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

LATEST NEWS

Posted by Bruce Carroll on June 17, 2014 42 Comments
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, who has an increasing reputation as a shill for the left wing, viciously attacked the Heritage Foundation in a column on Monday evening. The column, "Heritage's ugly Benghazi panel" characterized the event as though it were a full-throated, Muslim-bashing hate-crime cleverly disguised as a public forum to discuss the Benghazi attack.
What began as a session purportedly about “unanswered questions” surrounding the September 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Libya deteriorated into the ugly taunting of a woman in the room who wore an Islamic head covering. [...]  Then Saba Ahmed, an American University law student, stood in the back of the room and asked a question in a soft voice. “We portray Islam and all Muslims as bad, but there’s 1.8 billion followers of Islam,” she told them. “We have 8 million-plus Muslim Americans in this country and I don’t see them represented here.” Panelist Brigitte Gabriel of a group called ACT! for America pounced. She said “180 million to 300 million” Muslims are “dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization.” She told Ahmed that the “peaceful majority were irrelevant” in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and she drew a Hitler comparison: “Most Germans were peaceful, yet the Nazis drove the agenda and as a result, 60 million died.” “Are you an American?” Gabriel demanded of Ahmed, after accusing her of taking “the limelight” and before informing her that her “political correctness” belongs “in the garbage.” “Where are the others speaking out?” Ahmed was asked. This drew an extended standing ovation from the nearly 150 people in the room, complete with cheers. The panel’s moderator, conservative radio host Chris Plante, grinned and joined in the assault. “Can you tell me who the head of the Muslim peace movement is?” he demanded of Ahmed. “Yeah,” audience members taunted, “yeah.” Ahmed answered quietly, as before. “I guess it’s me right now,” she said.
Milbank's account seemed to suggest an anti-Muslim witch hunt with one lone innocent standing at the back braving the torrent of hate. Except it wasn't true. Milbank's story was immediately challenged by those who know him best -- fellow political reporters in Washington, DC. Mollie Hemingway dissects Milbank's account versus the video excerpts first released by, ironically, Media Matters for America -- the famed leftist attack "media watchdog" group.

Posted by Bruce Carroll on June 17, 2014 23 Comments
News broke this morning that U.S. Special Forces over the weekend captured the key terrorist figure in the September 11, 2012 attack at the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya.
Abu Khattalah will be brought to the United States to face charges "in the coming days," said Edward Price, a spokesman for the National Security Council. Abu Khattalah, who faces three federal criminal charges, will be tried in U.S. courts, said Attorney General Eric Holder. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. citizens died in the September 11, 2012, attack, which became a political flashpoint. "We retain the option of adding additional charges in the coming days," Holder said. "Even as we begin the process of putting Khatallah on trial and seeking his conviction before a jury, our investigation will remain ongoing as we work to identify and arrest any co-conspirators."
U.S. officials say that Abu Khattalah is being held in a location outside Libya -- perhaps on a naval vessel. Khatallah had been a key suspect from the start of the post-Benghazi investigation. It also appeared he was never worried about being captured by the U.S. government. Just weeks after the assault on the compound, Khatallah was seen sipping a strawberry frappe on the patio of a Benghazi hotel, according to The New York Times.

Posted by Jack Park on June 17, 2014 8 Comments
On its face, Monday’s unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in SBA List v. Driehaus is about when a claim of future injury is sufficiently well-grounded to allow someone to file a lawsuit to stop it. But, the decision is really about the regulation of political speech. In their incisive and hilarious friend of the court brief, the Cato Institute and P. J. O’Rourke noted, “The campaign promise (and its subsequent violation), as well as disparaging statements about one’s opponent (whether true, mostly true, mostly not true, or entirely fantastic) are cornerstones of American democracy.” Ohio (and others, including some in Congress) thinks that’s a problem. In the 2010 congressional cycle, the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) wanted to put up a billboard stating, “Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.” That billboard didn’t go up because its target, then-U.S. Representative Steve Driehaus threatened legal action. Driehaus also filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission asserting that SBA List’s billboard violated Ohio law because it was “false.” The Commission found probable cause to think Driehaus was right and scheduled a hearing. That probable cause determination turned Driehaus loose to pursue discovery, which he did intrusively, noticing depositions of SBA List employees and others and asking for not just evidence supporting SBA List’s interpretation of the Affordable Care act but also for its “communications with allied organizations, political party committees, and Members of Congress and their staffs.” SBA List filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of Ohio’s false statement laws. The election intervened, however, and Driehaus dismissed his complaint after he was defeated. The district court then dismissed SBA List’s lawsuit because it was no longer ripe, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed that ruling. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Sixth Circuit, allowing SBA List and others to challenge the restrictions on their political speech.

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

UPenn Celebrates 'Gender Equity Week' With Safe Sex Trivia Night

Leftist Hero Cesar Chavez Erased From Colleges Across the Country

Faculty Book Club Selection at Portland State U. Highlights ‘Awful Scourge of White People’

UPenn Hires Assistant Medical Director for Gender and Sexual Health

Harvard Trying to Borrow $675 Million Through Tax-Exempt Bonds

Political Donations From Faculty at U. Idaho Favor Democrats by Margin of 419 to 1

SEE MORE

Posted by Leslie Eastman on June 17, 2014 16 Comments
It looks likes one of the global flashpoints I mentioned earlier this year is heating up. While Iraq descends rapidly into chaos, tensions may be building in another section of the Asian continent. India is poised to double its forces along the border with China.
The new BJP government is keen to send out a strong signal to Beijing regarding border disputes by nearly doubling the deployment of Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) personnel on the India-China frontier. Top government sources said the ITBP will very soon have more boots on the ground to effectively guard the border that has witnessed several Chinese incursions in the past few years. The previous UPA government was often criticised for being "soft" on the issue of Chinese incursions. The Home Ministry has approved the construction of 54 new border outposts along the disputed frontier with China. A proposal in this regard was made by the ITBP before the polls but the previous government did not go ahead on it. With the new outposts, the number of troops on the ground too will increase. Currently, there are close to 40 outposts and nearly 15,000 troops guard the sensitive zones. Sources said the number could now go up to 30,000. "There were critical gaps regarding security on the China border that need to be filled up," said a senior Home Ministry official. "The increase in deployment should not be construed as an aggressive approach on our part. We are only securing out territory," a top government official said.
What is most interesting is the new prime minister's inauguration is also sending another message to China -- one I suspect it will not much like:

Posted by Nathaniel on June 17, 2014 11 Comments
A high speed rail connecting Northern and Southern California has long been in the works: plans were proposed by Governer Jerry Brown back in the 1980s, and the High Speed Rail Authority was founded in 1996. Nevertheless, recent changes in the political landscape could see the project grind to a halt. Most influential is the increasingly likely ascent of Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to House Majority Leadership: after current Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) lost his primary just last week and Pete Sessions (R-TX) dropped out of the race to succeed him, he is the only candidate left standing. McCarthy has been one of California's most vocal critics of the high speed rail, so his rise in influence could be the funeral toll of the project, which currently relies heavily -- nay, almost entirely -- on federal funding (according to Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA), California has not received any state or private funding for the project.) McCarthy's rise may also mean more funding and support thrown to Republican challengers in the California House Elections, including Doug Ose (CA-07), Carl DeMaio (CA-52), and Tony Strickland (CA-25), McCarthy's protege and another strong opponent of the almost exclusively Democrat-supported rail. However, Republicans are not the only ones fighting the rail: in a recent vote, four California Democrats -- including Doug Ose's opponent in the 7th District, Ami Bera -- withdrew their support from the project. The vote in question was for an amendment to an appropriations bill which would prevent any of the funds appropriated from going to the rail project. The bill passed with the amendment 227-186.

Posted by Mandy Nagy on June 17, 2014 15 Comments
President Obama notified Congress on Monday that starting Sunday, June 15th, approximately 275 U.S. Armed Forces personnel were deploying to Iraq to provide security for the U.S. Embassy and its staff in Baghdad. (Read the full text of the letter). From USA Today:
President Obama notified Congress on Monday that about 275 U.S. military personnel are deploying to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Obama also said the troops are equipped for combat and will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that they are no longer needed. These forces are entering Iraq with the consent of the government there, White House press secretary Jay Carney said. He said the report to Congress is consistent with the War Powers Resolution. The Pentagon said 170 of the troops arrived over the weekend in Baghdad and another 100 were moved into the region to help with embassy security as some of the staff was being relocated in the area. The embassy remains open and operating.
While the US embassy remains operating, the State Department announced on Sunday that additional security personnel would be added to the staff in Baghdad, though some of its other staff would be temporarily relocated. The United Nations also announced Monday that it has relocated nearly 60 of its staff from Baghdad to Amman, Jordan, according to Thomson Reuters.  A spokesman for the UN indicated that additional relocations could be possible in the next few days. The news comes after insurgents have advanced in Iraq in recent days, and on Monday reportedly seized the northern city of Tal Afar, according to the NY Times.

Posted by Andrew Branca on June 16, 2014 64 Comments
[Edit: The title of this post was edited to better reflect the Court's ruling.] This morning the US Supreme Court released it's ruling in Abramski v. United States--the firearm "straw purchase" gun case--in which it affirmed Abramski's convictions.  (The full-length opinion is embedded at the bottom of this post.) In reaching it's decision the majority--led by Kagan, and including Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and the necessary swing-vote, Kennedy--the Court took a very broad interpretation of the government's statutes, regulations, and even mere practice in narrowing the scope of lawful 3rd-party purchases of firearms, arriving at their conclusion less by looking at the actual statutes and regulations and more by looking at their perception of the "context" and intended "purpose" of those statutes and regulations.

Facts

The defendant in this case, Abramski, arranged to purchase a Glock 19 for his uncle, Alvarez.  Abramski had previously been a law enforcement officer, and it is common practice for law enforcement officers to be able to purchase firearms at a discount to the price generally available to the public. Although Abramski had been fired from his LEO job two years prior, he retained his police officer identification, and intended to use that ID to purchase the pistol for his uncle at a favorable price. The Uncle wrote Abramski a check for $400 with "Glock 19" written in the memo field. Two day later Abramski appeared at an FFL (a Federal Firearms Licensee, through which most gun sales are required to occur) and purchased the gun.  In the process of doing so he completed the Federally required Form 4473.  Form 4473 asks for particular personal information, and also asks the buyer to reply to a series of interrogatories. Among the questions asked was 11.a, which asks whether the purchaser is the "actual buyer" of the firearm.  Abramski answered in the affirmative--absent which the sale would not have been processed by the FFL.  He also signed an acknowledgement that a false answer to 11.a constituted a felony. Abramski's purchase cleared the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) and the FFL sold him the Glock. Abramski then deposited the check from his uncle, transferred the gun to his uncle (lawfully, using an FFL in his uncle's state, which differed from his own), and received a receipt in return.

Posted by Rusty Weiss on June 16, 2014 3 Comments
The story posted here yesterday regarding two allegedly "conservative" Super PACs running false flag attack ads against a conservative candidate, and in support of a liberal Republican has generated quite a bit of chatter.  Claudia Tenney, the Tea Party Marine mother who has had her record distorted by questionable groups, is starting to get national attention. Earlier today, RedState Editor Erick Erickson officially endorsed Tenney, citing the false flag article and referring to these Super PACs as "coin-operated consultants" for the GOP establishment. Via RedState:
... it is worth noting that some supposedly conservative Super PAC’s are pouring money in the 22nd congressional district to defeat Claudia Tenney. These “conservative” groups, really coin operated consultants, are accusing Tenney of being less conservative than the liberal Richard Hanna. Claudia Tenney is actually to the right of Richard Hanna and would be a vast improvement for that district and a better vote in Congress. If you like in the 22nd Congressional District, you absolutely want to vote for Claudia Tenney. Do not let the coin operated consultants tell you differently. Stand up for Marine mom Claudia Tenney. If you can spare some cash, help fund her as she battles the coin operated consultants of people lying about her. She needs all the help she can muster. And those of you who live there need to tell your friends and family to vote for her too.
The news of the disingenuous attacks on Tenney has riled up other conservative pundits as well.  Laura Ingraham took to Twitter to call out 'GOP establishment hacks.' Michelle Malkin has retweeted the article, as well as Erickson's endorsement.
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH