Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

/var/www/vhosts/legalinsurrection.com/httpdocs/wp-content/themes/bridge-child/readFeeds.incFALSE

Posted by Amy Miller on February 05, 2015 4 Comments
Obstruction from the left? Must be a day ending in -y. For the third time in a row, Senate Democrats have blocked floor debate on a bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security after February 27. The problem? The piece of legislation Republicans are trying to pass contains provisions blocking Obama's 2012 and 2014 amnesty plans from being implemented. Senate Republicans have pushed multiple times for a vote on the controversial House bill, highlighting their commitment both to keeping DHS funded, and preventing executive amnesty from becoming reality. Via CNN:
One reason for the multiple votes is so Senate GOP leaders can showcase for House Republicans that despite their efforts to pass the House bill, it can't get enough Democratic votes to pass in the Senate as long as it carries the immigration provisions. That might force House Republicans to rethink their position on immigration and decide to take that fight up later. "Part of coming to a solution is going to be showing that we're doing our best to fight for the House position," said Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican told reporters on Wednesday after the second vote. It remains unclear how House and Senate Republican leaders will reach a solution that can meet the differing political needs of each chamber. Multiple House Republican members told CNN the focus now is to increase the pressure on the Senate to figure out a way to pass the measure.
Important point: Reid's caucus didn't just vote against this bill---they blocked it from even coming to the floor to be discussed. When it comes to immigration, Democrats don't want to talk about it unless they can guarantee a winning message they can splash across the top of their fundraising e-mails. This makes sense, considering former immigration officials have now come out to blast the amnesty plans as a death sentence for agencies tasked with making sure things run smoothly. Who wouldn't want to force the focus on a radical Republican agenda, as opposed to the impending implosion of progressive immigration policy? This isn't just about getting a vote on a bill; it's about making any progress at all on funding DHS, and rolling back Obama's executive amnesty:

LATEST NEWS

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 05, 2015 23 Comments
From Politico, Dan Rather backs Brian Williams:
Brian Williams is "an honest, decent man, an excellent reporter and anchor--and a brave one," veteran newsman Dan Rather told POLITICO on Thursday. Rather's note of support comes after the revelation that Williams falsely claimed to have been aboard a helicopter that was shot down during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Williams admitted Wednesday that he was on a different helicopter, and apologized to viewers and crew members of the 159th Aviation Regiment. Like Williams, Rather has been the subject of public controversy. In 2004, he was forced to retract a report on George W. Bush's National Guard service after the authenticity of his source documents were called into question. Rather retired from CBS News the following year, ending a 24-year run as anchor of the Evening News. He now anchors "Dan Rather Reports" on the cable channel AXS.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 05, 2015 8 Comments
The 2016 race is already barreling forward on the right, with candidates from every point on the conservative-libertarian political spectrum throwing elbows and pressing forward to gain the attention of both the media, and primary voters in key states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Space in the spotlight is at a premium---the media is still trying to figure out how they're going to differentiate and play these characters against each other. For Democrats, though, the eventual race for the White House is on hold as top strategists attempt to answer a question that many activists on the left refuse to stop asking: where's Hillary? It's odd to ask this question about a woman who hasn't left the spotlight since her husband entered the Oval Office. For many on the left, she's The Idea Whose Time Has Come©. For Conservatives, she's the Long National Nightmare© that refuses to go away. For strategists and campaign hacks, she's a precious commodity---that they have no idea how to handle. Via CNN, a few days ago:
Some Clinton loyalists worry that as the increasingly crowded Republican race heats up, the attacks on her could begin to stick without an apparatus in place to answer them. The liberal superPAC American Bridge has been countering Republican attacks on Clinton's behalf but many Democrats think it's no substitute for a campaign messaging operation. "They're doing terrific research," said one, "but they don't know what her specific policy agenda is going to be. She should get in and start putting together a substantive policy agenda so the attacks that are going to begin to come from every single Republican who is jumping in to the race can be answered." The Democratic National Committee is beginning to take on a larger role in an effort to protect Clinton and the party brand but many Democrats are concerned even that won't be enough. Other supporters want Clinton to lay low as the Republican field heats up, convinced Clinton will avoid some fire if she's undeclared and GOP candidates will take aim at each other instead.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 05, 2015 36 Comments
In the months leading up to the first Supreme Court Obamacare decision, there was a concerted media and Democratic effort to portray the legitimacy of the Court, and particularly the legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts, as dependent on the outcome. The argument went that holding Obamacare's mandate to be unconstitutional would be such a huge interference in the political process that the Court would lose its supposed role as neutral referee and become a political player. Because as we all know, that has never happened before (/sarc), see, Roe v. Wade, etc. This pressure reportedly caused Roberts to change his vote, and to join with the for liberal members of the Court in finding the mandate justified under Congress' taxing power. Now the media pressure is mounting on Obamacare II, the subsidy case the Court accepted this term. The issue is whether the statutory language of Obamacare permits subsidies (the only way Obamacare policies are affordable for most) on the federal exchange set up when most states refused. This issue of statutory interpretation is not exceptional legally, except that the political stakes are so high. If the statute is read not to permit the subsidies, Obamacare likely crumbles of its own weight. Enter Linda Greenhouse, Supreme Court and judicial reporter for The NY Times, with scare mongering about the legitimacy of the Court, The Supreme Court at Stake: Overturning Obamacare Would Change the Nature of the Supreme Court:

Posted by Leslie Eastman on February 05, 2015 8 Comments
When San Diego's talk station KOGO AM600 announced they were going to chat about obnoxious Super Bowl ads, they asked listeners to call in with the ones they wanted to discuss. Instead, I sent a producer I knew my piece, I am apologizing #LikeAGirl for Super Bowl Ads’ #WarOnMen. As a result, their independent-minded host, Bob "Sully" Sullivan, invited me to chat with him about the commercials, as well as my work at both Legal Insurrection and College Insurrection related to the challenges men face today. Here's a video with the exchange:

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

Penn State Students Protest ICE, Block Traffic in Solidarity With Renee Good

St. John’s University Continues to Block Approval of Turning Point USA

Columbia Picks Former U. Wisconsin-Madison Chancellor as Fourth New President in Two Years

The History Behind Rampant Antisemitism at CUNY

Young Man Who Skipped College to Become an Electrician Now Makes Six Figures

Feminist Historian Claims Shakespeare was a Black Jewish Woman

SEE MORE

Posted by New Neo on February 04, 2015 11 Comments
Ever wonder whether Obama's policy towards Iran represents something coherent, or just naive incompetence? Here's an excellent article by Michael Doran in Mosaic that fleshes out the details of a theory about Obama's approach to Iran. It doesn't take the most extreme stance of all---which would be the "Obama is a secret Iranian sympathizer" theory---but the piece's premise is credible, and it is well worth taking the time to read in its entirety. It's a bit difficult to summarize, but the article makes several points. The first two are that much of Obama's approach focuses on his deep contempt for Bush and his powerful desire to differentiate himself, as well as Obama's general penchant for secrecy. But there's much more:
During the Bush years, an elaborate myth had developed according to which the mullahs in Tehran had themselves reached out in friendship to Washington, offering a “grand bargain”: a deal on everything from regional security to nuclear weapons. The swaggering Bush, however, had slapped away the outstretched Iranian hand, squandering the opportunity of a lifetime... Obama based his policy of outreach to Tehran on two key assumptions of the grand-bargain myth: that Tehran and Washington were natural allies, and that Washington itself was the primary cause of the enmity between the two. If only the United States were to adopt a less belligerent posture, so the thinking went, Iran would reciprocate. In his very first television interview from the White House, Obama announced his desire to talk to the Iranians, to see “where there are potential avenues for progress.” Echoing his inaugural address, he said, “[I]f countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” Unfortunately, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, ignored the president’s invitation...
Because, of course, the entire thing was a myth.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 04, 2015 41 Comments
It certainly looks that way. NBC News Anchor Brian Williams has long claimed he was on a helicopter forced down by RPG fire while reporting from Iraq in 2003. An exclusive report in Stars and Stripes, a military publication, tells the story of Williams' indiscretion. Williams was forced to recant when a soldier protested Williams' rendition of the story. As recently as Monday, Williams claimed, on national news, that he was under fire on a Chinook. Take a look: It was during this commemoration that those involved in the incident stepped up to correct the record:

Posted by Amy Miller on February 04, 2015 15 Comments
The race relations debate in America has become a caricature of its former self. What was once a serious conversation about ending discrimination and hatred has become a three ring circus of hand-wringing and recriminations over whose office, TV show, or university has the largest representation of minority members. It's not a question of sharing cultural elements, or learning a new language; all that really matters to the race relations brigade these days comes down to hard numbers---how many of you are there?---and regular reminders about the dangers of "cultural appropriation," making it nearly impossible for America to enjoy its status as a world class melting pot. This is why I fully endorse any and all attempts to lampoon the Very Important Concerns© of those who make it their mission in life to question my commitment to love and equality. In his latest edition of "Pedestrian Questions," comedian Jimmy Kimmel did just that---and managed to make his own point about race relations in America (even if it happened by accident.)

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 04, 2015 12 Comments
(This post is just an excuse to gloat over the Patriots' victory, but please read on, there's a point here someplace.) Has there ever been a more exciting Super Bowl final quarter than the one we saw during the Patriots' latest win? First, there was the improbable, amazing, super-stupendous "what the **** just happened" catch to put the Seahawks on the verge of victory: Then, there was Bill Belichek playing mind games with Pete Carroll by not calling a time out, which caused "the call" and "the interception":

Posted by Amy Miller on February 04, 2015 21 Comments
In 2015's America, no one expects greatness from a romantic thriller starring Jennifer Lopez; but every once in a while, something makes its way into the genre that is so incredibly ridiculous we can't help but serve it up for censure and recriminations. Lopez's latest flick, "The Boy Next Door," has all the makings of a movie I'll eventually catch on Netflix after a glass of wine or two:
When a handsome, charming teenager named Noah (Ryan Guzman) moves in next door, newly separated high-school teacher Claire Peterson (Jennifer Lopez) encourages his friendship and engages in a little bit of harmless -- or so she thinks -- flirtation. Although Noah spends much of the time hanging out with Claire's son, the teen's attraction to her is palpable. One night, Claire gives in to temptation and lets Noah seduce her -- but when she tries to end the relationship, he turns violent.
Obviously ridiculous---but internet snarkfest WTFark found something tucked into the many layers of this catastrophe that takes us beyond "ridiculous" and into the realm of "America is over." Behold: First edition "Iliad." First. Editiion. "Iliad." First...no. I can't. Oh my god is right. As in, "oh my God, we are literally doomed."

Posted by Amy Miller on February 04, 2015 7 Comments
From the "are you KIDDING me?!" department, a new development in Obama's plans to grant executive amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Yesterday, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress that under the President's plan, immigrants granted deportation amnesty will be eligible to collect an additional tax refund. They'll do this by backtracking through paperwork and claiming an Earned Income Tax Credit on earnings (read: money made while in the country illegally) from as far back as 2011. The Washington Times explains the loophole:
“This is the problem you get into,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who demanded a solution to the loophole. “The IRS’s interpretation of the EITC eligibility requirements undermines congressional policy for not rewarding those working illegally in the United States.” The loophole stems from the way the IRS handles illegal immigrants. While the immigrants are not authorized to work in the U.S. legally, the IRS still wants to be paid taxes on the earnings of those who do work, and so it has issued millions of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers, or ITINs, to illegal immigrants, enabling them to pay up. Some tax credits are only eligible to those with a valid Social Security number. Those who get valid numbers, however, can go back and claim them.
Although only those who previously registered for an ITIN and are granted a Social Security number will be able to amend their returns, this could still amount to billions, according to the Times report.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 04, 2015 4 Comments
Last night, Tuesday, February 3, 2015, a fundraiser was held at DePaul University honoring and on behalf of convicted supermarket bomber and immigration fraudster Rasmieh (Rasmea) Odeh. Full details and background on the fundraiser here, and on Rasmea's trials and convictions here. A vigil was held outside the fundraiser in memory of two Israeli students killed in the bombing, Edward Joffe and Leon Kanner. It was snowing and a heavy snowfall anticipated, which almost led to cancellation of the vigil, but a group of students persevered and stood out in the cold reciting prayers for peace and remembering. The vigil made national news: A Legal Insurrection photographer took photos. Rasmea Odeh Protest Vigil DePaul 2-3-2015 Students Holding Photos Statue

Posted by Leslie Eastman on February 04, 2015 5 Comments
The Great Sphinx is safe from destruction and Egypt's President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi is calling for a "Islamic Reformation", so now should be a good time to visit the enchanting "Land of the Nile," right? Not so fast. A new group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood has just declared holy war on foreigners:
An Islamist organization sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood is warning all foreigners and diplomats to flee Egypt by the end of February or face becoming “a target by the Revolutionary Punishment Movement,” according to a recent warning posted online by a Brotherhood-affiliated site and read live on television by one of its broadcast organs. The statement issues a threat to “all foreign nationals,” “all foreign companies,” and all “embassy foreigners, diplomats, and ambassadors,” ordering them to leave Egypt by the end of the month or face violent attacks, according to an independent translation of the Arabic statement. Foreign travelers also are warned to “cancel their trips” and told “they are not welcome to Egypt during these difficult days.”
The Al Jazeera Center for Studies has some background on these "insurgents," who organized shortly before the 4th anniversary of the "Arab Spring" protests in Tahrir Square.

Posted by Mike LaChance on February 04, 2015 20 Comments
The Senate confirmation hearings for Loretta Lynch have been in the news for over a week and for good reason. As Eric Holder prepares to exit the Department of Justice, many people want to be sure America doesn't end up with another Eric Holder. Lynch has many positive qualities but as Professor Jacobson recently pointed out, not being Eric Holder is not enough. Yesterday, Holder held a press conference in which he insisted that he hasn't politicized the Department of Justice. Josh Feldman of Mediaite reported:
Holder Fires Back at GOP: ‘There’s Been No Politicization of This Justice Department’ Last week the Senate held confirmation hearings for Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch, but a lot of the questions from Republicans centered around the current occupant of that office, with one even going so far as to ask Lynch if she is Eric Holder. Today, Holder himself held a news conference in which he started out by saying, “For the record, I am Eric Holder.” From there, the attorney general went after Republican critics in possibly one of the last (if not the last) press conferences of his tenure leading the DOJ. He said it’s “a little irresponsible for people on the hill to say that policy differences that we have with them… can be characterized as political.” Holder insisted that “there’s been no politicization of this Justice Department” and said such an accusation is “totally inconsistent with the facts.”
Here's a video of Holder's statement:
World News Videos | ABC World News It's good to know Mr. Holder thinks so highly of his stewardship of American Justice.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 03, 2015 16 Comments
For a mere 2500 rubles, you can give your Valentine a gift they'll never forget: their very own figurine of Vladimir Putin riding a bear. Who wouldn't want that? Check it out: Vladimir putin figurine
Luxurious Figurine as the head of state who tamed forest brown bear standing on a segment of a great country, symbolizes the victory, the heroic strength and power. Bear has long been considered a symbol of immense Russia, represents courage, strength, courage and rage directed against enemies - this beast could not be better reflects the position of the nation and its principles.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 03, 2015 8 Comments
Democrats threw up a roadblock today when they filibustered a GOP bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security while neutering years' worth of Obama Administration policies favoring deportation amnesty. As I said earlier today, GOP leadership had to have known this was coming. The Dems have been apoplectic over Republican challenges to executive amnesty ever since they lost the majority, so a challenge to this aggressive change in policy is no surprise. What is surprising is how one of the Senate's most aggressive members addressed the possibility that the House bill would fail to make it to a vote. Via National Review:
Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and Senator Susan Collins (R., Maine) argued during a Senate GOP lunch that if Democrats filibuster the Department of Homeland Security funding bill — which blocks implementation of Obama’s 2012 deferred action program and his November 2014 “adult amnesty” — Republicans should respond by blocking only the 2014 orders. The thinking, according to a GOP senator who was in the lunch, is that Senate Democrats will have a harder time staying unified for a filibuster if Republicans have a narrower focus. “What I have said for months now is the central focus of Republicans should be stopping President Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty,” Cruz tells National Review Online when asked to confirm the details of his case. “That’s what Republican candidates promised the voters in November and that’s the promise we need to fulfill.”
That's...new. And huge. Back in January, Senator Cruz released a glowing statement, praising the House bill and its amnesty defunding provisions, saying that it was up to the Senate "to take up the House bill, preserving those key provisions, and send it to the President..." What happened?
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH