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 Mike LaChance on February 06, 2015 57 Comments
At the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday, President Obama equated the horrific acts carried out by ISIS to the Christian Crusades. Nedra Pickler of AP News reported:
Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion' President Barack Obama on Thursday condemned those who seek to use religion as a rationale for carrying out violence around the world, declaring that "no god condones terror." "We are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion for their nihilistic ends," Obama said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. He singled out the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, calling the militants a "death cult," as well as those responsible for last month's terror attacks in Paris and deadly assault on a school in Pakistan... Obama had a more non-denominational message for the audience that also included prominent leaders of non-Christian faiths. The president said that while religion is a source for good around the world, people of all faiths have been willing to "hijack religion for their own murderous ends." "Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ," Obama said. "In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. "So it is not unique to one group or one religion," Obama said. "There is a tendency in us, a simple tendency that can pervert and distort our faith."
Charles Krauthammer reacted on Special Report. Video via National Review:

LATEST NEWS

Posted by Amy Miller on February 05, 2015 12 Comments
Say hello to the FCC's newly-dubbed "New Rules for Protecting the Open Internet". From The Hill:
Tom Wheeler, head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), announced Wednesday that he will be circulating to his colleagues the “strongest open Internet protections ever proposed by the FCC,” made up of “enforceable, bright-line rules.” The proposal will ban Internet service providers such as Comcast or Verizon from blocking or slowing access to content online. It will also ban “fast lane” deals that speed up online services, and extend the rules to cellphones and tablets for the first time. “My proposal assures the rights of Internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission,” Wheeler wrote in an op-ed in Wired. The decision by Wheeler is a reversal from last year, when he was pursuing a plan that critics warned could lead to a “two-tiered Internet,” with some companies cutting deals to operate in the “fast lanes.”
This is a different result than many anticipated; Wheeler had been working for months on a compromise solution that would have maintained "light touch" regulations on internet providers, in sharp contrast with the agenda President Obama backed. The White House threw its full support behind the regulations that were announced today, and ginned up support for them though months of secretive meetings with online activists, startups, and telecomm companies. In a piece for the New Republic, David Dayen explains how liberal activists achieved a serious coup on the issue of Net Neutrality. You should read the whole thing, but this is perhaps the most relevant snippet:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 05, 2015 47 Comments
Manterruptions. If not for TIME magazine, I'd have gone along my merry way, ignorant to the fact that manterruptions exist. No, it's not a fun, colloquial expression used by youngsters these days. The author is quite serious about the trials and tribulations forged by manterruptions. What's a manterruption, you ask? According to TIME, a manterruption is, "unnecessary interruption of a woman by a man." But if you're sensitive to gender specific phrases, "talk-blocking" is manterruptions gender-neutral synonym. Cited Example: When Kanye West interrupted Taylor Swift as she was accepting her award for best female music video in 2009 saying, "Imma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time." In all fairness though, Kayne tends to live in his own Kayne planet where the sun and the moon rise and fall at his bidding; so I'm not sure that's the best example as it's an outlier, but since that's the one TIME provided, we'll roll with it. According to TIME, manterruptions are a workplace epidemic, and another tool of the patriarchy to keep women down.
“When a woman speaks in a professional setting, she walks a tightrope. Either she’s barely heard or she’s judged as too aggressive. When a man says virtually the same thing, heads nod in appreciation for his fine idea.” And the result? Women hold back. That, or we relinquish credit altogether. Our ideas get co-opted (bro-opted), re-appropriated (bro-propriated?) — or they simply fizzle out. We shut down, become less creative, less engaged. We revert into ourselves, wondering if it’s actually our fault. Enter spiral of self-doubt.
In modern "feminist" rantings, there are almost always two common threads:

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

New Hampshire House Passes Campus Carry Bill

American Medical Association Accused of Politicizing Continuing Education Courses

UCLA Fires DEI Director Over Charlie Kirk Comments

University of Houston Hit With Third Armed Robbery on Campus This Year

UC-Berkeley Prof Substitutes Exam for Creating Wikipedia Pages About 'Queer and Trans People of Color'

U. Minnesota Prof Allegedly Conducted an ‘ICE Drill’ in Class

SEE MORE

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:

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:

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.
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH