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 June 12, 2015 61 Comments
When I first saw the story break on Twitter about Rachel Dolezal's politically unfortunate natural skin color, I set out to write some sort of think piece about how the racial movement in America has become so convoluted that activists would now rather alter their appearances than admit to any sort of connection with anglo heritage. Then, I thought about it some more and concluded that giving this issue the actual intellectual treatment wasn't really worth the time. In case you've been hiding from the Internet, Rachel Dolezal, 37, identifies as an African-American woman and is the president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP. A Howard U grad and civil rights activist, she's spent the majority of her career positioning herself as a fierce advocate for equality. I said "identifies as" because she's not African-American at all---and she just got called out for it. Behold:

LATEST NEWS

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on June 12, 2015 17 Comments
Last month we discussed feminist angst over summer blockbuster, Jurassic World. Evidently, the film's traditional gender roles were another tool of the patriarchy to keep women in the kitchen... or something. It should be noted that in an age where gender roles are a matter of choice, if one chooses to go the traditional route, the decision should be applauded. But when has any leftist faction ever employed ideological consistency? In any case, back to Jurassic World.

Be forewarned: Spoilers ahead, though I've tried to keep them vague.

If you enjoyed Jurassic Park, you'll love Jurassic World. I fully expected a modern redux of the original dino-park dream turn nightmare, but was pleasantly surprised. Jurassic World holds its own with plenty of subtle and not so subtle nods to its predecessor. Before the film hit the silver screen, there was much ado about the film's traditional gender roles -- at least among the feminists. Based on the trailer alone, they decried the portrayal of a stiff-shirted woman who needed the help of a man (heaven forbid!).

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on June 12, 2015 28 Comments
Friday, House Democrats bucked President Obama when they voted to torpedo "trade authority." As Amy wrote this morning:
The debate surrounding congressional approval of “fast track” trade authority has officially taken a swan dive through the looking glass. Obama wants it. House republicans want it. Democrats, for the most part, are ready to vote “no”—their union backers are making them more nervous than the White House ever could—even if it prevents their president from advancing more legacy-building legislation.
This afternoon, the AP reports with Nancy Pelosi at the helm, House Democrats sunk President Obama's trade authority hopes. From Yahoo News:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 12, 2015 31 Comments
Electronic medical records were supposed to save doctors' time and improve results by putting your entire medical history in one place. Two major problems. First, it doesn't work. What takes a physician a couple of minutes to write on your chart now can become a burdensome scroll through computer screens:
Government regulators are backing down from many of their toughest requirements for doctors' and hospitals' use of digital medical records, just as Congress is stepping up its oversight of issues with the costly technology. Under the Affordable Care Act, doctors and hospitals are being pushed to switch from paper to electronic records.... The federal government has spent about $28 billion in incentives to help doctors install and use EHRs, also called EMRs. But these digitized records remain the bane of many doctor and patient relationships in the Louisville area and across the nation, as physicians stare at computer screens during consultations.... Electronic health records "have made our lives harder" without improving safety, said Jean Ross, co-president of National Nurses United. Last year, the nurse union called on the FDA "to enact much tougher oversight and public protections" on electronic health records use.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on June 12, 2015 6 Comments
A docudrama called Sing a Little Louder is based on a powerful true story from World War II. Set in World War II Germany, the film tells the story of a young German boy who's church was located next to the train tracks. Every Sunday at the same time, trains taking Jews to death camps passed by the church. One day, a train broke down. The cries and screams of the Jews being carted away were so loud, the pastor instructed the choir to sing louder to drown them out. Juliana Taimoorazy, the film's executive producer and President of the Iraqi Christian Relief Council, says the church in the West is no different than the small German church. While Christians in the Middle East are being persecuted and slaughtered for their faith, Christians in the West are singing a little louder.

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

American Association of University Professors Backed Only Democrats in Midterms

U. Michigan Student Faces Assault, Battery Charges After Attacking Jewish Activist

Washington State U. Bans Fall Rush for Fraternities, Sororities Starting in 2027

Illinois Teacher Union Boss Gets Substantial Pay Raise Despite Low State Reading Scores

Faculty Senate at Northwestern Calls for Restrictions on ICE Access to Campus

Oregon State Instructor Reports Student for Arguing There are Only Two Sexes

SEE MORE

Posted by Mike LaChance on June 12, 2015 27 Comments
Our humorless and intellectually superior friends on the left listened to what Jerry Seinfeld said about political correctness and proved his point in exactly the way you'd expect. Progressives can't abide a celebrity with Seinfeld's gravitas criticizing their culture of microaggressions and limits on free speech so naturally, he must be discredited. MSNBC's Alex Wagner discussed the subject with her guests and for the most part, they dismissed Seinfeld's concerns because after all, he's rich. Matthew Balan of NewsBusters:
Shorter MSNBC: Seinfeld's Jab at 'Creepy PC' Isn't Valid Because He's Rich Alex Wagner, along with her three liberal guests, ripped Jerry Seinfeld on her MSNBC program on Wednesday, for his blast at "creepy" political correctness. Wagner hinted that Seinfeld had "fallen behind the times." New York magazine's Annie Lowrey mocked his critique: "I kind of roll my eyes at Jerry Seinfeld. You know, he's a billionaire – like I don't feel sorry for him if people don't laugh hard enough at his jokes."
Here's the video:

Posted by Amy Miller on June 12, 2015 17 Comments
The debate surrounding congressional approval of "fast track" trade authority has officially taken a swan dive through the looking glass. Obama wants it. House republicans want it. Democrats, for the most part, are ready to vote "no"---their union backers are making them more nervous than the White House ever could---even if it prevents their president from advancing more legacy-building legislation. More from the AP (emphasis mine):
Obama himself, who's been unusually personally engaged on a bill that could amount to the biggest achievement of his second term, paid a surprise visit to the annual congressional baseball game Thursday night for some 11th hour persuading. Obama arrived as Democratic and Republican lawmakers faced off at Nationals Park and was greeted with chants of "TPA! TPA!" from the GOP side — the acronym for the Trade Promotion Authority fast track bill. He brought beer and visited with lawmakers on both sides. Earlier, in a closed meeting in the Capitol, top White House officials implored Democrats not to deny Obama the trade authority. Such a vote, they said, would block needed trade expansion for the nation and sink a major priority of the Democratic president.
It really happened---I was there to see it: obama flake annotated

Posted by Andrew Branca on June 11, 2015 87 Comments
It appears that black activists in Detroit are so impressed with how Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby is doing in Baltimore that they've adopted the same strategy in Cleveland, based on reports by Cleveland.com. Exactly a week ago we provided an update on the case of Tamir Rice, a black 14-year-old who was shot and killed by Cleveland police officers responding to a man-with-a-gun call:  VIDEO: Shooting of Tamir Rice by Police Goes to Grand Jury." Residents had called 911 because Tamir was walking around a public park with an apparent gun and pointing it at people.  When police responded to the scene, Rice immediately reached for the "gun" in his waistband and was killed by police gun fire. All that happened back in November 2014, and just last week the police finally wrapped up their investigation. The conclusion?  The evidence did not warrant charges against the one officer who actually fired shots, Officer Timothy Loehmann.  Further, if there was not sufficient evidence to charge the Loehman there would certainly not be sufficient evidence to charge to second officer, Frank Garmback, who had merely driven the patrol car. This certainly seems consistent with the actual video evidence available (embedded below the fold), as covered at length in our previous post on the subject but re-embedded here for your convenience:
Indeed, the surveillance video (below the fold, and annotated by the author) clearly shows Rice openly handling an apparent pistol (seemingly spinning it on his finger cowboy-style at the 1:20 mark), placing and removing it from his waistband (e.g., at 2:00 mark), and even apparently pointing the gun-like object at passersby. There are at least 10 occasions captured by the grainy footage of the surveillance video in which Rice is openly displaying the apparent gun in some fashion.  To an actual observer at the scene, the handling of the gun would have been far more apparent. When police pulled up to his location, they say Rice immediately reached for the apparent gun in his waistband (highlighted in the photo below, and seen at the 7:27 mark in the video), and they engaged him with defensive fire.

Posted by Amy Miller on June 11, 2015 5 Comments
Every headline today concerning Saudi Arabia and the conflict in Yemen contains the words "crunch time." Every. Single. One. It's an accurate assessment, of course, and it does a good job of describing the urgency that Saudi and western powers are finding themselves operating under. Saudi Arabia has now spent 11 weeks conducting airstrikes on key strategic targets in Yemen in an effort to drive back the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels and bolster local fighting forces loyal to deposed President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. The strikes have done their job, destroying heavy artillery and machinery, and creating a chaotic playing field for rebel ground forces. But:
Despite the destruction of much of their heavy weaponry, the Houthi militia and army forces loyal to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh control most of the country's populated west and still daily attack Saudi territory with mortar fire or missiles. The possibility of a ground operation in support of the ragtag local groups still fighting the Houthis in Aden, Taiz, Marib and al-Dhala appears to have been discounted by the Saudis and their allies in an Arab coalition from early on.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on June 11, 2015 29 Comments
I enjoy reading or hearing stories that humanize candidates. The story of Mitt Romney helping to remove a stump from a neighbor's yard was a good one, or how the Perry family adopted Marcus Luttrell -- also a heartwarming, warm fuzzy inducing tale. Even John McCain recounting his time as a POW was powerful stuff. These stories provide insight into how candidates live beyond the flashy lights, teleprompter flanked podiums, and soundbites of the politisphere. They're meaningful. In many ways, these stories explain a core part of who they are. But that's not the case with Politico's latest slobberfest. Thursday morning, Politico published a story called Every wedding should have a Hillary Clinton Bible reading. Obvious disagreement with the premise aside, what are we supposed to take from this story? What does it say about Hillary? That we now have proof Mrs. Clinton can read?

Posted by Andrew Branca on June 11, 2015 86 Comments
So this happened last night. Sean Hannity had two guests on his show to discuss race relations. Eric Guster, a criminal defense attorney (on the left in the video below), and Pastor Marcus Mosiah Jarvis (next to Guster). Hannity was making the argument that President Obama should refrain from injecting himself into racial incidents because Obama is, according to Hannity, a "three time loser" in such situations. In illustrating this point Hannity mentions the name Trayvon Martin, and that's where the wheels come off. Defense Attorney Guster immediately interrupts Hannity to ask, incredulously, if the show host believes Zimmerman was right in shooting Trayvon. When Hannity responds, "Absolutely," we get a nice pair of flabbergasted head explosions, which Hannity counters actual knowledge of the facts and law of the case. It seems the two guests neglected to avail themselves of the totally free resource: "The Zimmerman Files: Aggregated day-by-day live coverage & analysis", or otherwise inform themselves on the case. The exchange is all in the brief video (1:17) below. (If you're somewhere where video is not immediately an option I've also transcribed the exchange below the fold, but it's faster to watch than to read.)

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on June 11, 2015 7 Comments
The NYT published an article last week pretending Sen. Rubio's traffic tickets from the 90s were scandalicious. Mockery of the "troubling" allegations ensued and the NYT was rightly mocked. This week, the NYT again dropped a ridiculous "scoop." This time, they portrayed the Rubios as spendthrifts who had luxury speed boats and a house with extra-large windows... As these things go, the NYT report found its way into national and local news coverage, providing perfect mashup fodder. Yesterday, the NYT received the Jon Stewart treatment:

Posted by Miriam Elman on June 11, 2015 11 Comments
In the saturated market of pro-Palestinian activism, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) has emerged as a major player. On its website, JVP now boasts over 60 member-led chapters across the country and more than 200,000 online Facebook and Twitter supporters. These days it’s also flush with new funding sources. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which describes JVP as the “largest and most influential Jewish anti-Zionist group in the United States”, until very recently the organization reported an approximate average of $300,000 in annual contributions. By 2013 that figure had jumped to over $1 million. NGO Monitor notes that according to JVP’s 990 tax forms, from 2005-2011 the organization more than tripled its total revenues. It’s unclear where all the money is coming from. As NGO Monitor observes, JVP isn’t very transparent about its donor base. But the group has received some modest funding from the Violet Jabara Charitable Trust, an Arab-American foundation that also financially supports the virulently anti-Zionist Electronic Intifada; The Wallace Global Fund, which also supports the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank that’s long been a clearinghouse for anti-Israel positions; and The Firedoll Foundation, which also funds other pro-BDS groups.

Posted by New Neo on June 11, 2015 20 Comments
Atlantic writer Russell Berman wonders:
...[Obama's] decision to champion his signature achievement in such pointed terms just weeks before the high court’s ruling is due raised the question of whether Obama was trying to jawbone the justices at the 11th hour. ...“It seems so cynical,” he said, “to want to take coverage away from millions of people; to take care away from people who need it the most; to punish millions with higher costs of care and unravel what’s now been woven into the fabric of America.”... The speech came a day after the president, in response to a reporter’s question, commented directly on the case before the justices..."Under well-established precedent, there is no reason why the existing exchanges should be overturned through a court case," Obama said. "This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn't even have been taken up," he added... [In 2012, Obama had] sharply warned the Court not to rule against his healthcare law the first time around. “I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said then.
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH