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 Mandy Nagy on April 25, 2014 7 Comments

Eric Holder will stay on in his job as Attorney General at least through the mid-term elections in November. From Reuters, via Yahoo News: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder plans to stay on through November's mid-term elections and has no timeline for an exit after that, a...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 25, 2014 41 Comments
Forget the current polling as between Hillary and Elizabeth Warren. It pits Hillary against someone who "isn't running." For all my criticisms of Warren, and they are extensive, I am convinced that if she ran, she would crush Hillary, just as Obama did. Warren, as did Obama, has a unique ability to demagogue the core Democratic narrative of victimhood in ways that would make Hillary blush. She is more cunning than Hillary, more popular with the base, would bring an excitement the contrived Ready-for-Hillary movement could only dream of.   Democrats may be "ready" for Hillary, but they don't really want her. Face it, Democrats, in your heart of hearts, you want Elizabeth Warren to run.  She is the next One you have been waiting for.   You can imagine yourselves singing:
We’re gonna spread happiness We’re gonna spread freedom Obama’s Liz's gonna change it Obama’s Liz's gonna lead ‘em
You need to convince yourselves to support Hillary, and you will if you have to, but you don't really want to have to. Byron York makes the case that we should not rule out a Warren run:

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

Construction Workers Uncover Century-Old Human Remains at U. Oklahoma

Socialist and Anti-Israel Groups Lead ‘No War on Iran’ Protest at Arizona State U

U. Idaho Prof Wins $10 Million Defamation Lawsuit After False Murder Accusations

Secret Service Seizes Retired Prof's Gun After He Expressed Wish to 'Shoot the President'

Anti-Israel Protesters Who Took Over Building at U. Washington Face Charges

Cal State Bakersfield Men’s Basketball Coach Allegedly Moonlighted as a Pimp

SEE MORE

Posted by David Gerstman on April 25, 2014 9 Comments
In the wake of Fatah's embrace of Hamas earlier this week there has been a very interesting reaction. Actually, the reaction has been interesting because it's been mostly non-existent. Though the New York Times and Washington Post have reported on Fatah's betrayal of the American sponsored peace process, neither has published an angry editorial denouncing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for endangering or destroying the peace process. Few news events shatter perceptions more clearly than when a supposed moderate embraces extremism. And even given the fraught history of past Fatah-Hamas agreements the symbolism here is unmistakable. A week before Secretary of State John Kerry hoped to have a framework agreement, the Palestinian Authority came to an agreement with the terrorist Hamas organization and not with Israel. Let's do a few comparisons. Exhibit A: New York Times  In March 2010, when Vice President Joe Biden was visiting Israel, Israel's Interior Ministry announced plans to build houses in Ramat Shlomo. Even though Ramat Shlomo is part of Jerusalem and a part of Israel's capital that everyone expects will be part of Israel in any final agreement with the Palestinians, the announcement precipitated a diplomatic crisis between Israel and the United States. An editorial in the New York Times two days later stated about the announcement, "And it is hard to see the timing as anything but a slap in the face to Washington." In 2010, the Israeli announcement didn't and wouldn't change anything about the Middle East materially and yet the New York Times criticized the Israeli action. That Fatah-Hamas agreement, on the other hand is a game-changer. Israel dropped its objections to the PLO when the PLO renounced terror. Of course, under Arafat that declaration was meaningless as he encouraged terror against Israel even after Oslo. Abbas was supposed to be the peaceful one. But now he's embraced a terrorist organization.

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on April 25, 2014 29 Comments
As part of the historical tour one makes through the soon-to-open National September 11 Memorial Museum in New York City, a brief video will be shown describing the group that carried out the deadliest single foreign attack on the homeland in United States history. Apparently, relating the impetus behind the attack to the religion of Islam has rubbed at least one interfaith group of observers the wrong way. From the NY Times:
The film, “The Rise of Al Qaeda,” refers to the terrorists as Islamists who viewed their mission as a jihad. The NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who narrates the film, speaks over images of terrorist training camps and Qaeda attacks spanning decades. Interspersed are explanations of the ideology of the terrorists, from video clips in foreign-accented English translations. The documentary is not even seven minutes long, the exhibit just a small part of the museum. But it has over the last few weeks suddenly become a flash point in what has long been one of the most highly charged issues at the museum: how it should talk about Islam and Muslims... “The screening of this film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum,” Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the imam of Masjid Manhattan, wrote in a letter to the museum’s director. “Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”

Posted by Mandy Nagy on April 24, 2014 3 Comments
Russia on Thursday announced that it would begin military drills along the border of Ukraine, as the crisis there has continued to escalate in recent days. From CNN:
Following days of simmering unrest, tensions in Ukraine escalated sharply Thursday, with Russia embarking on new military drills near the border after Ukrainian forces said they killed five pro-Russian militants. Ukraine's Interior Ministry said Ukrainian forces killed the five militants during operations to take down pro-Russian activists' roadblocks around the city of Slavyansk. The Russian response was quick to come. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that "if the Kiev regime has started to use the army against the population inside the country, it, beyond any doubt, is a very serious crime." It would "have consequences" for those making the decisions, and for relations between the two governments, Putin said at a media forum Thursday, according to state TV channel Russia 24. Shortly afterward, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Russia would conduct military drills in response to the operation in southeastern Ukraine, Russian state news agency RIA Novosti said. "We are forced to react to such a development in the situation," Shoigu is quoted as saying. "Starting today, exercises of battalion tactical groups from the Southern and Western military districts will begin near the borders with Ukraine."
Russia’s announcement comes after Ukraine has resumed a crackdown on pro-Russia separatists who continue to set roadblocks and occupy government buildings in areas of eastern Ukraine, as an earlier truce fell apart.

Posted by A.F. Branco on April 24, 2014 2 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 Jack Park on April 24, 2014 6 Comments
In the world of federal Inspectors General, there are some evergreens in agency oversight. There are federal employees in every agency who periodically misuse their official credit cards, use their workplace computers to look at pornography, or fail to pay their taxes in timely fashion. Indeed, every year, there are news stories about the number of federal employees at each agency with tax delinquency issues. An IG can expect to find evidence of such misconduct by conducting an audit or investigation every couple of years or so. Monday, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), issued a report demonstrating that truism and disclosing that:
[B]etween October 1, 2010 and December 31, 2012, more than 2,800 [IRS] employees with recent substantiated conduct issues resulting in disciplinary action received more than $2.8 million in monetary awards, more than 27,000 hours in time-off awards, and 175 quality step increases. Among these, more than 1,100 IRS employees with substantiated Federal tax compliance problems received more than $1 million in cash awards, more than 10,000 hours in time-off awards, and 69 quality step increases within a year after the IRS substantiated their tax compliance problems.
The report explains that “the most serious conduct issues included late payment and/or nonpayment of Federal taxes, Government travel card misuse or delinquency, Section 1203(b) violations, misconduct, and fraud issues.” Section 1203 of the 1998 IRS Restructuring and Reform Act provides that certain acts or omissions can be the basis of a removal for cause for misconduct. “Drug use and violent threats” are examples of misconduct, and “fraudulently claiming unemployment benefits and fraudulently entering attendance and leave on timesheets” are examples of fraud. The report includes the following table showing the extent of the problem:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 24, 2014 10 Comments
Excellent analysis in the left-wing Haaretz newspaper by journalist Ari Shavit, Waiting for the Palestinian Godot:
There are some moments a journalist will never forget. In early 1997, Yossi Beilin decided to trust me, and show me the document that proved that peace was within reach. The then-prominent and creative politician from the Labor movement opened up a safe, took out a stack of printed pages, and laid them down on the table like a player with a winning poker hand. Rumors were rife about the Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement, but only a few had the opportunity to see the document with their own eyes or hold it in their hands. I was one of those few. With mouth agape I read the comprehensive outline for peace that had been formulated 18 months earlier by two brilliant champions of peace -- one, Israeli, and one, Palestinian. The document left nothing to chance: Mahmoud Abbas is ready to sign a permanent agreement. The refugee from Safed had overcome the ghosts of the past and the ideas of the past, and was willing to build a joint Israeli-Palestinian future, based on coexistence. If we could only get out from under the Likud’s thumb, and get Benjamin Netanyahu out of office, he will join us, hand in hand, walking toward the two-state solution. Abbas is a serious partner for true peace, the one with whom we can make a historic breakthrough toward reconciliation. We understood. We did what was necessary. In 1999, we ousted Likud and Netanyahu. In 2000, we went to the peace summit at Camp David. Whoops, surprise: Abbas didn’t bring the Beilin-Abu Mazen plan to Camp David, or any other draft of a peace proposal. The opposite was true: He was one of the staunchest objectors, and his demand for the right of return prevented any progress.

Posted by New Neo on April 24, 2014 21 Comments
Taking away the bulk of the rich's money will fix income inequality, according to French economist Thomas Piketty:
Piketty's terror at rising inequality is an important data point for the reader. It has perhaps influenced his judgment and his tendentious reading of his own evidence. It could also explain why the book has been greeted with such erotic intensity....
It's no surprise that the idea of levying enormously high taxes on rich people's money has had rising support in this era of proudly unearned self-esteem and entitlement, as well as decline in the power of religious prohibitions such as the commandment against covetousness. More at the WSJ:
While America's corporate executives are his special bête noire, Mr. Piketty is also deeply troubled by the tens of millions of working people—a group he disparagingly calls "petits rentiers"—whose income puts them nowhere near the "one percent" but who still have savings, retirement accounts and other assets. That this very large demographic group will get larger, grow wealthier and pass on assets via inheritance is "a fairly disturbing form of inequality." He laments that it is difficult to "correct" because it involves a broad segment of the population, not a small elite that is easily demonized.
Oh, but it can be done. Where there's a will, there's a way. Piketty need only take lessons from Stalin re the kulaks, and from Pol Pot re---well, re just about everybody.
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH