Image 01 Image 03

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

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

Some of you may remember my August 22, 2013 post,The Great Oberlin College Racism Hoax of 2013:
A massive racism hoax took place at Oberlin College in February 2013 in which two students made seemingly racist, anti-Semitic and other such posters, graffiti and emails for the purpose of getting a reaction on campus, not because they believed the hostile messages. At least one of the two was an Obama supporter with strong progressive, anti-racist politics. School officials and local police knew the identity of the culprits, who were responsible for most if not all of such incidents on campus, yet remained silent as the campus reacted as if the incidents were real. National media attention focused on campus racism at Oberlin for weeks without knowing it was a hoax. The hoax was confirmed when Chuck Ross of The Daily Caller recently obtained police records. Now it’s out in the open. Here is the history of how the hoax developed, played out in the media, and was covered up by the Oberlin administration.
Things would get much worse after that at Oberlin, even after the hoax was fully revealed, as we described in Oberlin racism hoax exploited to advance “even more extreme policies”. I explained the Oberlin situation in a radio interview:

LATEST NEWS

Ted Cruz has long criticized career politicians in both parties for not listening to the American people; indeed, he started a Twitter hashtag #MakeDCListen on this very issue and has taken to the Senate floor on a number of occasions to urge DC to listen to the people who elected them. His pleas, like ours, fall on deaf ears, but that doesn't stop him from voicing what so many of us have come to believe: Yesterday, Cruz once again took to the Senate floor to berate career politicians in both parties, particularly Republican leadership. The Washington Post reports:
Firebrand Republican senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz did something surprising in the Senate on Friday: He accused the head of his party, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, of lying to his colleagues. “We know now that when the majority leader looks us in the eyes and makes an explicit commitment, that he is willing to say things that he knows are false,” Cruz (Tex.) said. “That has consequences for how this body operates.”

This week, conservatives in Congress discovered the existence of a side agreement that renders Obama's nuclear deal with Iran even more reckless than we originally believed. During a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it was revealed by Administration officials that, as part of the agreement between Iran and western powers, the IAEA's investigation into Iran's past nuclear activity will depend on samples collected by Iran from its own military bases. From National Review:
As a former intelligence analyst experienced in the collection of environmental samples for investigations of weapons of mass destruction, I found this allegation impossible to believe when I heard Senator James Risch (R., Idaho) make it yesterday morning.
In his questioning of administration witnesses, Risch said: Parchin stays in place. Now, does that sound like it’s for peaceful purposes? Let me tell you the worst thing about Parchin. What you guys agreed to was [that] we can’t even take samples there. The IAEA can’t take samples there. [Iranians are] going to be able to test by themselves! Even the NFL wouldn’t go along with this. How in the world can you have a nation like Iran doing their own testing? . . . Are we going to trust Iran to do this? This is a good deal? This is what we were told we were going to get when we were told, “Don’t worry, we’re going to be watching over their shoulder and we’re going to put in place verification[s] that are absolutely bullet proof”? We’re going to trust Iran to do their own testing? This is absolutely ludicrous.
The Iranians also announced they will not allow inspection of military sites. The Ayatollah knew all of this, of course, and now he's rubbing it in via Twitter (h/t Gateway Pundit) .

The failure of the Occupy movement was epic in its crash-and-burn in the wake of "occupiers" pooping on cop cars, establishing rape safety tents, displaying food privilege, and being infested with rats and disease.  As amusing as the "up and down twinkles" and mindless, robotic repetition of speakers were, the failure of the Occupy movement is worth revisiting in light of its offshoot the #BlackLivesMatter movement. One of the reasons the left was so incensed by the TEA Party, and worried enough to come after us by any means necessary, is that we are a genuine grassroots, populist movement.  While they publicly railed against our successes and worked to ridicule and bully us into submission, they were always working away at trying to duplicate (i.e. manufacture) our efforts.

Occupy is still touted as "populist," an astonishing claim that is easily refuted in that it was a clearly top-down movement funded and organized by the usual suspects.  Likewise, we know that Ferguson was another crisis the left couldn't let go to waste, so the usual suspects hired and bused in race agitators, union members, communists, anarchists, et al.   These are all the same big players in the background, pulling the strings, and they have one goal in mind, a goal that Andrew Breitbart saw for what it was:

https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/120953881818701824

The day after Secretary of State Kerry finished negotiating his disastrous nuclear agreement with Iran, President Obama asserted that, “ninety-nine percent of the world community” supports it. Like so many of the President’s statements on this topic, this one is both false and irrelevant. Our culturally closest friend, Canada, has already stated that it intends to keep its own sanctions on Iran in place. India’s defense establishment, meanwhile, is concerned and preparing for a Middle East arms race. Saudi Arabia may be the only Arab state that has openly opposed it, however, the other Persian Gulf nations have also indicated their disapproval. In Israel, opposition comes not only from Prime Minister Netanyahu, as Obama would have us believe, but from across the political spectrum.

Jon Stewart isn't a Social Justice Warrior for the left, he's a four-star general. In his many years as the host of the Daily Show, he's never backed away from an opportunity to make conservatives look like backwards, racist hicks. Now one of his former staff writers named Wyatt Cenac, who is black, has come forward with allegations which make Stewart look rather hypocritical in hindsight. Cenac claims that when Stewart used a stereotypical black voice to lampoon Republican Herman Cain, he objected and was screamed at in front of other writers. Deadline Hollywood reports:
When Jon Stewart’s Black Impersonation Crossed The Line For ‘Daily Show’ Scribe Wyatt Cenac On a recent episode of WTF With Marc Maron, former Daily Show writer Wyatt Cenac recalled a moment when host Jon Stewart exploded at him in front of the entire late night show’s staff. It all pertained to Stewart’s imitation of 2012 Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain; an impersonation that just went too far for Cenac. At the time prior to the 2012 presidential election, Cenac was the only black writer and found Stewart’s knock on Cain coming from “kind of an ignorant place.”...

If you listen to Hillary Clinton and the mainstream media, you might think Planned Parenthood is a victim and not the unborn babies whose organs were harvested and bargained over like a bunch of spare parts. Our watchdog media hasn't thrust a microphone into Mrs. Clinton's face asking for comment like they would do with Republicans, they've just allowed her to address the scandal on her own terms, and in Hillary's world, it's Planned Parenthood which needs defending. Here's a recent report from Alex Seitz-Wald at NBC News:
Hillary Clinton Defends Embattled Planned Parenthood Hillary Clinton strongly defended Planned Parenthood Thursday as the women's health organization reels from the fallout over a sting video released by anti-abortion activists earlier this month.

Thursday evening I joined Red State's Leon Wolf and his panel of lovely gentlemen for the weekly vcast of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Friends. Over wine and cocktails, we discussed the Sandra Bland incident, Planned Parenthood's baby part harvesting, and 2016. We began by discussing Sandra Bland and the circumstances that ultimately lead to her death. Are the police responsible? Were there other mitigating factors? What kind of power have we given the police when an improper lane change leads to arrest? Should we be having a broader discussion about mental health? These are some of the questions we tackled. I maintain that equally as important as the police power angle, is the mental health discussion that seems to be getting far less attention.

If decent people staffed Planned Parenthood, you wouldn't be seeing much of the organization right now. They'd be hiding out after having what any reasonable person would describe as the worst week ever. Outed as baby killers and organ brokers-for-profit, on camera, with shock videos accompanied by uncut footage? If it were me, I'd be hiding under a desk somewhere. Planned Parenthood, however, is not staffed by decent people, and they aren't keeping their heads down. Instead, they decided to use a lighthearted, innocent cartoon to rally support for their butchery. Blech: Leave. My Minions. Alone.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $70 million dollars during the 2014 election cycle to protect the Republican majority in the House, and build a majority in the Senate. Their push worked---as far as getting Republican senators elected was concerned---but the group still hasn't seen a payoff when it comes to getting their agenda through Congress. The problem? Conservative incumbents in the House who have been successful in blocking the Chamber's favorite policy initiatives. According to sources on the Hill and in the lobbying community, the Chamber is gearing up for a tactical switch that will focus on challenging House GOP incumbents that have shown resistance to backing the Chamber's agenda. Common sense tells us that this could go one of three ways: it could work flawlessly, it could backfire, or it could backfire spectacularly by working at the expense of what little support the Chamber still manages to gain from the conservative base. If I were placing bets, I'd put my money on this backfiring spectacularly. Still, the Chamber is putting on a confident face and appears ready to start naming names.

Are you ridin' with Biden in 2016? If you're reading this article, chances are you're not; but if you're a Democrat, and you're on the fence about who to support in the upcoming primary battle, there's a super-PAC that would like a few minutes of your time. The prospect of a Biden presidential run feels like a fever dream (or nightmare, depending on how easily amused by political theatre you are.) Since he first took his place as Vice President in 2009, Biden has defined himself not by savvy policy moves, but by behavior that likens him more to America's Crazy Uncle Joe than America's #2 Leader. Still, his believers are out there in the form of the Draft Biden PAC, and they're starting a major grassroots push aimed at convincing the Vice President to make a run for the Oval Office. Watch:

So there's another notable arrest in the news, that of black woman Sandra Bland by white Texas patrol officer, and thus we have yet another "teachable moment" in non-compliance to lawful police orders. (Note that I address here only Bland's arrest--I've no particular insight into her death three days later while in custody.  Also, I limit my points to the issue of legality, as opposed to procedure or policy.) Thanks to the officer's dash-cam, almost all of the interaction between him and Bland is captured on video.  If you haven't seen it, here it is: Now that is a free lesson in how not to act during a traffic stop if you don't want to get yourself arrested. As usual, there's a considerable amount of outrage being expressed by people who possess a very limited practical and theoretical understanding of the laws and dynamics governing arrest.

When the Hillary Clinton email scandal first broke, Hillary's claims that she conducted her entire job as Secretary of State without classified information being transmitted through her private server and email account did not seem plausible to me. I said at the time that there was a Bigger Question: Did Hillary use unsecured email for Classified Info?:
As Secretary of State, Hillary presumably received classified and other protected information via email at least on occasion, since it was her only email account. That distinguishes her from predecessors, who at least had government email accounts. We need more facts on her usage, but if Hillary maintained classified documents (including emails) on an unclassified computer device and email account, that could raise much more serious issues than the records violation.... As Hillary heads towards the presumptive Democratic nomination for President, we need to know what Hillary did with her email account, and when did she do it.
Initially, the press accepted at face value Hillary's claim that there was no transmission of classified information from her private server/email account. https://youtu.be/uNgsze5yjG0?t=360 Slowly, it has been revealed that Yes, Hillary’s emails did contain classified information.

Code Pink is a radical left wing organization, known for interrupting speeches, addresses and crashing gatherings by being loud, waving around signs and sometimes dressing up as female body parts. This week, Ted Cruz was speaking at a Stop Iran rally in Washington DC. After being introduced, the Senator was almost immediately interrupted by Code Pink protesters. Rather than having them removed from the area, Senator Cruz actually invited the Code Pink spokesperson over and engaged in a back and forth debate with here. The video is below and goes for about 24 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=500&v=1QCbpafD3Pw

We are told that the Obama administration, its successor and European governments will strictly enforce Iran's adherence to the nuclear deal. Put aside for the moment the problems with the deal, and focus on compliance. Put aside also that Iran has a history of cheating on nuclear issues. We have a recent example of how the West will become complicit in non-compliance. In Syria, The Wall Street Journal reports, Mission to Purge Syria of Chemical Weapons Comes Up Short (paywall):
.... One year after the West celebrated the removal of Syria’s arsenal as a foreign-policy success, U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the regime didn’t give up all of the chemical weapons it was supposed to. An examination of last year’s international effort to rid Syria of chemical weapons, based on interviews with many of the inspectors and U.S. and European officials who were involved, shows the extent to which the Syrian regime controlled where inspectors went, what they saw and, in turn, what they accomplished. That happened in large part because of the ground rules under which the inspectors were allowed into the country, according to the inspectors and officials.... Demanding greater access and fuller disclosures by the regime, they say, might have meant getting no cooperation at all, jeopardizing the entire removal effort.
That is a key point with Iran too -- the fear that Iran will simply back out of the agreement by claiming Western non-compliance will cause the West to back away for fear of losing all compliance. The WSJ article continues noting that control on the ground gave Syria a huge advantage, and Russia ran interference for Syria (as it will do for Iran on compliance issued):

John Kerry testified before a senate panel about the awful Iran deal Thursday and was met by skepticism and derision from lawmakers in both parties. In a classic Democrat defense move, Kerry again tried to spin the issue and suggest it's his critics who are being unrealistic. CNN reported:
Kerry to senators: No 'fantasy' alternative to Iran deal Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there is no "unicorn" or "fantasy" alternative if the U.S. rejects the deal, which the administration maintains will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon but which many Republicans see as providing Iran a path to a bomb. But Committee Chairman Bob Corker, a Tennesse Republican, said that the U.S. had been "fleeced" and that Kerry had "turned Iran from being a pariah, to now Congress being a pariah" in the course of making the agreement. And Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who is seeking the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, repeatedly warned that the next president could overturn the deal, which isn't a binding treaty.
Here's a short highlight reel: