Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Author: Kemberlee Kaye

Profile photo

Kemberlee Kaye

Kemberlee Kaye is the Senior Contributing Editor of Legal Insurrection, where she has worked since 2014 and is the Director of Operations and Editorial Development for the Legal Insurrection Foundation. She also serves as the Managing Editor for CriticalRace.org, a research project of the Legal Insurrection Foundation.

She has a background working in immigration law, and as a grassroots organizer, digital media strategist, campaign lackey, and muckraker. Over the years Kemberlee has worked with FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, James O'Keefe's Project Veritas, and US Senate re-election campaigns, among others. 

Kemberlee, her daughter, and her son live a lovely taco-filled life in their native Texas.

You can reach her anytime via email at kk @ legalinsurrection.com.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 17, 2015 38 Comments
Earlier this morning, we reported that Starbucks launched a new social justice initiative -- encouraging baristas to chat with customers about race. The campaign called 'Race Together' was instantly a fantastic disaster. I mean, who would've imagined engaging customers on a highly politicized issue like race could have possibly gone awry? This afternoon, Business Insider reported that Starbucks' Global Communications Senior VP, Corey duBrowa, had shut down his Twitter account after going on a Twitter user blockfest. Why? Evidently he wasn't interested in participating in the conversation Starbucks had started. Interestingly, those 'attacking' duBrowa (at least as reported by Business Insider) appear to be of the left leaning persuasion. DuBrowa told BI, "I was personally attacked through my Twitter account around midnight last night and the tweets represented a distraction from the respectful conversation we are trying to start around Race Together. I’ll be back on Twitter soon." But that was only the beginning. Vox had this article: Screen Shot 2015-03-17 at 6.42.10 PM

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 17, 2015 53 Comments
Race Together. If you find those words gracing your morning cup of joe, it's because Starbucks launched a new initiative yesterday. CEO Howard Schultz is encouraging baristas (or 'Partners' as Starbucks calls their employees) to initiate conversations about race with their customers. Citing Ferguson and New York, Schultz decided to join the race conversation, “we at Starbucks should be willing to talk about these issues in America," Schultz said. "Not to point fingers or to place blame, and not because we have answers, but because staying silent is not who we are." After holding forums in select cities like Oakland, St. Louis, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City, partners began voluntarily writing 'Race Together' on cups, according to a statement released Monday. Now, Starbucks is taking the campaign nationwide. Special 'Race Together' stickers will be provided to baristas, who may place the provocative stickers on beverages, as a way to engage customers in friendly discourse about race. "It is an opportunity to begin to re-examine how we can create a more empathetic and inclusive society – one conversation at a time," Schultz said. Schultz's efforts seem noble, but might be viewed as more legitimate were his reasons for entering the contentious race arena not predicated on blatant falsehoods and astroturfed race hustling. To be fair, conservative ideology has bled into the turbulent world of corporate advocacy, though with marked distinction and with significantly less prevalence. Chick-fil-a President and CEO, Dan Cathy, got a chance to tussle with the gay rights mafia (which must be separated from advocacy groups working in earnest) a few years ago when his sentiments on same sex marriage made their way into the public. Enduring intense public backlash, Cathy later said Chick-fil-a had no place in culture wars.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 16, 2015 22 Comments
Hillary's scandal woes aren't disappearing any time soon. In fact, they're only ballooning.

1. Spam filtering service likely had access to Hillary's classified emails

Monday, Dvorak Uncensored pointed out that a spam filtering service had access to Hillary's classified emails. Longtime Clinton supporter, Mark Perkel runs a competing spam filtering service. Amidst the tech talk, Perkel makes two things abundantly clear: 1) Clinton's system has serious security implications, and 2) none of this would have happened if she had just played by the rules.

2. Were emails read before they were presumable destroyed?

Thursday, TIME published a damning long form article revealing an incredibly unsettling fact -- no one read Hillary's emails before they were presumably destroyed:
“For more than a year after she left office in 2013, she did not transfer work-related email from her private account to the State Department. She commissioned a review of the 62,320 messages in her account only after the department–spurred by the congressional investigation–asked her to do so. And this review did not involve opening and reading each email; instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache–31,830 emails–did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be ‘private, personal records.’”
That no one sifted through Hillary's emails is bad enough. But as we discussed, this revelation is further complicated by the fact that the Department of State has terrible record keeping practices (as noted in a troubling OIG report) nor were any top State official emails automatically archived before February... of THIS YEAR. Add to this nasty cocktail Hillary's initial claim that all emails sent to .gov accounts were captured by the State Department system, and the result is non-potable. Late Sunday evening, Hillary's story changed... again. Three days after the Time Magazine story rankled Team Clinton's attempts to kill EmailGate, a Clinton spokesman finally issued a statement indicating Hillary's emails were in fact read. ABC News reported:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 16, 2015 13 Comments
Yes, we have to do this... again. Perpetual media malpractice requires searchable rebuttals to even the dumbest of mistruths, like the latest one about Ted Cruz. Speaking to the Strafford County Republican Committee in New Hampshire yesterday, Cruz was critical of the administration saying, "the Obama-Clinton foreign policy of leading from behind... the whole world's on fire!" (managing to slide in a not so subtle Clinton dig). A little girl named Julia Trant was supposedly frightened by Cruz's statement and asked mid-speech, "The world is on fire?!" according to Adam Smith, political editor for the Tampa Bay Times, who attended the event. Senator Cruz took a moment from his speech to assure the little girl that Mommy was taking care of everything, "the world is on fire, yes! Your world is on fire. But you know what? Your mommy's here and everyone's here to make sure that the world you grow up in is even better." Ted Cruz has two young daughters of his own. The video was posted by Raw Story with the headline, "Ted Cruz scares the hell out of a terrified little girl in New Hampshire." CNN, New York Magazine, Bloomberg, Gawker, Salon and others had similar headlines. Ed Kilgore of Washington Monthly mused that Cruz was using coded language and really meant Obama is the anti-christ or at the very least, one of his minions. Because referencing a "world on fire" is clearly an anti-christ dog whistle. Yes, seriously.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 16, 2015 13 Comments
Last week, Senator Tom Cotton and 46 other Republican Senators penned an open letter to Iranian leaders, reiterating Congress's constitutionally-guaranteed roll in negotiations with foreign powers. Democrats responded by mounting their high horses and leading the charge against the '47 Traitors.' But that was last week. A peek behind the curtain of political theatre reveals a different play altogether. Yesterday, Burgess Everett of Politico reported that a dozen Senate Democrats are prepared to support legislation that could undermine the President's Iran deal. Although, the Democrats responding to Politico wanted to make clear that THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE GOP's LETTER TO IRAN. In a fabulous turn of events that could only transpire within the D.C. Beltway, that whole '47 Traitor' thing was revealed as nothing more than a political play; an opportunity for the administration to take bipartisan support for Congressional power and drive a wedge between Democrats and Republicans. President Obama's "don't you know who I am?!" gig wasn't a total loss though. Senate Republicans served up a chance for the President to spike the ball firmly within partisan territory. While the public relations front was a loss for Senate Republicans (just Google 'senate' and 'Iran' and enjoy the numerous headlines painting Senate Republicans as veritable Benedict Arnold doppelgangers), what comes next will likely be an even greater embarrassment for President Obama than any letter. Obama's Congressional sidestep is at risk of being shoved back in line by 'traitors' and a bevy of Democrats who agree with them. Political math indicates that 54 Republicans + 12 Democrats = veto proof majority the 60 day Congressional review mandate. As we discussed last week, Congress has little say in the current Iran deal because the Obama administration has opted to negotiate a non-binding agreement. Non-binding agreements hold the same type of power as an executive order. Where Corker's bill becomes a problem for the President is that, “An executive agreement never overrides inconsistent legislation and is incapable of overriding any of the sanctions legislation,” says David Rivkin, a constitutional litigator with Baker Hostetler, LLP who served in the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush Administrations. “A treaty that has been submitted for Senate’s advise and consent and if it’s self-executing could do that,” Armin Rosen of Yahoo News reported last week.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 13, 2015 8 Comments

We'd like to briefly interrupt Hillary EmailGate and Foreign Policymageddon to bring you this video full of feels. Plus, it's Friday evening. Alex is seven and was born with a partially developed right arm. He also has a seriously rad bow tie. And then there's Albert....

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 13, 2015 62 Comments
In a speech given yesterday to the Atlantic Council, Secretary Kerry made a few... interesting remarks. Saying of economic concerns, "this is not a choice between bad and worse. Some people like to demagogue this issue. They want to tell you, “Oh, we can’t afford to do this.” Nothing could be further from the truth. We can’t afford not to do it. And in fact, the economics will show you that it is better in the long run to do it and cheaper in the long run." He droned on for about 40 minutes, waxing poetic about 'science' before finally reaching his hyperbolic conclusion. Blaming the end of the world on 'climate skeptics', Secretary Kerry broadly invoked scripture (though no specific scripture was cited), and begged his audience to ignore climate deniers whose actions weren't only wrong, but immoral! And why? For the children™.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 12, 2015 51 Comments
Whew, boy. It is not looking pretty. There are several developments on both fronts -- the email scandal, and the Clinton Foundation foreign government sugar daddy scandal. But we'll start with the email.

1. No one read Hillary's emails before they were presumably destroyed

This excerpt comes from a long piece in TIME:
“For more than a year after she left office in 2013, she did not transfer work-related email from her private account to the State Department. She commissioned a review of the 62,320 messages in her account only after the department–spurred by the congressional investigation–asked her to do so. And this review did not involve opening and reading each email; instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache–31,830 emails–did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be ‘private, personal records.’”
And to make matters worse:

2. Hillary won't confirm she signed mandatory form indicating she'd turned over all classified documents (including emails) to the State Department

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 12, 2015 5 Comments
The recent move from the Texas Governor's Mansion hasn't quelled Governor Perry's passion for all things American. Since creating RickPAC last year, Governor Perry has travelled the country spreading his message. Securing the border and as a byproduct, national security, are part of Perry's message. Yesterday, RickPAC released a video calmly hammering President Obama for his 'weakness and fecklessness' on the international stage: "There's a lot of talk in America today about leadership and America's role and security on the international stage. As someone who believes America is the greatest force for freedom and prosperity in the world, it's frustrating to see the president shuffle from one crisis to the next, and to hear his words ring hollow when there should be unwavering resolve. But let's step back for a minute and imagine the view from the outside. Imagine how the president's weakness and fecklessness are received by both our friends and our enemies. Imagine the view from Tehran, as they're trying to negotiate a nuclear agreement with the United States. They see the leader of the western countries scrambling to get Vladimir Putin to sign a piece of paper that he'll completely ignore within hours."

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 11, 2015 24 Comments
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton stepped out from behind the stone wall to address the press. Her performance fell flat as she grew visibly uncomfortable fielding questions about her private email account. Within minutes, the internet proved several of Mrs. Clinton's statements false or at least questionable, and parsed her double talk into laymen's terms to her detriment. Today, the Office of the Inspector General released a report. Focusing on the State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset (SMART) and record email, the report could be problematic for one of Hillary's most important claims -- that all emails sent to State Department employees were captured. "It was my practice to communicate with State Department and other government officials on their .gov accounts, so those emails would be automatically saved in the State Department system to meet record keeping requirements and that is indeed what happened," said former Secretary Clinton yesterday. But there's just one problem -- only a fraction of the emails sent within the State Department are actually kept. The OIG report found that, "in 2011, employees created 61,156 record emails out of more than a billion emails sent." To make matters worse, even though their systems were upgraded in 2009 (the year Mrs. Clinton took watch over the State Department) in order to, "facilitate the preservation of emails as official records." Even with the improved infrastructure, "Department of State employees have not received adequate training or guidance on their responsibilities for using those systems to preserve “record emails.”" NBC Reports:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 11, 2015 31 Comments
In October, the New York Times reported President Obama intended to fly solo on Iranian negotiations. "But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it," they reported. Fast forward to Monday, when freshman Senator Tom Cotton kicked a hornet's nest. Joined by 46 Republican Senators, Senator Cotton wrote an open letter to Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The letter was an exposition of the Constitutionally guaranteed Congressional role in international agreements. Most notably, a reminder that international agreements arranged by the President are non-binding until they've received Congressional approval. President Obama responded, accusing participating Senate Republicans of allying themselves with Iranian hardliners, "I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members for Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran. It's an unusual coalition," Obama said Monday ahead of a meeting with European Council President Donald Tusk." Vice President Joe Biden weighed in calling the letter "beneath the dignity of [the Senate,] an institution I revere." And then the Democratic dog pile began. Iran too, responded. Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif called the letter a propaganda ploy and proceeded with a self-righteous lecture on international law:
I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.
Zarif's statement isn't exactly incorrect, but it in no way negates the fact that for any agreement involving the United States to be a binding agreement on the international stage, it must first pass Congressional scrutiny... which is exactly what Senator Cotton and his 46 compadres pointed out. Conversely, any agreement reached without Congressional consent is not legally binding.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 10, 2015 32 Comments
Earlier this afternoon, Hillary Clinton held a press conference to address questions concerning the use of her private email from private servers. Beginning with two flimsy decoys, Clinton first addressed women's rights and went on to criticize Senate Republicans for their letter to Iran's Ayatollah. Unsurprisingly, sites like Vox took the bait. Then, the treasure troves of the internet opened up and out sprung three little facts that prove three of Hillary's emphatic statements false. And this is only the beginning. While the statements that follow are multifaceted in consequence and scope, for the sake of brevity, we'll focus strictly on their veracity.

#1: Hillary only used one phone

"When I got to work as Secretary of State, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one devise for my work and personal emails instead of two. Looking back, it would've been better if I'd used a second email account and carried a separate phone, but at the time this didn't seem like an issue."

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 10, 2015 36 Comments
Late yesterday, Hillary announced she would hold a press conference to address EmailGate -- a paltry 8 days after the blossoming scandal graced the pages of the New York Times. Though there were no mentions as to whether her foreign government sugar daddy problem would be given any airtime. According to Department of State spokeswoman Marie Harf, Clinton released 55,000 pages of her emails to the Department of State in December. Of those 55,000 pages, 850 were passed along to the House Select Committee on Benghazi as being relevant to the investigation. True to Arkansas Underwood form (to borrow a phrase from Rick Wilson), members of the media were shocked to learn that press credentials had to be requested 24 hours prior to the press conference, essentially the exact minute the press conference announcement was made (though the initial announcement gave no specific information). Per MSNBC's Alex Seitz-Wald:
"It's appearing at the UN, which has a notoriously difficult credentialing process. So there's going to be a restriction on the number of reporters who can come in. You had to apply 24 hours in advance for press passes. So I don't know if it is intentional or not, but there will definitely be a limited number than if they held it at, say, a hotel or somewhere else in New York where they could be expected to be mobbed by every reporter and their mother in the city."

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 09, 2015 10 Comments
The Conservatarian Manifesto is one that needs to find its way onto your essential reading list. The little red book written by National Review's Charles C.W. Cooke provides a tangible framework for a prolific, but largely ignored segment of the political right -- the conservatarians. Artfully weaving hard data (without descending into pedantic statistical lists) with relevant history, Cooke produces several compelling arguments covering an array of topic. Unlike books that dabble in theory but provide no realistically applicable suggestions, The Conservatarian Manifesto goes beyond thoughtful ponderance and illuminates a pathway forward. In sum -- it's a great book, an enjoyable read, and you should buy it. Without further ado, our chat with Mr. Cooke:

First, a bit about yourself:

K: Beer, bourbon, or wine? C: All three. But I mostly drink wine. K: You have one hour to chat with the person of your choosing, deceased or breathing. Who would you choose? C: Charles James Fox. He was a playboy parliamentarian in eighteenth century England who started off a Tory and became a radical Whig. Fox supported the American War of Independence—to the extent that he dressed up in the colors of Washington’s army and cheered British losses in the House of Commons—and he took to using his parliamentary privilege to excoriate the King. He made a bunch of mistakes in his later life, but he was a great friend of American radicalism, a staunch opponent of overweening executives, an opponent of slavery, and a defender of free speech. He could also drink for England. He’d have been a riot. K: We know you're an upstanding American (citizenship imminent), but on a scale of 1 to Queen Elizabeth I, how British would you consider yourself these days? C: Six. Politically, I’m pretty American in my thinking—and I was long before I moved here. But I haven’t lost my accent at all. Nor have I lost most of my Britishisms. At restaurants I still say “thank you” and “please” about seventeen hundred times each minute.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 08, 2015 13 Comments
The former first lady's situation seems to worsen by the day. First it was revealed that Hillary had a private email account for the duration of her tenure as Secretary of State. Then it was discovered that her private email account was run through servers reportedly in her home. And no one in Obama's administration seemed to have been aware that Mrs. Clinton was operating an extra-governmental account. Or at least that's the current story. When asked if they could prove with certitude that no classified information was exchanged via Hillary's private email, the State Department replied, "that's not a pertinent question." Late last week, the State Department changed their story saying it was up to each Secretary to determine what was relevant and then submit that information back to the DOS for record keeping. Email problems aren't the only obstacle the Clinton's must overcome ahead of a 2016 Presidential run. Former President Bill Clinton came out in defense of the Clinton Foundation yesterday, an organization that accepted donations from foreign governments like Saudi Arabia while Hillary served as Secretary of State. "I believe we've done more good than harm," President Clinton said. Rewind to 2011. February 15, 2011, then Secretary Clinton spoke about Internet Freedom at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C. 2011 Hillary made a great case for why 2015 Hillary should disclose her emails to the public. Take a look:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 07, 2015 4 Comments
Members of both political parties descended upon Selma, Alabama earlier today. Partisan politics were shelved as members of Congress were unified in remembering the sacrifice of those who marched for freedom. So how did Republicans commemorate the day? Take a look:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 07, 2015 6 Comments
According to AFP, Boko Haram's leader pledged loyalty to ISIS in an audio message posted to Twitter this afternoon. From Yahoo News:
Kano (Nigeria) (AFP) - The leader of Nigeria's Boko Haram militants, Abubakar Shekau, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State (IS) group in an audio recording released Saturday. "We announce our allegiance to the Caliph of the Muslims, Ibrahim ibn Awad ibn Ibrahim al-Husseini al-Qurashi," said the voice on the message, which was believed to be that of Shekau and was released through Boko Haram's Twitter account. Qurashi is better known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the IS group which has proclaimed a caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq. Shekau spoke in Arabic, but the message contained French and English subtitles. It was not immediately possible to verify the authenticity of the message. Shekau was not pictured, a contrast from most of Boko Haram's past messages in which the Islamist leader has been shown, often in close up shots. But Shekau did identify himself in the recording, which was accompanied by the subtitles and a graphic including an image of a radio microphone. There have in recent months been signs of closer ties between the Nigerian militants and the IS group, with both using similar ways of communicating with the outside world. Boko Haram has notably begun releasing videos that resemble those made by IS. Boko Haram has been waging a six-year uprising against the Nigerian state, which has claimed more than 13,000 lives. Analysts have long debated the extent of Boko Haram's ties to other jihadist groups, but the evidence was never clear.
Accessibility by WAH