed harasser here and here, for example. Also available at Google, to the obvious consternation of he who has sought to shut me down. But what's interesting his how Robert's "Accuse the Accusers" theory enjoys confirmation in my case. There's an LGM post here:

Concerning Brett Kimberlin, Patrick Frey, Aaron Worthing, etc.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/06/concer…
— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) June 27, 2012

And in the comments there, in response to false allegations by the unnamed person that he's being stalked by me, one commenter, who's clearly not up to speed, writes:

... I am not familiar with your stalking story, but I will try to learn more and help you spread the word if you need that. Whatever the circumstance, I’m sorry that you too have had to deal with creeps.

Well, there may indeed be some kind of stalking story (the target apparently is not liked by many different people). The problem is that it doesn't involve me --- there's never been any evidence adduced to that effect --- and this unnamed asshole knows it. But by continuing to foist such lies, people like this can turn the tables to make it appear as if they are victims when in fact it's they who have perpetrated evil deeds against those who simply had the temerity to write the truth about them.

And just like Aaron Worthing has pledged, I won't be silenced from telling the truth.

Yitzhak Shamir Dies at 96

At Astute Bloggers, "YITZHAK SHAMIR, RIP."

And also, the New York Times, "Yitzhak Shamir, Former Israeli Prime Minister, Dies at 96."

Mohammed Morsi Takes Oath as Egypt's First Islamist President

The New York Times reports, "Morsi Is Sworn In, Marking a New Stage in Egypt Struggle."

And see Atlas Shrugs, "Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President-Elect Morsi Vows to Free the Blind Sheikh, Mastermind of the '93 WTC Bombing."

Team Romney: 'Shame On You, Barack Obama'

Via Reaganite:

Reports: Scientology Was Breaking Point for Katie Holmes

An interesting piece at the Daily Beast, "Did Scientology Eventually Bring Down Cruise-Holmes Marriage?"

Holmes, who converted to Scientology in 2005 before marrying Cruise, reportedly hadn’t been seen inside a Scientology Church for some time. Several years ago, she enrolled Suri in a Catholic preschool.

Deborah Opri, a high-profile family trial attorney in Los Angeles, speculates that the divorce could have been driven by Holmes not wanting Suri to be lured into Scientology. “Their prenuptial contract might have been conducted in such a way that the child, by a certain age, would have been a full-fledged Scientologist,” she says.

Uri Friedman's 'American Exceptionalism' Neglects Mention of Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis

It's a good essay (and it looks especially good in the glossy format at hard copy of the magazine). See: "'American Exceptionalism': A Short History." And while it's true that Joseph Stalin coined the exact phrase "American exceptionalism" when he attacked Jay Lovestone of the CPUSA, Friedman's "brief history" neglects mention of Frederick Jackson Turner. According to Scott Zeman in a review of Richard Etulain's, Does the Frontier Experience Make America Exceptional?:

No single historian has been so closely associated with the affirmative response to the exceptionalism question as Frederick Jackson Turner. According to Turner, who presented his famous Frontier Thesis in 1893, what made the United States unique was the frontier experience, that movement of European-Americans from the East into the "open" spaces of the West. The crucible of the frontier forged the American character as independent, rugged, and democratic. The frontier experience, Turner maintained, explains America's departure from its European roots.

That's it, really.

Friedman's piece is fine. I could use it in my classes. But he obviously thinks its funny that conservatives have turned exceptionalism into a partisan wedge, so he highlights how Stalin "first used" the term. In fact, American exceptionalism has a long pedigree in American history and the "frontier thesis" is an especially important iteration of the idea --- and deserves more prominent mention in such a review than does the Soviet dictator's usage.

RELATED: From Herman Cain, at the American Spectator, "In Defense of American Exceptionalism."

Larry Brinkin Update: Homosexual Pedophile Exposes Rank Hypocrisy of Radical Left's 'Social Justice' Agenda

Crickets were chirping among the the usual suspects at the news of San Francisco homosexual child predator Larry Brinkin, first reported here: "Larry Brinkin, President of the California Association of Human Relations Organizations (CAHRO), Gay Rights Icon, Arrested on Child Pornography Charges."

It's, you know, nothing to see here, move along. I mean, someone might say Brinkin's inherently gay predations are no different from, like, the case a young lesbian couple shot in Texas where there is no evidence that prejudice was a motive. But of course, progressives can't argue on the merits, so they'll just attack you as a "bigot." F-king pathetic hypocrite losers. So of course they don't call out one of their own, because that might rightfully cast a dim light on the radical homosexual agenda that's destroying America.

See Blazing Cat Fur, "Moral Relativism and the Plight of a Pedophile":

...Brinkin is just as much the result of a philosophy which preaches that there is no set standard for right or wrong and that human decency is a passé concept that hinges on personal conscience, not social mores or outdated religious criteria.

Brinkin thrived for almost a quarter of a century in a setting that promotes the false premise that moral behavior is subject to individual judgment.  He was well-respected in a community that makes heroes of people whose primary goal is to undermine traditional values such as marriage, portray as out-of-date the belief that heterosexuality is normal, and endorse all manner of perverse behavior by putting it all under the umbrella of "human rights."

So in Mr. Brinkin's case, after making a name for himself advocating for the right to individual sexual expression, it could be that he had convinced himself that pedophilia also meets the necessary criteria.  The North American Man Boy Love Association marched in San Francisco Gay Pride Parades early in Brinkin's career.

Before retiring from the equitable workplace he had helped create and retreating to his e-mail account and his NAMBLA-like discussion group, Larry Brinkin lived and gained fame in a world where the lines that define decency are oftentimes ambiguous.  Brinkin attained star status in a city where people pride themselves on being their own moral judge and jury, where individuals are the subjective arbiters of their own behavior and the sole captains of carnal vessels that are encouraged to set sail in any direction they desire.

Then Brinkin, at 66 years old -- old enough to be someone's grandpa -- is caught with child pornography on his computer and participating in an online chat that approves of sexually molesting innocent children.  The question arises: who, then, in a secular culture determines the ethical norms? After Brinkin spent 22 years working to eradicate a line of moral demarcation, does someone or some system with different measures now get to draw a new line in the sand?

Yes, and this is the lifestyle that well known progressive perverts defend. Remember, if you're not down with the predation you're a bigot!

More from Kathy Shaidle, "Happy Pride! Veteran gay rights activist charged with child porn possession."

Cross-Dressing 101: Teaching Gender 'Diversity' to 5 Year-Old Children

Traditional folks should just learn to be more tolerant and accepting of perverse diverse lifestyles, which include introducing small children to the joys of cross-dressing. Talk about the irreparable harm from the radical left's "tolerance" agenda. What a f-king nightmare:

PREVIOUSLY: "Toronto District School Board: Cross Dressing Guide For Elementary School Students."

HAT TIP: BCF, "Michael Coren & Kathy Shaidle: Cross Dressing Lessons For Kids at the TDSB."

Kate Upton GQ Magazine Cover Shoot (VIDEO)

Via Theo Spark:

That wardrobe malfunction got the lady in trouble: "Kate Upton reportedly booted from Santa Monica pier for showing too much skin."

RELATED: "Who needs Victoria's Secret? Kate Upton lands profile in Vogue after snub from lingerie giant (and there's not a bikini in sight)."

'THE STNDRD' - Issue #1 On Stands Now!

I saw it Friday night in the men's interest section at Barnes and Noble. I didn't know it was brand new. I just grabbed it when I saw the cover shot of lovely Hannah Simone. But hey, if you're going to start a new magazine, the market's still pretty robust for coverage of the hotties.

Check out The Standard.

They've got Arianny Celeste in there as well. Nice.

Miley Cyrus Gets Free Double-Doubles From In-N-Out!

This is no way!

See DListed, "How to Get a Free Double-Double In 2 Easy Steps":

If you drive up to heaven's gourmet emporium on earth In-N-Out to collect a delicious beef orgasm between two buns and you tell the cashier that you have zero dollars to pay for it, they will let the scent of that Double-Double gently hump your nostrils before they yank that food away and tell your broke ass to lick on some used burger wrappers in the dumpster out back. That shit ain't a food bank. That's what should've happened to Miley Cyrus' multi-millionaire ass when she drove up to an In-N-Out drive-thru window in her fancy Mercedes convertible and gave the acting performance of her life by pretending she forgot to bring her credit card. Splash say that the In-N-Out cashier fell for Miley's hillbilly swindle and just gave her the food for free. THE INJUSTICE OF IT ALL. So if you want a complimentary Double-Double just follow these 2 easy steps:

1. Be Miley Cyrus.
2. Pretend like you can't pay for it even though you've got a $100,000 diamond ring on your finger and are driving a car that costs more than 30,000 Double-Doubles.

This HIGHLY important news story is HIGHLY important to us slaves of the Double-Double, because the next time I want to some In-N-Out deliciousness for free, I'm going to show them this post.

It's guess it's not "the climb" after all.

Also at TMZ, "MILEY CYRUS: So Famous ... She Gets Free Meat."

And London's Daily Mail, "Miley Cyrus reveals her spotty skin... and a love bite on her neck days after glamorous red carpet appearance."

Arizona Man Dies After Being Found Guilty of Burning Down His $3.5 Million Home

I saw this out of the corner of my eye yesterday, when Fox News ran a brief blurb. But it never occurred to me that he killed himself. People do die and collapse upon the incidence of extreme stress, so that's sad, I thought. But watch the clip. Clearly, it looks like he downs some medication. He appears to be swallowing. See the Independent UK, "A guilty verdict, a mouthful of poison – and minutes later he was dead." And at Telegraph UK, "Man appears to commit suicide after guilty verdict":

A former Wall Street trader who faced 16 years in prison for burning down his $3.5m mansion collapsed and died in an Arizona court minutes after appearing to take some sort of suicide pill following a guilty verdict.

'The Girl From Ipanema' Turns 50

I love this story, because 'The Girl From Ipanema' reminds me of my parents when I was a small child. At the Wall Street Journal, "The Elusive Girl From Ipanema":

Before 1962, if John Q. Nobody gave any thought to South America at all, it probably didn't range much beyond banana republics, fugitive Nazis and Carmen Miranda. That changed 50 years ago this summer when a tall and tan and young and lovely goddess was born.

She was "The Girl From Ipanema."

Like a handful of other international crossover hits ("Day-O" from Jamaica, "Down Under" from Australia), "The Girl From Ipanema" pretty much put an entire country's music and ethos on the map. In this case, the land was Brazil, the genre was bossa nova, and the atmosphere was uniquely exotic and elusive—a seductive tropical cocktail "just like a samba that swings so cool and sways so gently," as the lyrics go.

At the time, bossa nova wasn't exactly unknown in the U.S., as shown by the Grammy-winning success of "Desafinado" from the 1962 album "Jazz Samba" by Stan Getz and Charlie Parker. But "The Girl From Ipanema" ("Garota de Ipanema" in the original Portuguese) was something else altogether. Not only was it one of the last great gasps of pre-Beatles easy listening, it was an entire culture in miniature.

"To the layperson, 'The Girl From Ipanema' sounds like 'a nice song,' " says the Brazilian-American guitarist and musical director Manny Moreira. "But to the trained ear it is perfection."

Continue reading.

And watch the original Astrud Gilberto performance with Stan Getz here.

Reports: Natalie Morales May Leave After 'Today Show' Snub

Morales is an old school journalist. Her reporting on 'Dateline's' "My Kid Would Never Do That" was excellent, and I remember watching Morales yeas ago as an anchor at the MSNBC news desk. She's got a serious style. And she's obviously a looker.

In any case, at the New York Post, "‘Today’ to lose Natalie too?"

And at Fox News, "Natalie Morales Snubbed? Savannah Guthrie Replacing Ann Curry." And, "Natalie Morales Rumored to Leave ‘Today’ if Savannah Guthrie Gets Co-Host Gig."

Veteran journalist Natalie Morales might be telling the 'Today' show to take a hike if she is not offered the co-host gig with Matt Lauer on the popular morning show, The New York Post is reporting.

Morales, who is Puerto Rican and Brazilian, is technically next in line to take over as No. 2 after media giant NBC reportedly decided to let go of their current co- host, Ann Curry due to a ratings plunge. The show was the top morning show for 852 weeks, until ABC's "Good Morning America" broke their winning streak in April.

The New York Times is reporting that the show's third-hour anchor, Savannah Guthrie, was offered the job as co-host.

If Morales is passed over for the job, which she has reportedly sought for years, she's leaving, a source told the New York Post.

For now, Guthrie has kept mum about the job offer.

Well, actually, Guthrie's in. See the Wall Street Journal, "Guthrie to Move Into Co-Anchor Seat at 'Today' Show."

And see Radar Online, "Matt Lauer's Wife Threatens Divorce If Natalie Morales Gets Today Co-Host Gig."

Actually, it's sounds like Lauer's wife has some hang ups. See London's Daily Mail, "Matt Lauer's wife 'to follow him to London to keep tabs on him while he covers Olympics'."

NFIB v. Sebelius: It's Exactly the Big-Government Disaster it Appears to Be

More analysis on Thursday's ruling.

John Yoo cites both Charles Krauthammer and George Will as "apologists" at his essay at the Wall Street Journal, "Chief Justice Roberts and His Apologists":

Some conservatives hope that Justice Roberts is pursuing a deeper political game. Charles Krauthammer, for one, calls his opinion "one of the great constitutional finesses of all time" by upholding the law on the narrowest grounds possible—thus doing the least damage to the Constitution—while turning aside the Democratic Party's partisan attacks on the court.

The comparison here is to Marbury v. Madison (1803), where Chief Justice John Marshall deflected President Thomas Jefferson's similar assault on judicial independence. Of the Federalist Party, which he had defeated in 1800, Jefferson declared: "They have retired into the judiciary as a stronghold. There the remains of federalism are to be preserved and fed from the treasury, and from that battery all the works of republicanism are to be beaten down and erased." Jeffersonians in Congress responded by eliminating federal judgeships, and also by impeaching a lower court judge and a Supreme Court judge.

In Marbury, Justice Marshall struck down section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, thus depriving his own court of the power to hear a case against Secretary of State James Madison. Marbury effectively declared that the court would not stand in the way of the new president or his congressional majorities. So Jefferson won a short-term political battle—but Justice Marshall won the war by securing for the Supreme Court the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional.

While some conservatives may think Justice Roberts was following in Justice Marshall's giant footsteps, the more apt comparison is to the Republican Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. Hughes's court struck down the centerpieces of President Franklin Roosevelt's early New Deal because they extended the Commerce Clause power beyond interstate trade to intrastate manufacturing and production. Other decisions blocked Congress's attempt to delegate its legislative powers to federal agencies.

FDR reacted furiously. He publicly declared: "We have been relegated to a horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce." After winning a resounding landslide in the 1936 elections, he responded in February 1937 with the greatest attack on the courts in American history. His notorious court-packing plan proposed to add six new justices to the Supreme Court's nine members, with the obvious aim of overturning the court's opposition to the New Deal.

After the president's plan was announced, Hughes and Justice Owen J. Roberts began to switch their positions. They would vote to uphold the National Labor Relations Act, minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws, and the rest of the New Deal.

But Hughes sacrificed fidelity to the Constitution's original meaning in order to repel an attack on the court. Like Justice Roberts, Hughes blessed the modern welfare state's expansive powers and unaccountable bureaucracies—the very foundations for ObamaCare.

Still more at the link.

I think Yoo raises two points, one legal and one political. I don't disagree with the legal reasoning, that by calling the mandate a tax Roberts essentially rewrites the legislation and in fact expands Commerce Clause powers --- because, really, any non-entry into mandatory commercial markets could then be penalized taxed. But I think both Krauthammer and George Will (cited earlier in Yoo's piece) are making political arguments. And it's the political arguments that will matter the most in the short term. Republicans and tea party conservatives are energized, and Mitt Romney has declared his agenda on "day one" is to repeal ObamaCare. It'd be hard to solidify the opposing sides more forcefully. But I'm a political scientist, not a lawyer (see Linkmaster Smith for more on that distinction). I'm seeing virtually all political upside at the moment. Indeed, the White House is already denying that the mandate is a tax after all, the poor babies. And as John Podhoretz argues at the New York Post, "It's on to November" (via Memeorandum).

Check back for more analysis. This is the most interesting "lull" between the primaries and the general election ever.

Previously: "Supreme Court's Decison on ObamaCare — A Substantial Win for Conservatives."

Image Credit: The People's Cube (via Maggie's Farm).

LEAVE JOHN ROBERTS ALONE!

The original Chris Crocker video is here: "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!" And the dude's Facebook page is here.

Okay, when the Soros-backed hate-monkeys at Media Matters start defending right wing Supreme Court justices against Matt Drudge, you know something is out of whack. See: "Drudge Smears Justice Roberts Over His Seizures." And at the loathsome attack website Think Progress: "Conservatives Claim Roberts Upheld Obamacare Because of ‘Cognitive Problems’ Due to Epilepsy Medication" (via Memeorandum).

There's a screencap of Drudge at Media Matters. I don't see it there now, but earlier Drudge linked to a nasty radio segment from Michael Savage. That's up at RCP: "Michael Savage: Roberts Epilepsy Medication Affects His Cognition."

"Let's talk about Roberts. I'm going to tell you something that you're not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It's well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts' writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying," Michael Savage said on his radio program this evening.

That's just despicable gutter politics. Seriously. And I know there were lots of folks on Twitter who were just eviscerating the Chief Justice (and called out here). Folks can disagree, but don't become the enemy. It's pathetic.

The tea party revolt against the decision is fine. Indeed, the ruling's not helping the administration, for all the media bloviating to the contrary. And as I've noted, technically, the A.C.A. should have been struck down. But no doubt Roberts' decision has galvanized the opposition to the law and the Democrats who rammed it down our throats. See: "Supreme Court's Decison on ObamaCare — A Substantial Win for Conservatives."

Daily Kos Won't Link Reliapundit at Astute Bloggers!

Look, when the Daily Kos vermin take your notice and try to minimize your influence by sneering, "One lower-tier righty blogger (by the name of 'Reliapundit,' no less, so you know it's got to be legit, and no I'm not linking, Google if you care, etc.)" ... then you know you're getting too close for progressive comfort.

Fine.

I linked Reliapundit earlier, a great post: "SPECULATION: THIS IS MERELY A GAMING SCENARIO: IF OBAMA THREATENED TO KILL CHELSEA, THEN MIGHT HE THREATEN A JUSTICE OF THE SCOTUS TO SAVE OBAMACARE?"

BETTINA VIVIANO CLAIMS THAT IN 2008 OBAMA CRONIES THREATENED TO KILL CHELSEA TO GET THE CLINTONS TO BACK DOWN FROM USING THE BIRTHER ALLEGATIONS AGAINST OBAMA.

IF THIS IS TRUE - REPEAT IF, THEN IT IS EQUALLY POSSIBLE THAT THESE SAME CRONIES MIGHT THREATEN TO KILL ONE OF CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS' CHILDREN IN ORDER TO GET HIM TO VOTE FOR OBAMACARE.

Here's the reference to Bettina Viviano, "Did Barack Obama Campaign Threaten Life of Chelsea Clinton to Keep Parents Silent on Obama’s Ineligibility?"

Look, Barack Obama's life is one big political cover-up. Read the first chapter of Monica Crowley's new book to be swept off your feet with a tour de force exegesis of this president's detestable stealth politics of deceit, which includes a full outing of a Democrat-Media-Complex that's remorselessly foisted an endless stream of lies on the American people.

And if you want real conspiracies, ugly racists conspiracies, just head back over to Daily Kos: "Eulogy-before-the-Inevitability-of-Self-Destruction-The-Decline-and-Death-of-Israel." That kind of "Protocols of the Elders"-style of anti-Semitism is right there at home at Markos Moulitsas' hate site.

Majority of Americans Would Repeal Some Parts of ObamaCare

And 31 percent would like to see the entire law repealed.

See Gallup, "Americans Issue Split Decision on Healthcare Ruling."

And get this part at the report, "One in Five Will Vote Based on Candidates' Healthcare Positions":

Four in five Americans tell Gallup they will take candidates' views on healthcare reform into account to at least some degree when voting for major political offices this fall. This includes 21% who say they will vote only for a candidate who shares their views on healthcare reform and 59% who say healthcare will be just one of many important factors they will consider when voting. A relatively small 12% say healthcare reform will not be a major factor in their vote.

And check Rasmussen, "Health Care Law Has Already Lost in Court of Public Opinion":

A week after President Obama’s health care law was passed, 54% of voters nationwide wanted to see the law repealed.  Now, as the Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling on the law’s constitutionality, the numbers are unchanged: 54% want to see the law repealed.

In polls conducted weekly or biweekly for over two years since the law's passage in March 2010, the numbers have barely moved. In fact, for more than a year before the law was passed, a similar majority opposed its passage.

The dynamics have remained the same throughout as well. Most Democrats oppose repeal, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters support it. Older voters, those who use the health care system more than anyone else, favor repeal more than younger voters. The number who Strongly Favor repeal has remained over 40%, while the number Strongly Opposing has remained in the 20-something percent range.

Most voters have consistently expressed the view that the law will hurt the quality of care, drive up costs and increase the federal deficit. They also don’t like the government ordering people to buy health insurance and don’t think the Constitution permits that anyway.

This strong and consistent opposition led Scott Rasmussen to conclude in a recent syndicated newspaper column that the “health care law is doomed regardless of what the court decides.”

Amazing.

And remember, the law will drive up costs and drive insurers from the market, ultimately meaning that the federal government would be the provider of last resport --- which is what progressives have wanted all along.

BONUS: At Hot Air, "Gallup: Public split evenly on Court’s ObamaCare decision, 46/46; Update: Go on offense, WH urges Dems" (via Memeorandum).

Shera Bechard, Playboy's Miss November 2010, Gets 'Genius Visa' From U.S. Government

I guess she was on of Hugh Hefner's girlfriends as well.

See London's Daily Mail, "Should Playboy Playmate have received 'Genius' Visa? Controversy after former girlfriend of Hugh Hefner granted status for 'extraordinary ability'."

And check Ms. Bechard's Twitter feed. I think she got the visa for all those frisky photos she posts.

BONUS: Zion's Trumpet did a Rule 5 post on her a couple of weeks back.

Nanny of the Month: Banned Bikinis? And You Thought ObamaCare Was Bad!

If bikinis are banned that is the end of America!

Via Theo Spark:

And see London's Daily Mail, "New Jersey councillor wants to enforce 54-year-old law banning bathing suits on boardwalk."

Erin Andrews Leaving ESPN

Apparently this Sports Illustrated story sparked the media coverage: "Erin Andrews leaves ESPN; Fox Sports next?"

And see Huffington Post, "Erin Andrews Leaving ESPN: FOX Could Be Landing Spot For Sideline Reporter (PHOTOS)", and Hollywood Reporter, "Erin Andrews Leaves ESPN, Likely to Take Her Game to Fox."

Erin Andrews is always good for traffic. I hadn't blogged about her in awhile, and after I linked those new bikini photos at Daily Mail, I got Instalanched.

Finnish Driver Toomas Heikkinen Crashes at X-Games Los Angeles Rally Car Event

This is brutal.

At the Los Angles Times, "X Games: RallyCross driver injured in crash during practice."

There's another clip looking from the other side, here.

Stalker 'Threatened to Stab and Decapitate' Sexy Los Angeles Model Kourtney Reppert

You know, there's stalking, and then there's F-KING STALKING!

No doubts about this one, at London's Daily Mail, "Stalker 'threatened to stab and decapitate' lingerie model known as Philadelphia's hottest blonde'."

L.A. Weekly broke the story: "Kourtney Reppert, Sexy L.A. Model, Facebook-Stalked by Luis Plascencia, FBI Says: PHOTOS."

The FBI this week came down hard on a Chicago man they say has been cyberstalking an L.A.-based model the Weekly has determined is Kourtney E. Reppert.

An FBI affidavit in the case against 47-year-old Luis F. Plascencia identifies the victim as "K.E.R.," indicates she's originally from "Philly," and says she's affiliated with a website called Bombshell Marketing, all of which led to Reppert.

Plascencia, a winner who lived with his mom, allegedly cyberstalked her this spring and sent her hateful, venemous messages via Facebook and from several different email addresses, according to the FBI's allegations:

According to the affidavit Plascencia posted personal information about Reppert (he had her family's home address) and threatened to "cut your fucking head off," "kill your parents" and cut her family "to pieces" if she didn't stop modeling.

The messages were sent via Facebook and email, according to the agency.

Plascencia was upset that she was engaged in semi-nude, lingerie and bikini modeling although, at one point, he posed as someone else and asked Reppert to model nude for him, according to the allegations. In another instance he allegedly wrote:

I'm going to stab you in the fuckin' heart and cut your head off.

At various times he called her a "slut," "whore" and "gutless bitch" in messages to Reppert, the FBI says, and he even criticized her looks, saying she was a "fat ass."

Continue reading.

No one should be treated like that, ever.

But then again, there are evil people in the world.

Ms. Reppert's homepage is here.

Supreme Court's Decison on ObamaCare — A Substantial Win for Conservatives

I mentioned William Jacobson's case already (and Mark Levin's), but here's the conservative case for a political win in yesterday's ObamaCare ruling. From David Horowitz, "Supreme Decision: The Best Possible Result for 2012":

Politically speaking there couldn’t have been a better Supreme Court decision. If Obamacare had been declared unconstitutional, the Democrats’ campaign in November would have been those horrible Republicans have politicized the Supreme Court and denied affordable healthcare to everyone. The focus would be on the court’s “unfairness.” The Democrats would have a plausible if unfair case (and in politics lack of fairness is a given). Advantage Democrats. Advantage because the last things they want to talk about are Obamacare and taxes. And that’s the second big plus from this decision. The focus – thanks to Justice Roberts – is going to be on the biggest tax increase in human history on everyone, not just the rich. And on the lies of Obama which dwarf those of Clinton. Obama promised no tax hikes on the middle class and then defended Obamacare before the Supreme Court as …. a tax.

As for the constitutionalists. Roberts’ argument makes sense to me. Yes the power to tax is the power to destroy, but it’s in the Constitution. So this decision doesn’t really change anything constitutionally. If you don’t like Obamacare, the remedy is to repeal it. Let the elections begin.

And see George Will, at the O.C. Register, "Obamacare Ruling a Substantial Conservative Win":

The court held that the mandate is constitutional only because Congress could have identified its enforcement penalty as a tax. The court thereby guaranteed that the argument ignited by the mandate will continue as the principal fault line in our polity.

The mandate's opponents favor a federal government as James Madison fashioned it, one limited by the constitutional enumeration of its powers. The mandate's supporters favor government as Woodrow Wilson construed it, with limits as elastic as liberalism's agenda, and powers acquiring derivative constitutionality by being necessary to, or efficient for, implementing government's ambitions.

By persuading the court to reject a Commerce Clause rationale for a president's signature act, the conservative legal insurgency against Obamacare has won a huge victory for the long haul. This victory will help revive a venerable tradition of America's political culture, that of viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint, searching for congruence with the Constitution's architecture of enumerated powers. By rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale, Thursday's decision reaffirmed the Constitution's foundational premise: Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, "the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated."

I would have preferred personally that Roberts had stood up to the left's bullying and ideological thuggery --- that he would have joined with the four conservatives to strike down the law, as per Anthony Kennedy's words: "In our view, the entire Act is invalid in its entirety." But I'm not going to lament how quickly the decision has energized the conservative base. See Roll Call for more: "Health Care Decision Re-Energizes Tea Party."

Obama for America 2012: Health Care Reform Still a BFD

Via Anne Sorock, at Legal Insurrection:

So in case you thought gloating was beneath the POTUS, consider this proof to the contrary. Obama is not ashamed to hawk t-shirts through twitter the same day a divisive Supreme Court decision further divided the country that he claimed he was here to unite.

Chief Justice Roberts Switched His Vote in NFIB v. Sebelius

Astute Bloggers has the dramatic entry, "WHY DID ROBERTS SWITCH HIS VOTE, WAS HE THREATENED?" Or, phrasing that differently, "DID OBAMA'S CHICAGO HENCHMEN THREATEN TO KILL JOHN ROBERTS' FAMILY?"

And I don't know, but the pressure was on. Even the Wall Street Journal comments:

One telling note is that the dissent refers repeatedly to "Justice Ginsburg's dissent" and "the dissent" on the mandate, but of course they should be referring to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurrence. This wording and other sources suggest that there was originally a 5-4 majority striking down at least part of ObamaCare, but then the Chief Justice changed his mind.

The Justices may never confirm this informed speculation. But if it is true, this is far more damaging to the Court's institutional integrity that the Chief Justice is known to revere than any ruling against ObamaCare. The political class and legal left conducted an extraordinary campaign to define such a decision as partisan and illegitimate. If the Chief Justice capitulated to this pressure, it shows the Court can be intimidated and swayed from its constitutional duties. If this was a play to compete with John Marshall's legacy, the result is closer to William Brennan's.

More at Memeorandum.

Taliban Release Video of 17 Beheaded Pakistani Soldiers

I looked around for the clip the other night, when AP first reported the story.

Didn't see it then, but Rusty Shackleford has it now, at Jawa Report: "Video: Taliban Behead 17 POWs."

Queen Elizabeth Shakes Hands With Martin McGuinness, Former IRA Terrorist Whose Group Murdered Her Cousin Lord Mountbatten

I guess time heals all wounds, but it must have been rough.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Queen Elizabeth, ex-IRA leader share historic handshake":

LONDON -- In a meeting symbolizing the end of years of enmity between British rule and Northern Ireland republicans, Queen Elizabeth shook hands Wednesday with a former Irish Republican Army commander.

Martin McGuinness, now a deputy first minister of Northern Ireland and a member of the pro-republican Sinn Fein party, was a senior IRA member in the years of sectarian violence. During that time, the group was responsible for blowing up the yacht of Lord Louis Mountbatten, the queen's cousin, killing him and three others while they vacationed off the coast of Northern Ireland in 1979.

The once unthinkable handshake took place away from media eyes -- apart from one camera crew -- behind closed doors at a charity arts event in Belfast, witnessed by the queen’s husband, Prince Philip, and leading politicians including Irish President Michael Higgins and Northern Ireland’s first minister, Peter Robinson.

The seemingly mundane greeting was widely heralded as a turning point. Peter Sheridan, host of the event, told reporters, "It's a huge act of reconciliation, you cannot underestimate how important this is."

The queen, wearing a pale green coat and hat, also toured a local art exhibit, the work of a cultural charity aimed at fostering cross-community relations between Catholics and Protestants. As she left the Lyric Theatre, the carefully chosen apolitical context where the event took place, the queen smiled as she shook hands again with McGuinness, this time publicly as he was standing in line with other officials.

Afterward, McGuinness told reporters he spoke to the queen in Gaelic telling her his words meant “Goodbye and God speed.”

The show of reconciliation was generally judged to have cost both leaders a price. Some hard-line republicans view McGuinness as a traitor, but most agreed that it was a step forward.

"From the queen's point of view, she lost a member of the family, so it's a big step for her," Joe McGowan, a Northern Ireland historian, told Sky News. "Martin McGuinness is conceding something. He has to recognize that the struggle over the past 30 years was lost, in a military sense anyway."

ADDED: At the Belfast Telegraph, "Queen handshake with Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness bridges centuries-old gulf."

ObamaCare: The Case for Repeal is Now Stronger Than Ever

Flashback to 2010, from Yuval Levin, "Repeal: How ObamaCare Must Be Undone":

Conservative and liberal experts generally agree on the nature of the problem with American health care financing: There is a shortage of incentives for efficiency in our methods of paying for coverage and care, and therefore costs are rising much too quickly, leaving too many people unable to afford insurance. We have neither a fully public nor quite a private system of insurance, and three key federal policies—the fee-for-service structure of Medicare, the disjointed financing of Medicaid, and the open-ended tax exclusion for employer-provided insurance—drive spending and costs ever upward.

The disagreement about just how to fix that problem has tended to break down along a familiar dispute between left and right: whether economic efficiency is best achieved by the rational control of expert management or by the lawful chaos of open competition.

Liberals argue that the efficiency we lack would be achieved by putting as much as possible of the health care sector into one big “system” in which the various irregularities could be evened and managed out of existence by the orderly arrangement of rules and incentives. The problem now, they say, is that health care is too chaotic and answers only to the needs of the insurance companies. If it were made more orderly, and answered to the needs of the public as a whole, costs could be controlled more effectively.

Conservatives argue that the efficiency we lack would be achieved by allowing price signals to shape the behavior of both providers and consumers, creating more savings than we could hope to produce on purpose, and allowing competition and informed consumer choices to exercise a downward pressure on prices. The problem now, they say, is that third-party insurance (in which employers buy coverage or the government provides it, and consumers almost never pay doctors directly) makes health care too opaque, hiding the cost of everything from everyone and so making real pricing and therefore real economic efficiency impossible. If it were made more transparent and answered to the wishes of consumers, prices could be controlled more effectively.

That means that liberals and conservatives want to pursue health care reform in roughly opposite directions. Conservatives propose ways of introducing genuine market forces into the insurance system—to remove obstacles to choice and competition, pool risk more effectively, and reduce the inefficiency in government health care entitlements while helping those for whom entry to the market is too expensive (like Americans with preexisting conditions) gain access to the same high quality care. Such targeted efforts would build on what is best about the system we have in order to address what needs fixing.

Liberals, meanwhile, propose ways of moving Americans to a more fully public system, by arranging conditions in the health care sector (through a mix of mandates, regulations, taxes, and subsidies) to nudge people toward public coverage, which could be more effectively managed. This is the approach the Democrats originally proposed last year. The idea was to end risk-based insurance by making it essentially illegal for insurers to charge people different prices based on their health, age, or other factors; to force everyone to participate in the system so that the healthy do not wait until they’re sick to buy insurance; to align various insurance reforms in a way that would raise premium costs in the private market; and then to introduce a government-run insurer that, whether through Medicare’s negotiating leverage or through various exemptions from market pressures, could undersell private insurers and so offer an attractive “public option” to people being pushed out of employer plans into an increasingly expensive individual market.

Conservatives opposed this scheme because they believed a public insurer could not introduce efficiencies that would lower prices without brutal rationing of services. Liberals supported it because they thought a public insurer would be fairer and more effective.

But in order to gain 60 votes in the Senate last winter, the Democrats were forced to give up on that public insurer, while leaving the other components of their scheme in place. The result is not even a liberal approach to escalating costs but a ticking time bomb: a scheme that will build up pressure in our private insurance system while offering no escape. Rather than reform a system that everyone agrees is unsustainable, it will subsidize that system and compel participation in it—requiring all Americans to pay ever-growing premiums to insurance companies while doing essentially nothing about the underlying causes of those rising costs.

Liberal health care mavens understand this. When the public option was removed from the health care bill in the Senate, Howard Dean argued in the Washington Post that the bill had become merely a subsidy for insurance companies, and failed completely to control costs. Liberal health care blogger Jon Walker said, “The Senate bill will fail to stop the rapidly approaching meltdown of our health care system, and anyone is a fool for thinking otherwise.” Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos called the bill “unconscionable” and said it lacked “any mechanisms to control costs.”

Indeed, many conservatives, for all their justified opposition to a government takeover of health care, have not yet quite seen the full extent to which this bill will exacerbate the cost problem. It is designed to push people into a system that will not exist—a health care bridge to nowhere—and so will cause premiums to rise and encourage significant dislocation and then will initiate a program of subsidies whose only real answer to the mounting costs of coverage will be to pay them with public dollars and so increase them further. It aims to spend a trillion dollars on subsidies to large insurance companies and the expansion of Medicaid, to micromanage the insurance industry in ways likely only to raise premiums further, to cut Medicare benefits without using the money to shore up the program or reduce the deficit, and to raise taxes on employment, investment, and medical research.

The case for averting all of that could hardly be stronger. And the nature of the new law means that it must be undone—not trimmed at the edges. Once implemented fully, it would fairly quickly force a crisis that would require another significant reform. Liberals would seek to use that crisis, or the prospect of it, to move the system toward the approach they wanted in the first place: arguing that the only solution to the rising costs they have created is a public insurer they imagine could outlaw the economics of health care. A look at the fiscal collapse of the Medicare system should rid us of the notion that any such approach would work, but it remains the left’s preferred solution, and it is their only plausible next move—indeed, some Democrats led by Iowa senator Tom Harkin have already begun talking about adding a public insurance option to the plan next year.

Amazing to reread that.

Continue reading here.

And here's Levin's latest, at National Review, "The New and Even Worse Obamacare: The Court’s Rewriting of the Law Strengthens the Case for Repealing It."

'Stop Interrupting Me!' — Katie Pavlich Eviscerates Charles Blow on 'Piers Morgan Tonight'

She's a freakin' conservative rock star!

It gets especially hot near the end of the clip. Charles Blow literally blows his lid attempting to shut down Ms. Pavlich. Typical progressive thug style, the creep:

Mark Levin Rips Chief Justice John Roberts' ObamaCare Ruling

Here's the first 10 minutes, and the rest is at the Right Scoop, "Mark Levin analyzes SCOTUS ruling upholding Obamacare."

William Jacobson says Levin is basically channeling his post from early yesterday: "Stop the self-delusion."

It's an awful decision, but understandable from Roberts' perspective, remember?

Custodian of the Court: Charles Krauthammer Explains Chief Justice John Roberts' ObamaCare Ruling

Makes good sense to me.

See Krauthammer at National Review, "Why Roberts Did It":

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the Court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the Court’s legitimacy, reputation, and stature.

More at that top link, via Bookworm Room: "Second and third thoughts about the ObamaCare decision, which does have some saving grace."

RELATED: "Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC Host and Tulane University Professor, Claims ObamaCare Insurance Mandate 'Just Like Buying Groceries'."

Nancy Pelosi Spikes the ObamaCare Football: Teddy Kennedy 'Can Rest in Peace'

My goodness, the melodrama's enough to kill ya:

And see Pat Dollard, "Pelosi to Ed Schultz: Today’s Ruling a Victory ‘‘For Health Care As a Right, Not a Privilege’’."

Progressives Freak at GOP's Pledge to Repeal ObamaCare

Nothing's impossible in politics, so I was surprised at how quickly some on the left pushed back against GOP calls to repeal the ObamaCare monstrosity.

See Ryan Lizza, for example, "WHY ROMNEY WON’T REPEAL OBAMACARE." It's a good case, but it depends on a lot of unknowns. Democrats have been jumping ship on the president, and should we see a transition of power in the White House after November, perhaps Democrat sympathies might shift a bit in the Senate. Never say never on getting 60 votes on cloture. And don't dismiss a possible GOP majority in the upper chamber next January.

Plus, at the despicable Soros-back hate site, "4 Reasons Why Republicans Won’t Be Able to Repeal Obamacare."

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Reacts to Supreme Court's Ruling on ObamaCare

She's the Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference:

RELATED: See Emily Miller, at the Washington Times, "Getting Rid of Obamacare."

Mitt Romney: Job One. Repeal ObamaCare

Via Theo Spark:

Georgia Salpa FHM Maple Syrup Video

Sexy lady:

And see: "Behind the sexy scenes with Georgia Salpa on her first FHM shoot."

Ann Curry's Emotional Farewell at 'Today Show'

I've been watching CBS News This Morning with Charlie Rose, Erica Hill, and Gayle King, but Ann Curry seems like a wonderful lady. NBC's treating her f-king harshly.

See Big Journalism, "Ann Curry Fired as 'Today Show' Co-Host."