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

Congressman Adam Schiff of California appeared on FOX News Sunday today and said rather plainly that congress has pretty much given up on the rules. Patrick Brennan of National Review has the details:
Dem Congressman: Is Congress Abdicating Its Consitutional War Powers? ‘Absolutely’ Asked this morning by Fox News’s Chris Wallace whether Congress is forfeiting its responsibilities by recessing before voting on whether to authorize a new war in Iraq and Syria, one Democratic congressman was blunt: “Absolutely,” California congressman Adam Schiff said. A member of the House intelligence committee, Schiff argued “the president has said this is a war, this is going to last years, this is quintessentially something that the Constitution empowered only Congress to declare.
Here's the video: Last week, Schiff wrote a piece for Time Magazine on the same subject:

Everyone suddenly seems to like the idea of having Condoleezza Rice take over leadership of the NFL for some reason. Judy Kurtz of The Hill recently wrote:
Condoleezza Rice: NFL commissioner? Now, some are saying Condoleezza Rice — who expressed an interest in the NFL job before — should replace Goodell. A Tuesday editorial in The Washington Post wrote that the NFL is “an institution in dire need” of Rice’s help, with a blaring headline: “Condi Rice: The one person who could save the NFL.” According to a 2002 story in The New York Times, “[Rice] wants to be commissioner of the National Football League. She is serious. ‘That's absolutely right,' she said, 'though not immediately and not before Paul Tagliabue is ready to step down. I want to say that for the record.’”
While that may seem like a great idea, it could also be a waste of her talent. Shouldn't she aspire to a higher office? Allahpundit of Hot Air knows what I'm talking about:

With the midterms approaching and Obama's approval rating in the gutter, vulnerable Democrats are avoiding any discussion of one particular subject. Obama. Colby Itkowitz of the Washington Post has the story:
These days, Democrats aren’t talking much about Obama in congressional speeches When President Obama took office in 2009, congressional Democrats were euphoric. With control of the House, Senate and the White House, and high public approval for their new party standard bearer, Democrats eagerly embraced Obama and all the long-awaited policy initiatives he’d surely help them achieve. In that first month, congressional Democrats mentioned Obama during floor speeches 200 or so more times than Republicans. In the next year and a half, the parties referred to the president at similar rates, sometimes with the Republicans having more to say, other times the Democrats. One can reasonably assume that when the Democrats speak of the president publicly it’s in a favorable way and when Republicans do it’s, well, not quite as glowing. As positive public opinion of Obama began to dip after his first year, the spread between how often Republicans and the Democrats invoked Obama grew wider. Put simply, the Democrats weren’t mentioning Obama by name nearly as much as Republicans.
How could this be?

Luis Gutiérrez is a Democratic representative from Illinois who frequently attacks anyone who is not for amnesty. As an example, here he is on Sean Hannity's show claiming that securing the U.S. border would be a dereliction of his duty. Transcript and video via Real Clear Politics:
Gutierrez: Voting to Secure Border First "Would Be Derelict In My Duty to Protect America" SEAN HANNITY: Last word. You can pass a bill, secure the border first, would you support that? REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ (D-IL): No. Because it would be folly. It would be derelict in my duty to protect America. HANNITY: In the mean time, every day you don't pass that bill -- you're demanding amnesty. GUTIERREZ: I would be derelict to my duty. [CROSSTALK] GUTIERREZ: It sounds great. It sounds good. HANNITY: It doesn't sound great. GUTIERREZ: It sounds good, but it isn't an effective -- HANNITY: If you don't do it, it's a dereliction of duty, sir.
Here's the video:

For the last few years, liberals have been trying to re-brand the War on Poverty as a fight against income inequality, but that effort may have come too late. According to a new report from Robert Rector at the Daily Signal, the writing is on the wall:
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop Today, the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty. Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise. Since its beginning, U.S. taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution. The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)
Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute made a similar point in January of this year:
War on Poverty at 50 — Despite Trillions Spent, Poverty Won Fifty years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson delivered his first State of the Union address, promising an “unconditional war on poverty in America.” Looking at the wreckage since, it’s not hard to conclude that poverty won.

Do you know what keeps Nancy Pelosi up at night? It isn't ISIS. Three days ago, she insisted that if Republicans take control of the Senate it would bring about the end of civilization. Now, she's claiming that America isn't at war with the Islamic State. The Washington Free Beacon reported:
Nancy Pelosi: We Are Not At War With ISIL If you have been following the ISIL crisis, you know our government officials have not quite decided if we are “at war” with the Islamic extremists or not. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) affirmed today that the U.S. is not at war with ISIL, though she called the matter “deadly serious.” “We have initiated hostilities against ISIS, that’s for sure,” Pelosi told MSNBC’s Ronan Farrow. “[War] would require a declaration of war by the Congress of the United States.” Pelosi echoed the Obama administration’s assurance that no U.S. troops would fight the extremists in a combat mission. She instead expressed support for arming and training “responsible” Syrian rebels.

Just when you thought that the IRS scandal couldn't get any worse, the editors of Investor's Business Daily have a new bombshell to offer. It seems the Department of Justice has been working with Maryland Democrat Elijah Cummings, but not to uncover the truth:
DOJ Working With Elijah Cummings To Protect The IRS An aide to the attorney general accidentally calls the office of the House Oversight Committee chairman, asking for help in spinning the defense of the agency whose head just said they obey the law when they can. We have commented many times of the all-too-cozy relationship between the IRS and Democratic members of the House and Senate, with members writing to the agency demanding that specific conservative groups and political action committees they find particularly irritating be subject to the "special scrutiny" that the Tea Party and other conservative and religious groups were subjected to in the ongoing scandal. Of particular interest to us has been Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., ranking member on Rep. Darrell Issa's House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, who has made every effort to keep the committee from finding out the true extent of IRS corruption and abuse of power in its targeting of conservatives...

Former house speaker Nancy Pelosi recently sat down for an interview with Bill Maher in which they discussed the upcoming mid-term elections. Based on Pelosi's choice of words, it sounds like the Democratic Party is expecting big losses. Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller has the details:
Nancy Pelosi: Civilization ‘In Jeopardy’ If GOP Takes Senate On the one hand, California U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi claims that Democrats are not “fear-mongers;” on the other hand, she believes civilization is doomed if Republicans take control of the Senate from Democrats in November. The former speaker of the House made those dramatic, incongruous statements on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” which aired live from Washington, D.C. Friday. Maher asked Pelosi about recent polling which shows that the GOP is likely to take over the upper chamber and asked, given gridlock in Washingon, why it matters that Democrats keep control. “It would be very important for the Democrats to retain control of the Senate,” Pelosi told Maher. “Civilization as we know it today would be in jeopardy if the Republicans win the Senate.”
Here's the video:

Obama may be America's commander-in-chief, but he's not a leader who is interested in military strategy. Bearing all that in mind, this report from Dustin Walker of Real Clear Defense is nothing short of stunning:
Obama Rejected "Best Military Advice" As he laid out his strategy to combat the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria, President Obama rejected the “best military advice” of his top military commander in the Middle East. Quoting two U.S. military officials, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), said “that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants.” Austin’s recommendation was taken to the White House by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey. The White House rejected CENTCOM’s “advise and assist” contingent due to concerns about placing U.S. ground forces in a frontline role. In a press briefing Thursday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that the president had rejected Austin’s recommendation because he believes “it is not in the best interest of American national security to send American combat troops in a combat operation to act on the ground in Iraq.”

Even though conservative commentator and filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza has admitted wrongdoing in a case where he violated campaign finance law, many of his supporters believe he's being harshly prosecuted for political reasons. A new development in his case reported by Jonathan Stempel of Reuters seems to confirm their suspicions:
U.S. seeks up to 16 months in prison for Dinesh D'Souza The U.S. government wants conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza to be sentenced to as much as 16 months in prison, following his guilty plea to a campaign finance law violation. In a Wednesday court filing, federal prosecutors rejected defense arguments that D'Souza was "ashamed and contrite" about his crime, had "unequivocally accepted responsibility," and deserved a sentence of probation with community service. D'Souza, 53, admitted in May to illegally reimbursing two "straw donors" who donated $10,000 each to the unsuccessful 2012 U.S. Senate campaign in New York of Wendy Long, a Republican he had known since attending Dartmouth College in the early 1980s. The government said a 10- to 16-month prison sentence was appropriate for D'Souza, and necessary to deter others from abusing the election process, including "well-heeled individuals who are tempted to use their money to help other candidates."
Perhaps D'Souza should seek counsel from the disgraced 2008 Democratic Party candidate John Edwards.