Image 01 Image 03

Author: Mike LaChance

Profile photo

Mike LaChance

Mike LaChance has been covering higher education and politics for Legal Insurrection since 2012. He has also written for American Lookout, Townhall, and Twitchy.

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

In his weekly column at the Washington Post, George Will points out something that a number of progressives are beginning to notice. Big government doesn't look out for the little guy:
Government for the strongest Intellectually undemanding progressives, excited by the likes of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — advocate of the downtrodden and the Export-Import Bank — have at last noticed something obvious: Big government, which has become gargantuan in response to progressives’ promptings, serves the strong. It is responsive to factions sufficiently sophisticated and moneyed to understand and manipulate its complexity. Hence Democrats, the principal creators of this complexity, receive more than 70 percent of lawyers’ political contributions. Yet progressives, refusing to see this defect — big government captured by big interests — as systemic, want to make government an ever more muscular engine of regulation and redistribution. Were progressives serious about what used to preoccupy America’s left — entrenched elites, crony capitalism and other impediments to upward mobility — they would study “The New Class Conflict,” by Joel Kotkin, a lifelong Democrat. The American majority that believes life will be worse for the next few decades — more than double the number who believe things will be better — senses that 95 percent of income gains from 2009-2012 went to the wealthiest 1 percent.
This is a lesson America has to re-learn every generation or so. Remember the famous Obama supporter Peggy Joseph who happily declared that an Obama presidency meant that she would no longer have to pay for her gas or mortgage? She has a somewhat different view now.

The crumbling of Rolling Stone's story about a gang rape at the University of Virginia is sending shock waves through the media this weekend but there's another rape story which is also now being questioned. Lena Dunham of the HBO program 'Girls' claimed in her recent memoir 'Not That Kind of Girl' that she was raped by a Republican student while attending Oberlin. Breitbart News has conducted an extensive investigation of her claim and the facts are coming up short. John Nolte reports:
INVESTIGATION: Lena Dunham ‘Raped by a Republican’ Story in Bestseller Collapses Under Scrutiny After a month-long investigation that included more than a dozen interviews, a trip to the Oberlin campus, and hours spent poring through the Oberlin College archives, her description of the campus remains the only detail Breitbart News was able to verify in Dunham's story of being raped by a campus Republican named Barry. On top of the name Barry, which Dunham does not identify as a pseudonym (more on the importance of this below), Dunham drops close to a dozen specific clues about the identity of the man she alleges raped her as a 19-year-old student. Some of the details are personality traits like his being a “poor loser” at poker. Other details are quite specific. For instance, Dunham informs us her rapist sported a flamboyant mustache, worked at the campus library, and even names the radio talk show he hosted. To be sure we get the point, on three occasions Dunham tells her readers that her attacker is a Republican or a conservative, and a prominent one at that -- no less than the "campus's resident conservative." For weeks, and to no avail, using phone and email and online searches, Breitbart News was able to verify just one of these details.
Nolte's report is long but worth reading in full. Breitbart's investigative work was so thorough that Eugene Volokh of the Washington Post is already entertaining a scenario in which the accused man identified as 'Barry' could sue Dunham.

In a new edition of Afterburner, Bill Whittle examines the ways in which an enemy attack could shut down our power grid. This is a major national security issue. A lack of electricity for an extended period of time would devastate any country. Maybe we should keep an eye on Detroit.

In her sparsely attended speech at Georgetown University this week, Hillary Clinton gave attendees a glimpse of her views on foreign policy and national defense by saying America should empathize with its enemies. This leads to a natural question: How does one "empathize" with ISIS terrorists who are currently beheading and crucifying their way across the Middle East? Ed Morrissey of Hot Air:
It’s difficult to know where to start with this nonsense from a recent speech given by Hillary Clinton, in which the presumed Democratic front-runner finally defines what she sees as “smart power,” and what she claims is a 21st-century approach to diplomacy. In large part, the former Secretary of State says it means psychoanalyzing enemies to understand them better, which … is exactly what nations have been doing for centuries, if not millenia.
Watch the video: This world view reminds me of another Democrat who's not running in 2016:

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio appeared on Greta Van Susteren's program last night to discuss a new fold in the ongoing scandal at the Internal Revenue Service. Would it surprise you to learn that the IRS shared confidential taxpayer information with the White House? Video courtesy of the Gretawire blog: Not to worry America. We're living under the most transparent administration in American history. Or maybe not.

As politics and media have continued to obsess about Ferguson, a very serious thing has occurred. Our national debt topped $18 trillion dollars. That's more than our GDP. John Hinderaker of Powerline reports:
Federal Debt Soars to Over $18 Trillion A year or so ago, the Democrats started telling us that the national debt was no longer an issue. This was based on the fact that the deficit was only around half what it was during President Obama’s first few years in office. The fiscal year 2014 deficit came in at *only* $483 billion, a cause for rejoicing in Washington. This represents the smallest deficit as a percentage of GDP since the George W. Bush administration. Still, $483 billion exceeds any deficit ever racked up during the administration of any president other than Barack Obama. (Don’t try to play the silly game of attributing the Democratic Congress’s FY 2009 deficit, which among other things included spending under the failed Obama/Reid/Pelosi “stimulus,” to President Bush.) Word came today that the national debt now exceeds $18 trillion, a little more than the GDP of the United States.
Remember all the times Obama said he was going to cut our deficit in half? Dan Spencer of RedState does:
Our ‘Irresponsible’ and ‘Unpatriotic’ $18 Trillion National Debt

With the midterms over, both parties are turning their focus to 2016. Democrats, who were the clear losers on November 4th are struggling over leadership and the direction of their party. It's hard to imagine Elizabeth Warren harshly criticizing the Obama administration just a few years ago. The age of Obama is over. Peter Schroeder of The Hill:
Democrats assail Wall Street ties in Obama administration President Obama’s nomination of Antonio Weiss to serve as the Treasury Department’s top domestic finance official is drawing fire from an unusual sector: his fellow Democrats. Liberal lawmakers like Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have been quick to oppose Weiss, a major investment banker with Lazard. Among their grievances is the fact that Lazard’s work is primarily in international finance and he is nominated for a domestic position. They’re also critical of his role in structuring several tax inversion deals, which have drawn criticism from the president himself. But an underlying thread to the Democratic opposition is a fatigue with filling top-ranking administration spots with officials that have spent significant time working for or on behalf of Wall Street titans. Warren penned an op-ed in The Huffington Post criticizing the administration’s approach under the headline “Enough is Enough.”
The discord isn't limited to the Warren wing of the party. There's plenty of scorn to go around.

It's easy to forget how many stupid things Democrats have said over the last year. Fortunately, David Rutz of the Washington Free Beacon has put them all together:
Turkeys The Worst of the Democrats in 2014 The Democratic Party had a really bad 2013. Somehow, it got worse. President Obama admitted in August that “we don’t have a strategy yet” in battling the terrorist group known as the Islamic State, just months after dismissing the organization as a mere “JV team.” Vice President Joe Biden, in an impressive feat even for him, managed to offend Jews and Asians in the span of one day, and he also referred to Africa as a “nation.” Soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) also offended Asians when he joked he had trouble “keeping my Wongs straight” at the Asian Chamber of Commerce, and he also made headlines this year with his bizarre rants about the philanthropist Koch brothers. Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) stepped in controversy when she remarked Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker had “given women the back of his hand.” It didn’t work in dissuading voters; Walker won his third election in four years.
Here's the blooper reel:

According to a new report from FOX News, illegal immigrants who fit certain criteria set forth by Obama last week will be eligible for taxpayer funded programs:
Illegal immigrants to be eligible for Social Security, Medicare Illegal immigrants who apply for work permits in the U.S. under President Obama’s new executive actions will be eligible for Social Security and Medicare, the White House says. Under the sweeping actions, immigrants who are spared deportation could obtain work permits and a Social Security number, which would allow them to pay into the Social Security system through payroll taxes. No such "lawfully present" immigrant, however, would be immediately entitled to the benefits because like all Social Security and Medicare recipients they would have to work 10 years to become eligible for retirement payments and health care. To remain qualified, either Congress or future administrations would have to extend Obama's actions so that those immigrants would still be considered lawfully present in the country.
As Instapundit says, who could have seen this coming?

You may not be aware that Dana Loesch of The Blaze makes videos. This new Thanksgiving related spot is pretty funny. In what should come as a surprise to no one, Loesch isn't a fan of fake turkey. I couldn't agree more. Would you believe Tofurky has been around for 20 years?

Back in the good old days, the left loved to lecture us about civility. That time is over. In the course of the last few days, at least two writers from liberal outlets have tried to justify and even advocate for the violent rioting in Ferguson. First, we have Darlena Cunha of Time:
Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting When a police officer shoots a young, unarmed black man in the streets, then does not face indictment, anger in the community is inevitable. It’s what we do with that anger that counts. In such a case, is rioting so wrong? Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society. Unfortunately, we do not live in a universal utopia where people have the basic human rights they deserve simply for existing, and until we get there, the legitimate frustration, sorrow and pain of the marginalized voices will boil over, spilling out into our streets. As “normal” citizens watch the events of Ferguson unfurl on their television screens and Twitter feeds, there is a lot of head shaking, finger pointing, and privileged explanation going on. We wish to seclude the incident and the people involved. To separate it from our history as a nation, to dehumanize the change agents because of their bad and sometimes violent decisions—because if we can separate the underlying racial tensions that clearly exist in our country from the looting and rioting of select individuals, we can continue to ignore the problem.
Next up is Matt Bruenig of Gawker:

The Ferguson verdict is in: No indictment. The people who deserve the most sympathy in Ferguson are the parents of Michael Brown who lost their son. That makes them the biggest losers and I mean that in a sympathetic way. The second biggest loser in Ferguson is the liberal media which flocked to the scene and stoked racial bias. Now that the facts are in, they look like complete fools. I mean that in a non-sympathetic way. The third biggest loser in Ferguson is President Obama who made a hasty statement on the situation which opened with these words:
First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law.
We are? Really? Watch Obama's statement below:

I don't watch Saturday Night Live anymore but when I saw this clip from Tina Nguyen on Mediaite, I have to admit it made me laugh. It's a spoof of the well known Schoolhouse Rock cartoon:
SNL’s Obama Shoves The Schoolhouse Rock Bill Down The Capitol Steps Finally, the first biting political spoof from Saturday Night Live in a while: the Bill from Schoolhouse Rock explains to a student how he becomes a law, only to be violently beat up by Barack Obama and his new best friend, “Executive Order.” Even then, the poor Executive Order still thinks he’s used for simple things, like declaring holidays and creating national parks, until Obama informs him that he’s going to be used to grant amnesty to 5 million undocumented immigrants. His reaction: “Whoa.”
Watch: As long as we're showing the spoof, let's watch the original as well.