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 Fuzzy Slippers on September 06, 2015 7 Comments
As Hillary lags in the polls and her unfavorables soar, Draft Biden makes significant moves in Iowa. The Hill reports:
The group urging Vice President Joe Biden to launch a 2016 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination announced Friday that two longtime backers of Biden have signed on as co-chairs in the early-voting state of Iowa. . . . .  Draft Biden also announced on Friday that around a dozen Iowa elected officials have signed on to the effort as committee members, as well as a pair of political operatives, to direct organizing efforts in the state. The staff moves lend new credibility to the budding effort to convince the vice president to run against former secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the party’s front-runner. . . . .  The Draft Biden announcement on Friday also came on the same day that news emerged that Clinton's campaign would spend $4 million in ads in Iowa and New Hampshire over the next two months.

LATEST NEWS

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 06, 2015 17 Comments
Years ago journalist and literary critic Christopher Hitchens shared his candid thoughts on a Hillary Clinton presidential bid. "As for Mrs. Clinton, as for all she's done for us and after all she's suffered on our behalf, she feels she's owed the presidency and who could possibly disagree? Her life is meaningless if she doesn't get at least a shot and one can only sympathize. Unless you think, as I do, that people should be distrusted, who are running for therapeutic reasons," said Hitchens. Hitchens passed away in 2011, but his arguments against electing Mrs. Clinton are even more relevant today in light of her poor performance as Secretary of State, EmailGate, and her relationships with foreign officials who's interests are not congruent with those of the United States:

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 06, 2015 37 Comments
A newly published study shows taxpayers are (still) abandoning blue states and heading to states where Republicans retain a greater level of influence. Leah Jessen of the Daily Signal reported:
Study: Taxpayers Are Leaving Democrat-Run States for States Controlled by Republicans In an analysis of Internal Revenue Service income statistics and migration data, Americans for Tax Reform—an advocacy group for lower and simpler taxes—concluded that in 2013 more than 200,000 taxpayers fled states with a Democrat governor to states with Republicans in control. The analysis shows that in 2013 states run by Democrats lost 226,763 taxpayers while Republican-run states gained about 220,000 new taxpayers. The state with the most growth in new taxpayers? Texas. The state, governed by Republican Rick Perry during the 2012-2013 year, saw a positive net migration of 152,477 people. “Texas accounted for more than half of the net migration into the South,” the IRS reports.
The IRS report can be seen here.

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 06, 2015 48 Comments
Early in the 2016 cycle, the Republican establishment pushed Marco Rubio aside in Florida and put its money and support behind Jeb Bush. That decision has created a scenario which could rob both candidates of the state's highly coveted delegates. Jim Newell of Slate reported:
Has the Republican Establishment Created a Monster? Last fall, when Jeb Bush was still mulling a bid for the presidency, Bloomberg Politics reported on what was considered then—and is still considered now—Bush’s greatest advantage as a presidential candidate: His ability to separate wealthy donors from vast sums of money quickly. “Unlike his competitors,” the thinking went, “Bush could lure donors off the fence in a hurry, without undergoing a hazing trial to test skill and stability.” That is precisely what happened. Instants after announcing over the winter that he was “seriously considering the possibility of running for president,” Bush and his team set up the Right to Rise PAC and super PAC to serve as cash receptacles for eager GOP establishment donors. The money rolled in, and by July the super PAC announced that it had met its goal of raising more than $100 million in the first six months of the year.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 06, 2015 3 Comments
This week top presidential contenders from both parties journeyed to Puerto Rico to talk economics, health care, and the future of the commonwealth's place in American politics. Puerto Ricans won't vote in the presidential election, but their 23 delegates could mean the difference between life and campaign death in a field as crowded as the GOP's is, and the Democratic Party's is likely to become; and both Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio appeared determined to stake their claim. Their events were only miles apart, but represented stark differences in the way the two candidates are courting voters. Marco Rubio played to a packed neighborhood bar, and made his speech (mostly in Spanish) while unabashedly wiping the sweat from his face. He made a point to jab at Clinton, referencing the scandal surrounding her private server, and predicting that her vision for Puerto Rico would be limited to the same policies that have contributed to the country's current fiscal crisis. From the AP:
Rubio said the island faces multiple challenges, but remained firm that allowing its municipalities and agencies to declare bankruptcy is not the answer. "I don't believe Chapter 9 would solve Puerto Rico's problems," he said, adding that the island has spent more money than it had available. "Ultimately, if there is no other option left, Chapter 9 is a viable option at that point."

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

TPUSA Members: UT Tyler Attack Reflects Growing Campus Hostility Toward Conservatives

UT Austin Funds Graduate Student Research on ‘Reproductive Justice’

Texas Tech Regents Eliminate Several Race, Gender Studies Courses

Ransomware Gang Claims Credit for Vanderbilt Cyberattack

Occidental College Hosts Transgender Event That Mocks Trump

Franklin & Marshall College Drops Plan to Adopt 'Gender Neutral' Mascot

SEE MORE

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on September 05, 2015 17 Comments
A new poll by Rasmussen asks the question: has Obama widened the racial divide?  And 47% believe that he has.  Rasmussen reports:
Americans hoped the election of the first black president in 2008 would help heal the racial division that has plagued this country for much of its history, but nearly half of voters think just the opposite has occurred. Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe President Obama has brought Americans of different races closer together, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Forty-seven percent (47%) think Obama has driven those of different races further apart instead. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say his words and actions have had no major impact either way . . . . Forty-four percent (44%) of black voters feel the president has brought us closer together, but just 16% of whites and 21% of other minority voters agree. Most whites (54%) believe Obama has driven the races further apart, a view shared by only 21% of blacks and 38% of other minority voters.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 05, 2015 34 Comments
Joining Lou Dobbs earlier this week, Former Texas Governor Rick Perry was asked to explain his stance on illegal immigration and border security. "I think we need to flesh everyone out from the stand point of of just the rhetoric. When somebody says, "let's build a wall," then I think it's appropriate to say, it's good to have this conversation, it's good that we are having this conversation that now for thirty years, this border has not been secured. We've known it's been a problem," said Perry. Dobbs interjected that he doesn't believe a single candidate talking about immigration issues because, "we've heard it all before."

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 05, 2015 8 Comments
Republican South Carolina senator Tim Scott appeared on CNN yesterday and was questioned by host Brianna Keilar for saying all lives matter. His response was brilliant. Josh Feldman of Mediaite has a partial transcript:
Sen. Tim Scott: If ‘All Lives Matter’ Really Offends You, That’s Your Problem Senator Tim Scott said tonight that if people are honestly offended by him or anyone else saying “all lives matter,” that’s their problem. On CNN tonight, Scott told Brianna Keilar, “If it causes offense to say that all lives matter, black lives, white lives, police officers… if that is somehow offensive to someone, that’s their issue, not mine.”

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on September 05, 2015 40 Comments
On Tuesday, a police officer was denied service at a Florida Arby's.  Peter Burke reports:
According to an offense report filled out by the officer, identified as Sgt. Jennifer Martin, the officer ordered her food in the drive-through of the restaurant and drove to the window to pay. Martin claims that the clerk, Kenneth Davenport, took her credit card. She said the restaurant's manager, Angel Mirabal, then approached the window and said, "He doesn't want to serve you because you are a police officer." The officer said she told Mirabal that she was uncomfortable and "wasn't certain I wanted to dine at the restaurant." According to the report, Mirabal assured Martin that everything was OK, handed her the food and laughed while telling her that Davenport was allowed to refuse her service. Martin said that she went inside the restaurant, and Mirabal provided her with a refund and his contact information. She said Davenport refused to give her his contact information.
Following this incident at Arby's, the outrage was such that police wives protested outside the Arby's where the incident occurred, and the head of the Broward County Police Benevolent Association, Jeff Marano, called for a nationwide boycott of Arby's.  Arby's responded by issuing an apology and promising to investigate the matter to determine if disciplinary action was warranted.

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 05, 2015 17 Comments
Democrats are probably very happy with the August jobs report and the new unemployment rate of 5.1, but if you look closely at the issue, there's no reason for turning cartwheels just yet. Susan Jones of CNS News:
Record 94,031,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Stuck at 38-Year Low for 3rd Straight Month A record 94,031,000 Americans were not in the American labor force last month -- 261,000 more than July -- and the labor force participation rate stayed stuck at 62.6 percent, a 38-year low, for a third straight month in August, the Labor Department reported on Friday, as the nation heads into the Labor Day weekend. The number of Americans not in the labor force has continued to rise, partly because of retiring baby-boomers and fewer workers entering the workforce. In August, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 251,096,000. Of those, 157,065,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 04, 2015 247 Comments
Thursday, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Donald Trump. Among other things, Hewitt asked Trump a handful of foreign policy questions. "Are you familiar with General Soleimani?" asked Hewitt. "Yessss. Go ahead, give me a little. Go ahead, tell me," responded Trump. Hewitt explained that Soleimani runs the Quds forces, which Trump confused with the Kurds, though Trump eventually remembered who Soleimani was. Hewitt was then complementary and reminisced of the time Trump "schooled the Senate" on real-estate, and then went on to explain that he's looking for a Commander in Chief that knows who the players in the vast battlefield of Islamic terrorism. "Do you know who the players are without a score card, Donald Trump?" Hewitt asked. "I think by the time we get to office they'll all be changed, they'll be all gone, I knew you were gonna asks me things like this and there's no reason because number one, I will hopefully find General Douglas McArthur in the PAC, I will find whoever it is that I'll find, but they're all changing, those are like history questions, do you know this one, do you know that one." "I don't believe in gotcha questions, I'm not trying to quiz you," retorted Hewitt. "Well that is a gotcha question," Trump accused. And then a media controversy was birthed.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 04, 2015 2 Comments
Remember El Chapo? Joaquin Guzman, the infamous Mexican drug lord---and head of the even more infamous Sinaloa drug cartel---made headlines this past July when he executed an even more infamous escape from Mexico's maximum security Altiplano prison. He tied his shoes, popped down a tunnel, and surfaced a mile outside the prison walls into the waiting arms (and vehicles) of his drug-running minions. It was El Chapo's second escape from a Mexican maximum security prison, and officials were both baffled* and humiliated* after they discovered they'd been hoodwinked*. (*This, of course, assumes that they were hoodwinked. The man had a privacy wall in his cell and a fully-lit and equipped tunnel. Alas...) Since his escape, El Chapo has been on the run, leaving a bizarre social media trail in his wake. Several times, Guzman's son Alfredo has made posts to social media purporting to show photos of his father not languishing in a cell in central Mexico. His last post, however, may have had a teensy flaw---he left the geotagging on. Mediaite grabbed a screenshot of the tweet:

Posted by David Gerstman on September 04, 2015 11 Comments
Sen. Ben Cardin (D - Md.) today announced his opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran (AKA Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) in an op-ed published in The Washington Post. With Sen. Chuck Schumer (D - N.Y.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D - N.J.) Cardin becomes the third Democrat to break ranks with President Barack Obama and oppose the deal. But Democrats already have enough votes to override a veto. Cardin's main points of disagreement with the deal is that it would legitimize Iran's nuclear program and boost its economy making the imposition of sanctions difficult if not impossible.
The JCPOA would provide this legal path to a country that remains a rogue state and has violated its international nonproliferation obligations for years. It would provide Iran with international endorsement of an industrial-scale nuclear program. Worse, Iran would be economically strengthened by frighteningly quick relief from sanctions and international economic engagement. If Iran violates the agreement, building international support for new sanctions would take too long to be effective. A military response in this scenario would be more likely, although disastrous.
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH