'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."