Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

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

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 27, 2014 7 Comments
In a new edition of Firewall, Bill Whittle explains why believing in Socialism requires the same thought process as believing in the Loch Ness Monster. Here's a partial transcript via Truth Revolt:
Ah, Progressives! You really have to – well, not admire them exactly – but if not admire them then at least grant them a grudging respect for the tenacity of their beliefs. Unfortunately for them, the Socialist utopia is a Cryptid, which, according to Wikipedia’s serviceable definition, is “a creature whose existence has been suggested but has not been discovered or documented by the scientific community.” Here’s another example of a cryptid: it’s called the Loch Ness Monster. Like the socialist utopia, the Loch Ness Monster requires a lot of magical thinking. Magical thinking is not wishful thinking. “It sure would be cool if there was a Loch Ness Monster!” That’s wishful thinking.
From there, Whittle examines the Socialist states progressives often point to as models of success such as Sweden and then knocks down those examples like a house of cards. In a particularly eloquent moment, Bill points out:

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 26, 2014 17 Comments
Upon hearing the news of Eric Holder's resignation from the Department of Justice yesterday, NBC's Chuck Todd took to the airwaves and claimed that Holder is a very non-political person. Media bias is one thing. The utter dismissal of reality is another. Brendan Bordelon of National Review has the details:
NBC’s Chuck Todd: Self-Professed Activist Eric Holder ‘a Very Non-Political Person’ The host of NBC’s Meet the Press considers resigning attorney general Eric Holder — who once proudly declared himself an “activist attorney general,” called America a “nation of cowards” about race and took heat from his own White House for pursuing politically sensitive initiatives –  ”a very non-political person.” “He did a lot of the tough stuff that you would say, ‘Hey, the attorney general has to do tough stuff, this is not a forgiving job, you have to do tough stuff,’” Chuck Todd told MSNBC’s Tamron Hall on Thursday. “But, what’s interesting about him, he is a very non-political person. And I think people used to mistakenly think that this guy was this long-time political operative who happened to be an attorney general. That’s not him at all.”
Todd's declaration set off a firestorm on Twitter.

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 25, 2014 8 Comments
When it comes to the (former?) War on Terror, the media has already been caught furiously spinning legitimate news stories in order to set Obama apart from his predecessor. While the revisionism of the New York Times was remarkable, Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast deserves an honorable mention:
Obama’s Iraq Is Not Bush’s Iraq Last week, a Politico reporter phoned me to ascertain my thoughts on the new war. Among the questions: Was there concern among liberals that Barack Obama was in some sense now becoming George Bush, and did I see similarities between the current war and Bush’s Iraq war that, come on, be honest, made me squirm in my seat ever so slightly? My answer ended up on the cutting-room floor, as many answers given to reporters do. But since I’m fortunate enough to have a column, I’d like to broadcast it now, because the answer is a reverberating no. In fact it’s hard for me to imagine how the differences between the two actions could be starker. This is not to say that they might not end up in the same place—creating more problems than they solve. But in moral terms, this war is nothing like that war, and if this war doesn’t end up like Bush’s and somehow actually solves more problems than it creates, that will happen precisely because of the moral differences.

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 24, 2014 1 Comment
What's the problem with an extra ten or twenty thousand dollars for a journalism degree? It's not like the public's trust in journalists is at an all time low or anything. The higher education bubble is a subject we've covered extensively at College Insurrection. This new report from Kaitlin Mulhere at Inside Higher Ed is special because it also involves the future of American journalism. It seems the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism is in dire need of cash:
Jacking Up J-School Tuition A proposal to raise tuition at the University of California at Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism has some faculty members, alumni and students worried about destroying the school’s distinctive character. Faced with a half-million-dollar budget gap, Dean Edward Wasserman announced plans to recommend a tuition increase for the 2016-17 academic year in a memo to campus members earlier this month. He said the increase is necessary given the school’s financial standing, and that the amount students pay doesn’t actually cover what it costs to provide that education. He also said that the school would remain devoted to affordability and dedicate a large portion of the sum raised through the new fee to financial aid. Much of the online response to the idea has been negative, with several people questioning how journalists can afford to pay an additional $20,500 over two years for a degree in a troubled industry with historically low pay.
One student quoted in the column knows she won't make much money in journalism but she's focused on the bigger picture.

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 21, 2014 17 Comments
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:

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 21, 2014 16 Comments
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:

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 20, 2014 5 Comments
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?

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 18, 2014 11 Comments
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:

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 17, 2014 46 Comments
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.

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 16, 2014 9 Comments
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.

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 14, 2014 9 Comments
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...

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 13, 2014 19 Comments
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:
Accessibility by WAH