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 22, 2015 4 Comments
C-SPAN gets its fair share of wild calls, but this one has to be one of the best as of late. 'Jack Strickland' called into C-SPAN with a tale reminiscent of one from 90's sitcom, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, featuring Will Smith. 'Strickland' has a history of C-SPAN prank calls. See here, here, and here. “Hi, good morning. I'm Jack Strickland. I just want to make it clear I’m calling from Bel Air, California, but I’m originally from Philadelphia, specifically West Philadelphia. But anyway, I was actually discussing this issue with a friend of mine while I was in Philly, uh, it occurred on a basketball court," said Strickland. "At some point during the conversation, a couple of guys who were essentially up to no good starting making trouble in my neighborhood. I got in one little fight and my mom got scared and said, "you're moving with your auntie and uncle in Bel Air."" And that's when C-SPAN cut the call.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 20, 2015 19 Comments
Feminists found a new target for their incessant outrage -- Nike's new spring clothing line. Nike's latest fashion endeavor looks runway ready, and probably not meant for kickboxing, spinning, or anything else athletic. But then most runway fare isn't designed for anything but the runway. Even the promo photos look like the glossy ads that fill Marie Claire and not typical adverts placed in weekly circulars. Nike x sacai feminist outrage nike clothing line 1Nike x sacai feminist outrage nike clothing line Which seems to be the point. Partnering with Japanese fashion studio Sacai, Nike hopes to make their mark in the rapidly expanding world of fitness fashion. So Nike decides to create what is obviously a fashion couture line. No big deal, right? It shouldn't be. Except that Nike committed the unforgivable sin of describing the line as feminine. As described by Nike:
Renowned for her disruptive aesthetic, sacai’s founder Chitose Abe began the design journey by mining the Nike archives and pulling references from running, tennis and American football, reinterpreting Nike’s heritage sportswear silhouettes through a feminine and modern lens. The resulting eight-piece capsule collection seamlessly blends the iconic look of sport with a feminine and modern edge. New fabric innovations include a special mesh lace hem that was specifically developed by Nike and Abe to adorn the trim of graphic Nike T-shirts. The detail pays homage to sacai’s cool and subversive take on femininity. Abe also applied her signature paneling to several of the garments. Through technical innovation, the partners were able to achieve this effect by pleating the classic ripstop fabric for the first time. Bonded zippers that are attached without any stitching are another example of advanced design.
Cue faux feminist drama.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 20, 2015 26 Comments
While writers like Ben White are encouraging Hillary to kickstart her 2016 bid immediately, the House Select Committee on Benghazi is still looking for answers. Today, Gowdy sent a letter to Hillary Clinton's counsel confirming the extension of subpoena deadline to March 27, and formally requesting the former Secretary of State surrender her email servers to a mutually agreed upon third party for forensic examination. Gowdy explained Hillary's unusual and likely unprecedented email arrangement, an arrangement that made her the sole arbiter of relevant documentation. Making note that Mrs. Clinton deleted emails, Gowdy wrote, "the deletion of emails is not normal practice once any investigation, let alone litigation, commences. The fact that she apparently deleted some emails after Congress initially requested documents raises serious concerns." The House of Representatives issued the following statement this afternoon:
Washington, DC-- Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy today sent a letter requesting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turn over the server she used for official State Department business to the State Department inspector general or a neutral third party for independent analysis of what records should be in the public domain. “Though Secretary Clinton alone is responsible for causing this issue, she alone does not get to determine its outcome,” said Gowdy, R-S.C. “That is why in the interest of transparency for the American people, I am formally requesting she turn the server over to the State Department’s inspector general or a mutually agreeable third party. “An independent analysis of the private server Secretary Clinton used for the official conduct of U.S. government business is the best way to remove politics and personal consideration from the equation. Having a neutral, third-party arbiter such as the State Department IG do a forensic analysis and document review is an eminently fair and reasonable means to determine what should be made public.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 20, 2015 28 Comments
Yesterday, BuzzFeed News published a story about a freshman at Reed College, a small liberal arts school in Portland, Oregon. Nineteen-year-old Jeremiah True told BuzzFeed News he received a letter from his freshman humanities professor, Pancho Savery, banning him from the discussion portion of the class for the rest of the semester. Katie J.M. Baker reported for BuzzFeed News:
...“Please know that this was a difficult decision for me to make and one that I have never made before; nevertheless, in light of the serious stress you have caused your classmates, I feel that I have no other choice,” Savery wrote in the email, obtained by BuzzFeed News. ...True said he sparred with classmates over discussion topics related to ancient Greece and Rome, such as the “patriarchal” belief that logic is more important than emotion and his analysis of Lucretia’s rape. But it was his questioning of the widely shared and often debated statistic that 1 in 5 women in college are sexually assaulted — it doesn’t serve “actual rape victims” to “overinflate” numbers, he said — and his rejection of the term “rape culture” that led to him being banned, he said. “I am critical of the idea of a rape culture because it does not exist,” he wrote in a lengthy email to Savery explaining his perspectives that he has also posted online. “We live in a society that hates rape, but also hasn’t optimized the best way to handle rape. Changing the legal definition of rape is a slippery slope. If sexual assault becomes qualified as rape, what happens next? What else can we legally redefine to become rape? Why would we want to inflate the numbers of rape in our society?”
Today, new information revealed in an article published by Inside Higher Ed suggests BuzzFeed didn't get the whole story. Though it should be noted Professor Savery declined to provide comment to BuzzFeed, but was willing to discuss the matter with Insider Higher Ed.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 19, 2015 7 Comments
Though the War on Drugs rages on, Nevada pets might be catching a break. Earlier this week, Democratic Senator Tick Segerblom introduced legislation that would further decriminalize marijuana usage in the state of Nevada. Among SB372's many provisions is 'pot for pets.' Pot for pets would allow pet owners to obtain medicinal marijuana for their ailing fur babies with written veterinarian approval. The bill requires written veterinarian consent stating the animal has, "been diagnosed with a chronic or debilitating medical condition; the medical use of marijuana may mitigate the symptoms or effects of that condition; and the veterinarian has explained the possible risks and benefits of the medical use of marijuana for animals." According to the Associated Press, Segerblom indicated "he's concerned that some animals might have adverse reactions, but "you don't know until you try," he said." Last week the FDA issued warnings to firms selling pet cannabis products in Washington state; warnings local veterinarians say should be heeded.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 18, 2015 30 Comments
This might be the most deliciously awkward thing I've ever witnessed on cable news. Although Lawrence O'Donnell pretending to be a Boston southie and challenging Tag Romney to a fight is still at the top of that list. Yesterday, MSNBC's Chris Hayes discussed Starbucks' disastrous social justice campaign -- 'Race Together.' Meant to encourage baristas to engage customers in conversations about race, 'Race Together' received an overwhelming amount of criticism from both the left and right. Hayes brought guests Nancy Giles of CBS Sunday Morning, and culture commentator and DJ, Jay Smooth to share their thoughts on Starbucks' latest social endeavor. Smooth is the founder of the longest running hip-hop radio show in New York City. "I agree, the intentions seem noble and I want to keep an open mind," said Smooth talking about 'Race Together', "but I think there's this strange fixation on "conversation" when it comes to race that you don't see with other issues that we want to take seriously. I think it's telling that when Howard Schultz wanted to help veterans, he didn't just tell people to have conversations about how much they like veterans, he committed to a plan of action to help veterans... He talked about being inspired by what happened in Ferguson and other places, but if you look at the DOJ report on Ferguson, it does not describe issues that can be addressed by increasing the number of chats in coffee shops. We're talking about institutional, systemic issues." Conversation ensued, then Hayes played a previously recorded clip of Smooth discussing the best way to discuss race. After watching the clip, Nancy Giles turns to Smooth, begins gyrating her shoulders and says, "I can't help but tease Jay about the kinda like, brotha way he was trying to talk, like "hey" with the rap music in the background and like, down with people."

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."
Accessibility by WAH