Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Author: Mike LaChance

Profile photo

Mike LaChance

Mike LaChance has been covering higher education and politics for Legal Insurrection since 2012. He also creates content for American Lookout, and is a columnist for Townhall.

Since 2008 he has contributed work to the Daily Caller, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, the Center for Security Policy, the Washington Free Beacon, and Ricochet.

Mike is a Generation X, New England lifer who describes his political views as conservative and libertarian.

You can find him on Twitter @MikeLaChance33

Democrats, who have spent the better part of the last six years politicizing... everything, are suddenly concerned that Republicans might politicize the Congressional Budget Office with a new appointment. Vicki Needham of The Hill reported:
Dems warn GOP: No 'ideologue' in budget job Senate Democrats are warning Republicans to tread carefully with their selection of a budget scorekeeper for the new Congress, saying they will “strongly object to any effort to politicize this important office." "Appointing a new [Congressional Budget Office] director on the basis of ideology would fundamentally compromise the integrity of an institution that has served as a trusted scorekeeper," a group of Senate Democrats wrote in a letter sent to Republican leaders and budget chairmen. As one of their first acts this year Republicans must decide whether to give another term to Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). While the CBO job is little-known outside Washington, it holds enormous power. The “scores” handed out by the office — measuring the impact of legislation on the budget — are often make-or-break for legislation, particularly if a bill is found to add to the deficit.
Too bad Senate Democrats didn't have the same concerns about politicization when they released the so-called "torture report" last month, huh?

The ink on 2015 is barely dry, but that hasn't stopped liberals from continuing their push for increased gun control. Seizing on the still-raw emotions of the shooting at Sandy Hook, Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker outlined what he calls their "moral work":
The Newtown Lawsuit and the Moral Work of Gun Control The news that the parents of the children massacred two years ago in Sandy Hook, near Newtown, Connecticut, by a young man with a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, were undertaking a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer was at once encouraging and terribly discouraging. The encouraging part is that those parents, suffering from a grief that those of us who are only witnesses to it can barely begin to comprehend, haven’t, despite the failure to reinstate assault-weapons bans and stop the next massacre, given way to despair. Like Richard Martinez, after his son was murdered by a weapon that should never have been in the hands of a lunatic, or anyone else, for that matter, they’re allowing themselves to be angry, and then turning their anger into action: they’re naming the business that helped kill their children and asking a court to hold that business responsible. The filed complaint—the numbered paragraphs give it an oddly religious feeling, like theses nailed to a church door—is worth reading in full, however painful that might be, not only because of the unbelievable suffering and cruelty it details on that terrible morning but also because it offers, in neatly logical fashion, an indisputable argument: the gun manufacturer is guilty of having sold a weapon whose only purpose was killing a lot of people in a very short time.
John Hinderaker of Powerline wrote an excellent response to this which you can read here. Leftists claim to support the rights of law abiding gun owners when it's politically convenient, but they will never stop pushing gun control.

The Obama administration has made no effort to hide its disdain for the coal industry, so this report from John Ruberry of Marathon Pundit shouldn't surprise anyone:
War on Coal: Mine closings in Kentucky kill 670 jobs On Monday Patriot Coal Corporation closed two western Kentucky mines. On New Year's Eve the company announced the mines will be closed. The effects will be felt beyond Kentucky, as a Republican member of Illinois' Saline County Board, Joe Jackson, points out. From the Southern Illinoisan:
Jackson said the negative impact on Saline County is from regulations placed on coal mines by the government. "We know that those places wouldn't be closing if it wasn't for (President) Obama and the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the regulations on burning coal,” he said. State Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, said while the shutdown does affect residents in his area, he is not sure how many people were impacted.
Professor Jacobson addressed Obama's disregard for the constitution and his efforts to hamper the coal industry in his recent column for USA Today:

Hysteria among anti-cop protesters reached a fever pitch in Pennsylvania last night when a man tried to run down cops with his car and was ultimately shot dead. FOX News reported:
Man tries to run over Pa. police, shot dead A man who had posted an online video threatening to kill police and FBI agents tried to use his car to run down officers seeking to arrest him on Tuesday so, fearing for their lives, they shot and killed him, authorities said. Police did not immediately identify the man, who was killed in Upper Darby, in suburban Philadelphia, as officers ordered him out of the car and he appeared ready to accelerate at them as they manned a blockade. Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood said the officers feared the man would kill them and they "did what they had to do." He said five officers fired at the man and no officers were injured.
Kimberly Guilfoyle reported live:

Obama recently sat down for an interview with National Public Radio during which he was asked how he is going to work with the new Republican controlled congress for the remainder of his presidency. His response was rather telling. Brendan Bordelon of National Review has the story:
Obama: ‘I’m Obviously Frustrated’ Dems Didn’t Run on My ‘Great Record’ in November In an interview released Monday by National Public Radio, President Obama made clear what’s long been suspected by White House observers — he believes Democratic politicians sowed the seeds of their own defeat in November by failing to support his “great record” as president... “I’m obviously frustrated with the results of the midterm election,” he said. “I think we had a great record for members of Congress to run on. And I don’t think we — myself, and the Democratic Party — made as good of a case as we should have. And, you know, as a consequence we had really low voter turnout, and the results were bad.”
Watch the segment below: Of course, some liberal media types are already trying to correct the mistake the American people made in November.

While most Americans were enjoying Christmas Eve, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty went into effect. On the surface, the treaty is supposed to help regulate international arms trade but Awr Hawkins of Breitbart reports that there's more than meets the eye (emphasis is mine):
Gun Control Groups Cheer as UN Arms Trade Treaty Takes Effect Gun control groups cheered as the UN Arms Trade Treaty went into effect on Christmas Eve. Although the treaty’s ubiquitous aim is regulation of the export and import of small arms for signatories, Breitbart News has previously reported the treaty poses international gun control and, to be enforceable, will require the creation of an international gun registry. According to Reuters, Control Arms’ Anna Macdonald praised the treaty, saying, “Campaigners have been pushing for this moment for a decade.” She said the treaty could usher in the “dawn of a new era” if “robustly implemented.” She also indicated the UN treaty subjugates arms trade to “international law.”
Although the Obama administration has signed on to the treaty, Hawkins reports that Republican Senator James Inhofe prevented the senate from ratifying it. Liberal news outlet The New Republic describes the treaty as 'most reasonable' but controversy has followed the plan for over a year.

I don't watch CNN anymore, but I'm very familiar with Don Lemon from all the times he's appeared on conservative news sites seeking to correct something he said. According to The Hollywood Reporter, lots of people have noticed Lemon's work:
CNN's Don Lemon Named to 'Worst Journalism of 2014' List Don Lemon has picked up a dubious honor: ranking in a Columbia Journalism Review fellow's list of the "worst journalism" of 2014. The anchor has made headlines throughout the year for controversial moments during his tenure as a CNN newsroom anchor. In a post written by David Uberti, the CJR fellow makes a case for why Lemon deserves to be ranked along with other missteps in journalism over the past year. "As one of the most recognizable anchors on CNN, Don Lemon has helped lead the cable network’s coverage of the biggest stories of the year. Live television is exceedingly difficult to produce, of course, but Lemon’s gaffes this year offer a case study in how to choose words wisely — or not," Uberti wrote.
The fine folks at Twitchy think they may have uncovered the reason for Lemon's new distinction:
Don Lemon’s report on black holes and missing plane help him win ‘Worst of 2014′ award CNN anchor Don Lemon has taken his share of hate on Twitter: a former Miss Teen USA called Lemon a “modern day house negro,” hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons labeled him “a dangerous talking head” and MSNBC’s Goldie Taylor accused him of being a “turn coat mofo.” And those are just the racial attacks; there’s also the matter of Lemon’s skills as a journalist.

This video has been making the rounds on Reddit and stacking up tons of positive comments. The narrator takes you through Russian history explaining how geography helped define the nation politically. Zach Noble of The Blaze provides a description:
‘Russia in a Nutshell’: Learn the Real Reasons Why Russia Is So Big — And So Brutal Geography determines destiny — so goes the historian’s saying. Does Russia’s geography explain the nation’s history of bloodshed, overbearing government, secret police and poverty — and does it explain why Vladimir Putin is such a bellicose president? In a video published on YouTube earlier this year, geopolitical guru Caspian Report took a look at Russia’s history and geography and made the essential connections: Occupying a vast, flat land without significant mountains or seas to serve as natural barriers, the Russian people were forced to become brutal and bureaucratic in order to survive. After throwing off Mongol and Tatar domination in the first half of the last millennium, Russia’s rulers found themselves in a “conquer or be conquered” situation, Caspian Report noted. Seeking security, Russia’s czars led their people on a massive quest to expand, taking over lands to the south, west and especially east. They could not keep invaders from attacking, but by taking over huge swathes of territory, Russia’s rulers could ensure that Russia always had a “backup plan” to fall back on — and that plan proved invaluable when Napoleon and Hitler came rampaging through.
Anyone with an interest in history will find this entertaining and informative: The message in the video may explain some recent developments in Russia.

As 2014 comes to a close, it's expected for some writers to look back on the last twelve months and analyze the year that was. Two recent columns from well known outlets offer a very different view of where we are. Michael Grunwald of Politico is pretty sure everything is coming up roses:
Everything Is Awesome! Good news! The U.S. economy grew at a rollicking 5 percent rate in the third quarter. Oh, and it added 320,000 jobs in November, the best of its unprecedented 57 straight months of private-sector employment growth. Just in time for Christmas, the Dow just hit an all-time high and the uninsured rate is approaching an all-time low. Consumer confidence is soaring, inflation is low, gas prices are plunging, and the budget deficit is shrinking. You no longer hear much about the Ebola crisis that dominated the headlines in the fall, much less the border crisis that dominated the headlines over the summer. As Fox News host Andrea Tantaros proclaimed earlier this month: “The United States is awesome! We are awesome!” OK, she was talking about the Senate torture report, not the state of the union, but things in the U.S. do look rather awesome. Mitt Romney promised to bring unemployment down to 6 percent in his first term; it’s already down to 5.8 percent, half the struggling eurozone’s rate. Newt Gingrich promised $2.50 gas; it’s down to $2.38. Crime, abortion, teen pregnancy and oil imports are also way down, while renewable power is way up and the American auto industry is booming again. You don’t have to give credit to President Barack Obama for “America’s resurgence,” as he has started calling it, but there’s overwhelming evidence the resurgence is real.
Wow. Sounds great, huh? Not so fast.

2016 is still quite a way off but that hasn't stopped speculation about the chances for each of the major parties. Bill Barrow of the Associated Press looks back at the last few elections and raises an important question for the next one:
Can GOP shatter 'Obama coalition' in 2016? Republicans crowed in 2004 that freshly re-elected President George W. Bush had established a "permanent governing majority" for the GOP. Eight years later, Democrats were touting the enduring power of the "Obama coalition" to keep their party in the White House. But Democrats couldn't sustain that coalition for this year's midterm elections, leading to Republican gains in Congress, governorships and state legislatures nationwide. "The notion of demographics as destiny is overblown," said Republican pollster and media strategist Wes Anderson. "Just like (Bush aide Karl) Rove was wrong with that 'permanent majority' talk, Democrats have to remember that the pendulum is always swinging." So how will it swing in 2016? Is the path to 270 electoral votes so fixed that one side just can't win? Does Obama's unpopularity carry over into the next race for the White House? Or will an increasingly diverse electorate pick a Democrat for a third consecutive presidential election for the first time since Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman won five straight elections from 1932 to 1948?
Again, it's still early. Neither party has even begun the primary process. Still, when it comes to the so-called Obama coalition, Democrats are going to realize that their coalition and Obama's are two separate things.

The first questions one must ask are, When did Florida begin allowing Satanic holiday displays in their capitol at Christmas, and why would Satanists feel the need to celebrate the birth of Christ? While I don't know the answer to the first question, I'll take a guess at the second. Modern Satanists, who desperately want attention, are taking advantage of our politically correct culture. Anyone who has children knows that moment when a child says something like "But you let (insert other child's name here) have one!" Following this logic means that if Christians are allowed to erect a Christmas display in the capitol, then Satanists should also be allowed to do so, even if the core of their belief system is the direct antithesis of everything represented by the Christmas holiday. Like everyone else in America, Satanists are entitled to freedom of speech under the First Amendment; but don't tell me their display was meant to be anything other than a thumb in the eye to Christians. Joel Landau of the New York Daily News describes the display:
The organization set up the holiday display, which featured an angel falling into a pit of fire, as a protest for the state allowing a Nativity scene in the government building.
An unidentified woman has been arrested for the damage.

President Obama has never enjoyed a very high approval rating from members of America's armed forces, but the end of 2014 finds him at a remarkable new low. Charlie Spiering of Breitbart reported:
President Obama's Approval Ratings Crater With Active Duty Military Active duty members of the United States military are not happy with their commander-in-chief. According to a Military Times survey, President Obama’s popularity rating has cratered to just 15 percent in 2014. That is a new low for the President, falling from an already low approval rating of 35 percent in 2009. The poll of nearly 2,300 active duty members also shows that Obama’s disapproval ratings have increased to 55 percent. The particularly low rating comes as Obama has launched air strikes in response to Islamic State terrorists taking territory and resources in both Iraq and Syria, vowing to keep combat ground troops out of the conflict. He has also deployed members of the military to combat the Ebola threat in Africa.
The Military Times survey cited by Spiering is very frank. Stephen Losey writes:
Obama’s mark on the military Obama is an unpopular president in the eyes of the men and women in uniform. Yet his two-term administration is etching a deep imprint on the culture inside the armed forces. As commander in chief, he will leave behind a legacy that will shape the Pentagon's personnel policies and the social customs of rank-and-file troops for decades to come.
Speaking of the Pentagon, can you guess who's sending more troops back to Iraq?

Remember when Vice President Joe Biden stupidly told people to fend off intruders by firing a shotgun into the air? This is worse. I'm not a lawyer or a gun owner but as I watched this for the first time, I couldn't help but wonder how many laws the boy in the video was breaking. Yehuda Remer of Truth Revolt names a few:
New Anti-Gun PSA Advocates Breaking The Law A new PSA created by director Rejina Sincic shows her irrational fear of firearms in a disturbing new video. The video shows a boy stealing his mother’s handgun from her dresser, places it in a backpack, brings it to school, and at the end of class gives it to his teacher saying, “Can you take this away? I don’t feel safe with a gun in my house.” Bearing Arms writes that the video is “advocating that teens commits multiple felonies—several of which could lead to injury or death through negligent discharge of the weapon.” What Sincic fails to point out as she advocates for this kind of behavior is the multiple felonies that the boy breaks. “[S]uch an act would result in the boy facing numerous felony charges (exact charges depend on state laws) possibly including weapons theft, unlawful possession of a weapon by a minor, illegal concealed carry of a weapon, carrying a weapon onto school property, assault, and brandishing,” writes Bearing Arms.
Watch it below: It's obvious that the people behind this video have no understanding of gun laws or safety protocols.

The ultra-liberal state of Vermont never liked Obamacare but not for the reasons most Americans object to the law. Vermont felt it didn't go far enough and was determined to establish its own single payer system. As of this week, that plan is dead. Sarah Wheaton of Politico:
Why single payer died in Vermont Vermont was supposed to be the beacon for a single-payer health care system in America. But now its plans are in ruins, and its onetime champion Gov. Peter Shumlin may have set back the cause. Advocates of a “Medicare for all” approach were largely sidelined during the national Obamacare debate. The health law left a private insurance system in place and didn’t even include a weaker “public option” government plan to run alongside more traditional commercial ones. So single-payer advocates looked instead to make a breakthrough in the states. Bills have been introduced from Hawaii to New York; former Medicare chief Don Berwick made it a key plank of his unsuccessful primary race for Massachusetts governor. Vermont under Shumlin became the most visible trailblazer. Until Wednesday, when the governor admitted what critics had said all along: He couldn’t pay for it.
Advocates of a single payer healthcare system may not realize just how bad this news is for them. Vermont was their best shot. John Fund of National Review noted this:
Health-care experts from outside Vermont point out some of the implications. “It’s a very liberal state, and its leaders spent years trying to design a system that would work,” Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute observes. “If Vermont can’t make it work, single-payer can’t work anywhere in the country where the economy has free and competitive markets. It’s more evidence that centralized government health care is simply not workable in America.”
All is not lost for the Green Mountain state. One of their senators might even run for president.

Last night on Special Report with Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer commented on the economic aspects of Obama's new policy on Cuba. Dr. K is skeptical and frankly, who could blame him? From National Review:
Krauthammer: Liberalization Hasn’t Worked in Vietnam or China, Won’t Work in Cuba “In the early days of the Cold War, the very early days, there was a semi-tongue-in-cheek proposal that, instead of having bombs on the B-52s, we ought to fill them with nylons and drop them over the Soviet Union. As a result, there will be a revolution, they’re going to become capitalists.” “This is exactly the same idea for Cuba,” he continued. “It hasn’t worked for Vietnam or China, if your objective is to liberalize it. And the bulk of the benefit is going to go to the military and the repressive apparatus. That’s the argument against normalization.”
Here's the video: It certainly does seem like there's more to the Cuba story, doesn't it?
Font Resize
Contrast Mode