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 David Gerstman on May 12, 2014 12 Comments
The Los Angeles Times just published The Mideast peace gap: Why Kerry has failed by Aaron David Miller. Miller, a long time peace processor (he served under both Presidents George H. W. Bush and BillClinton) nails the essential problem with the Kerry's peace process.
Simply put, the maximum that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prepared to give on the core issues that drive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can't be aligned, let alone reconciled, with the minimum that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is prepared to accept. You want to know why every effort in the last decade has failed? That's why.
If Miller had left it at that he would have been correct. Obvious. But correct. The problem with the op-ed is that he continued. For example:
The idea that Netanyahu is ready to pay the price and could be persuaded to do so was a fundamental misunderstanding of the man and his times. Now the longest continuously serving prime minister in Israel's history, Bibi never envisioned himself as the midwife or father of a Palestinian state. That's not who he is. Ideology, family, politics and his fears of the Arabs all drive him in a different direction. His self-image is as the Israeli leader who is to lead Israel out of the shadow of the Iranian nuclear bomb and to guide it through the challenges of a dangerously broken, angry and dysfunctional Arab world. And he reflects the mood of an Israeli public that sees almost no reason or urgency — regardless of U.S. doom-and-gloom threats of violence, third intifadas, apartheid state or demography — to grapple with the problem. Governing is about choosing. And for now, Netanyahu has made his choice.
This is not a serious appraisal of Netanyahu, but psychoanalysis by an unlicensed psychiatrist. Instead of looking at Netanyahu's record, Miller strung together a series of cliches that every right thinking peace processor would believe. I would agree that Netanyahu "never envisioned himself as the midwife or father of a Palestinian state." But he also understands that as a leader of a democratic country he is bound by the obligations of his predecessors. Netanyahu would not have been elected in 1996 if the peace process had been successful. He was elected in the wake of ten days of terror in February and March of 1996. Though he was elected because of his critique of the peace process, he continued it. Backed by assurances of the Clinton administration (later betrayed), Netanyahu withdrew Israel from most of Hebron, and as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, "With Hebron, Netanyahu managed to bring most of the nationalist camp of Israel to recognize that Oslo is a fact." Has Miller, who now demeans Netanyahu at a distance, ever done as much for the peace process?

LATEST NEWS

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on May 12, 2014 48 Comments
Eleanor Clift, who is a “key member of the political team” at Newsweek and regularly appears the television program, The McLaughlin Group, declared last week that Ambassador Chris Stevens was not murdered in the September 11th terrorist attack in Benghazi.
I would like to point out Ambassador Stevens was not murdered. He died of smoke inhalation in the safe room in that CIA installation.
According to her bio, Clift has followed the Clinton family as a journalist since the early nineties, and it appears she may have grown a certain fondness for the former Secretary of State, as that is the only logical explanation for making such a outlandish statement on purpose. But Clift didn’t stop there. After being challenged by others on the panel, she spouted off the same lines that were spoon fed to the media in the immediate aftermath of the attack, that we all now know are completely untrue.
PAT BUCHANAN: It was a terrorist attack, Eleanor. He was murdered in a terrorist attack. CLIFT: It was an opportunistic terrorist attack that grew out of that video. BUCHANAN: The video had nothing to do with it. SUSAN FERRECHIO: She’s still talking about the video? CLIFT: There were demonstrations across the world. BUCHANAN: Not in Benghazi. There was no video related to it at all. CLIFT: It was still opportunistic… If we’re going to put people on trial we should put David Petraeus on trial, not Hillary Clinton.
So, if I follow Clift’s logic, Ambassador Stevens wasn't murdered in the Benghazi terror attack because the coordinated mortar bombardment he was seeking shelter from that night did not land a direct hit. Instead, maybe Clift thinks they were a series of warning shots, one of which accidentally created enough smoke to suffocate the late Ambassador? Contrary to Clift's intent -- which was to say the Benghazi investigations are overblown and redundant -- her outlandish and downright false statements demonstrate the critical need for the special committee on Benghazi. The Administration's misleading talking points, and the media's general refusal to even slightly scrutinize them in the lead up to the 2012 election, demand a full inquiry into the truth of the matter. Perhaps the this investigation will clear some things up for Clift, who seems incapable of absorbing the reality that this attack was not the result of a YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0eDDyQwOpk One final note: Clift also repeatedly characterized the attack as "opportunistic," which is essentially another way of saying it was spontaneous (like the protest about the video that never actually occurred).

Posted by A.F. Branco on May 12, 2014 5 Comments

Note: You may reprint this cartoon provided you link back to this source.  To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here. Branco’s page is Cartoonist A.F.Branco...

Posted by CampusClimatologist on May 12, 2014 3 Comments
Two months ago, after a contentious meeting that lasted until dawn, UCLA’s student government (USAC) defeated a BDS resolution on a 7-5, essentially party-line vote.  The hard work of hundreds of students and alumni, aided by numerous pro-Israel organizations, secured a hard-fought victory. But Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and their allies dried their tears, regrouped, and returned for another round.  Their strategy was two-fold:  Cut off the vital supply lines between campus activists and the real world, then use the morally-backwards campus environment to wield the myriad "anti-racist" tools as weapons against Israel and Jews. [caption id="attachment_85855" align="aligncenter" width="475"]Screenshot 2014-05-11 20.44.54 Students gather to hear USAC election results at UCLA on Friday afternoon[/caption]

Campus Lawfare As Political Tool

As reported here last week, SJP filed a case with USAC’s judicial board, claiming two anti-BDS-voting council members, Sunny Singh and Lauren Rodgers, had violated conflict of interest rules by receiving a free educational trips to Israel.

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

U. Cincinnati Students Arrested After Breaking Into School Arena, Stealing Alcohol

Quinnipiac U. Reports Case of Norovirus in Residence Hall

NH Lawmaker Pushing Campus Carry is Also a Student at UNH

Graduate and Professional Students at Yale Demand Greater Campus Security

Penn Scientists Claim Recent Winter Storm is Evidence of Global Warming

Ohio University Students Stage Walkout to Protest ICE

SEE MORE

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 11, 2014 34 Comments
On May 5, 2014, I gave a lecture at Vassar College against the academic boycott of Israel. Originally I had challenged the 39 professors who signed a letter defending the academic boycott of Israel to debate, but none accepted the challenge. During the Q&A, I learned for the first time from student organizer Luka Ladan that one of the professors had called for a boycott of my lecture. The full video is here. The two anti-Israel speakers I referenced were Max Blumenthal and Ali Abunimah, who appeared in an event sponsored by several academic departments, the week before. Those same academic departments were asked to sponsor my appearance, but none did. I had not made a big deal about it, although it troubled me that a professor would call for a boycott of a lecture simply because of a difference of opinion. When I saw a Wall Street Journal column posted late this afternoon, I remembered that statement about boycotting me. Ruth Wisse, professor at Harvard, writes, The Closing of the Collegiate Mind:
There was a time when people looking for intellectual debate turned away from politics to the university. Political backrooms bred slogans and bagmen; universities fostered educated discussion. But when students in the 1960s began occupying university property like the thugs of regimes America was fighting abroad, the venues gradually reversed. Open debate is now protected only in the polity: In universities, muggers prevail....

Posted by Mike LaChance on May 11, 2014 19 Comments
We have covered Migroaggression Mania before, 2014 – Year of the Microaggression. It's no secret that MTV leans left but a new PSA from the channel aimed at young people clearly plays into the left's everyone-is-racist-and-sexist meme. Truth Revolt, for which Ben Shapiro serves as editor, recently noted that MTV partnered with organizations such as CAIR and the Southern Poverty Law Center to create the ad...
MTV Launches Project to Fight 'Hidden Bias' Among Millenials On Thursday, MTV announced that it would be launching a “Look Different” initiative designed to uncover “hidden racial, gender and anti-LGBT bias.” MTV will be creating a documentary on Millenials’ perceptions of race and fairness temporarily titled “Untitled Whiteness Project,” a public service announcement series, an “Implicit Bias Quiz” and a week-long “Racial Bias Cleanse” program to help re-educate young Americans about their bias. The campaign will be co-sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League, the National Partnership for Women & Families, The Trevor Project, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, National Council of La Raza, and the NAACP, among others.

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on May 11, 2014 40 Comments
The familiar sound of students reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in the morning before the beginning of the school day is a tradition worth keeping. For many children, it is one of the earliest ways in which they show appreciation and support for their country. Most students recite this pledge day in and day out and never think anything of it. Occasionally, however, students refuse. When a student refused to stand for or recite the pledge at one Texas high school, the school came down hard. From KHOU 11 News:
 Mason Michalec says he loves his country but just not the government. “I’m really tired of our government taking advantage of us,” said Michalec. “I don’t agree with the NSA spying on us. And I don’t agree with any of those Internet laws.” That's why he's taken a pledge of sorts to not say the Pledge of Allegiance with classmates. “I’ve basically said it from the time I was in kindergarten to earlier this year and that’s when I decided I was done saying it.”

Posted by Mike LaChance on May 11, 2014 11 Comments
Legal Insurrection readers are likely familiar with the harassment of Scott Walker supporters in Wisconsin. George Will addressed the issue with some follow up in his column this week...
Wis. prosecutors abuse the law for partisan ends U.S. District Judge Rudolph T. Randa, revolted by the police-state arrogance of some elected prosecutors, has stopped a partisan abuse of law enforcement that was masquerading as political hygiene. Last Tuesday, Randa halted the corruption being committed by people pretending to administer campaign regulations — regulations ostensibly enacted to prevent corruption or the appearance thereof. The prosecutors’ cynical manipulation of Wisconsin’s campaign laws is more than the mere appearance of corruption. Eric O’Keefe’s refusal to be intimidated by lawless law enforcement officials produced Randa’s remarkably emphatic ruling against an especially egregious example of Democrats using government power to suppress conservatives’ political speech... As a director of Wisconsin Club for Growth, which advocates limited government, O’Keefe had participated in his state’s 2012 debate surrounding attempts by Democrats and state and national government-employee unions to recall Gov. Scott Walker (R) and some state senators. The recalls were intended as punishment for legislation limiting the unions’ collective bargaining rights. Walker prevailed. The Democratic prosecutors, however, seeking to cripple his 2014 reelection campaign and to damage him as a potential 2016 presidential aspirant, have resorted to a sinister Wisconsin process called a “John Doe investigation.” It has focused on the activities of O’Keefe and 28 other conservative individuals or organizations.
Between this and the IRS harassment of Tea Party groups, progressives have shown the depths they will sink to when they can't win based on their ideas. Tactics they would decry as abuses of power if the situation was reversed come quite naturally to them when used against their opponents. WAJ adds:  I was honored to see O'Keefe at Anne's wedding this weekend (second from right, seated):

Posted by Mike LaChance on May 11, 2014 7 Comments

There's been much speculation over whether or not Elizabeth Warren will run for president. Some folks have also suggested that Joe Biden may run for president. Here's a new question: What if they ran together? CNN's Peter Hamby reports...

Posted by Mike LaChance on May 10, 2014 13 Comments

If you think Senator Harry Reid has been acting a little crazy lately, you're not alone. In response to Reid's behavior, the Editors of National Review have written a thoughtful note on his behalf...

MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH