Image 01 Image 03

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

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

It's fun to watch politicians play with each other on Twitter, and today, Speaker John Boehner took advantage of an opportunity to take Dems to task over the very public truthiness problems in their messaging strategy. Because it's unheard of for Democrats to let an opportunity go to waste, both Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz decided to make a laughable attempt to nail the Speaker on his non-existent disregard for the welfare of the elderly. It's gotten so bad for Democrats that they can't even wish a colleague a happy birthday without sneaking in a political jab. Um, ageism, anyone? Zing. Well played, sir. Well played.

LATEST NEWS

Embattled Senator Mary Landrieu is in trouble, and Tuesday's vote on the Keystone XL pipeline approval might be her last chance to convince Louisiana voters that her representation in Washington is worth their vote. Challenger Bill Cassidy is up 16 points and by all accounts headed for a landslide win over the incumbent Democrat, who has come under fire from all sides but her own for not representing the interests of her home state. Landrieu's last-ditch effort to push for a vote on the pipeline looks more and more desperate, (at last count she had only 59 votes backing the project,) seeing as how the President would have to throw himself under the bus in order to stand behind Landrieu and green light the project. Via Fox News:
Most political analysts think Landrieu’s effort to win a fourth term by trying to show voters in oil-rich Louisiana how much she supports Keystone is a lost cause, with reports of Washington Democrats pulling out and polls showing Cassidy ahead by double digits. South Dakota GOP Sen. John Thune said on “Fox News Sunday” the vote will be a “cynical attempt to save a Senate seat in Louisiana," considering Reid has blocked the vote for years. President Obama appears to be giving every indication that he will veto the bill, repeatedly saying the only way the $8 billion pipeline can be approved is after the completion of a long-stalled State Department review. There is also the pending outcome of a legal challenge to the pipeline's route through Nebraska. And during his recent trip to Australia for an economic summit Obama said: “I have to constantly push back against this idea that somehow the Keystone pipeline is either this massive jobs bill for the United States or is somehow lowering gas prices.”
The media may be willing to run preliminary defense against a presidential veto, but members of her own party haven't been willing to stand by and let the token vote gain meaning:

Last Friday Kemberlee covered the feminist attack on Dr. Matt Taylor, the brilliant British scientist who helped achieve the seemingly unachievable, landing a scientific probe on a comet hundreds of millions of miles away, 5 Reasons “feminists” can’t complain about comet scientist’s “sexist” shirt. How dedicated was Taylor to his work? He had a large tattoo regarding the project on his right front thigh: Matt Taylor Rosetta Project Leg Tattoo That's how much this project meant to him. Taylor was attacked not for the tattoo, but because Taylor wore a shirt -- given to him by a female friend -- which had cartoon characters of pretty women on it. Not naked women. Not women engaging in sex acts. Just pretty women in "sexy" outfits. Here is the shirt in close-up (it's sold out since the controversy): You can see it easily in this photo, but on the video you have to really be looking for trouble to find it. The camera is pretty far away, and Taylor is only a relatively small part of the overall report.

The new Congress hasn't even been sworn in yet, but many pundits and activists are already assuming that come January, we're in for a world of pain, disappointment, and failure---but maybe we should rethink our gloomy outlook. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace had Sens.-elect Cotton and James Lankford on this weekend to talk about the upcoming battle between the Republican Senate majority and President Obama, and when the conversation turned to repealing Obamacare (and dealing with the mass #Grubering of the American people) Cotton put to bed the idea that a Senate majority won't be able to get anything productive past President Obama (emphasis added):
WALLACE: But Senator-elect Cotton, realistically, what do you think you can get down about ObamaCare while President Obama is still in office? COTTON: Well, Arkansans are conservative people, but they're practical people as well. They realize it's going to be hard to repeal a law named ObamaCare when the president is named Barack Obama. What they want is relief from the immediate harms. The House of Representatives has already passed a lot of bills that would stop those harms, like preventing people from having to pay a tax that they can't afford in ObamaCare plan, or business from having to pay a tax if they can't provide an ObamaCare plan, or letting people keep their plans as was promised. Those passed the House with bipartisan support. The president has taken some of those steps as an administration measure. I think we could pass that legislation again and the president would be hard pressed to explain why he wants to veto it if he's already done it as an administrative measure and it has broad bipartisan support.
I'm all for managing expectations during a lame duck session, but isn't what Sen.-elect Cotton is talking about the point of electing new representatives to Congress, as opposed to just throwing in the towel?

Multiple outlets have already reported on ISIS' latest (and as yet unverified) video claiming to show the severed head of U.S. aid worker Peter Kassig. The new video does not show Kassig alive, or his alleged murder; instead it shows a masked militant standing next to what he claims to be Kassig's head, blaming both Barack Obama and Kassig's own service as an Army Ranger for the brutality inflicted upon western hostages. From the Associated Press:
"We say to you, Obama: ... You claim to have withdrawn from Iraq four years ago," the militant said. "Here you are: You have not withdrawn. Rather, you hid some of your forces behind your proxies." A U.S.-led coalition is targeting the Islamic State group in airstrikes, supporting Western-backed Syrian rebels, Kurdish fighters and the Iraqi military. The militant's voice is distorted in the video. Previous videos featured a militant with a British accent that the FBI says it has identified, though it hasn't named him publicly. Later, the militant claims Kassig, 26, was killed because he "fought against the Muslims in Iraq while serving as a soldier." Kassig, from Indianapolis, Indiana, served in the U.S. Army's 75th Ranger Regiment, a special operations unit, and deployed to Iraq in 2007.
The fact that Kassig does not appear alive in the video has many wondering whether or not he refused to deliver ISIS' message to the west firsthand. (In previous videos released by the militant group, hostages were forced to recite a prepared statement before their executions.) According to Fox, this video is longer than those previously released, and shows multiple hostages being executed. U.S. officials are working to verify the authenticity of the video. ISIS released this video just as President Obama left for the G-20 summit in Brisbane, which means they're hoping that their actions will derail discussions on climate change, the conflict in Ukraine, and other issues. I don't believe that ISIS is terribly concerned with whether or not the world condones their violent takeover of territory in Iraq and Syria, but I do believe that part of their strategy in the timing of this release could relate to their need to maintain a steady stream of funding from the west.

An editorial in The New York Times today about the ongoing P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran warns about the dire consequences of the two sides not reaching an agreement.
The consequences of failure to reach an accord would be serious, including the weakening of President Hassan Rouhani of Iran and his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, who count as moderates in Iran, and who, like President Obama, have taken a political risk to try to make an agreement happen.
That would be terrible. Rouhani and Zarif would be weakened!  Or would it? How much political power does Rouhini have anyway? And if they have any real political power, how moderate are they anyway? As far as the first question, well, they don't call Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the Supreme Leader for nothing. In an investigative report last year, Reuters showed that Khamenei using the organizations under his control has amassed a huge fortune by property seizures. David Daoud recently wrote:
More importantly, the Rahbar [the Supreme Leader] effectively decides who will or will not be the public face of his rule—that is, who will or will not be the president of Iran. Khamenei selects the 12 members of the Shura-ye Neghahban (“Guardian Council”), which is tasked with vetting and approving presidential candidates based on their allegiance to the ideals of the Vilayat-e Faqih. The Western media often calls Iranian leaders like ex-president Mohammad Khatami and current president Hassan Rouhani “moderates” or “reformers,” but the Guardian Council’s policies render such a characterization absurd. No genuine moderate or reformist candidate can get through the Council’s dragnet. In effect, then, the vetting process and the Rahbar’s ultimate authority negate any possibility of material change in Iran’s foreign or domestic policies.
In other words not only is Rouhani not the ultimate power in Iran, he wouldn't have achieved even his limited authority unless he was a true believer in the system. Rouhani is only a "moderate" in that he's willing to talk to the West to achieve his goals, but his goals and views are identical to those of Khamenei.

Liberals in politics and media are placing all their eggs in Hillary's basket for 2016 but remember: When it comes to presidential elections, Iowa is a very important state and as Lee Rood of the New York Post points out, Hillary may have a problem:
Is Iowa already sick of Hillary Clinton? DES MOINES, Iowa — If you’re a die-hard Democrat in New York hoping to overcome the disappointment that was Nov. 4, you’re worried. But here in Iowa, where the first-in-the-nation caucuses are a mere 14 months away, some are breaking into a cold sweat. Most party leaders here will assure you all conversations about the 2016 presidential nomination still begin and end with Hillary Clinton. The former first lady and secretary of state is a sentimental favorite. Though she has not formally announced her candidacy, her well-oiled super PAC may be the most deeply rooted ever at this stage in the Hawkeye state. “I don’t know of any party regulars or activists who are really pushing anyone else,” says Jerry Crawford, who co-chaired Clinton’s 2008 campaign in Iowa and helps lead Ready for Hillary in the state. But that may be the problem. Familiarity breeds if not contempt, then frustration.
Do you know who else isn't excited about the prospect of a Clinton run? Joe Biden.

There is much speculation around when the Ferguson Grand Jury is likely to finally release their (widely expected) no true bill (non-indictment) of Police Officer Darren Wilson over the shooting death of Mike Brown. A great many people, myself included, have suggested that the authorities responsible for the release of the Grand Jury's findings would be prudent to wait for colder weather to do so, relying on the conventional wisdom that colder temperatures tend to diminish the frequency and intensity of riots and the other violent behavior (looting, arson) exhibited by the Ferguson protestors. Legal Insurrection commenter Another Ed, however, has moved us past mere conventional wisdom on this subject by kindly linking to a scientific paper that studies precisely the correlation between riots and temperature. That paper, "Ambient Temperature and the Occurrence of Collective Violence: A new Analysis," by JM Carlsmith and CA Anderson of Stanford University, was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 1979. It is embedded at the bottom of this post, for those of you who enjoy reading primary research scientific literature. The Carlsmith paper conducted a re-analysis of earlier research, and found that in fact rioting (or, as they more politely refer to it "collective violence," as if it were a workshop of some kind) increases "monotonically" with temperature. The results of their research and analysis?
We conclude that the likelihood of a riot in a given city increases as the maximum ambient daily temperature in that city increases.
They helpfully include a graphical representation of their findings:

One of the most frequent questions I get is "How can we stop Obama from ...." The ellipses reflects that there are a variety of issues on which people want Obama stopped. The answer to most of those questions is, as Obama himself suggested, to go out and win some elections. And that is exactly what just happened earlier this month. In what appropriately could be termed a legal insurrection, voters around the country rejected the Party of Obama and his policies. So much so that Republicans in the House have a historic majority even beyond what the 2010 wave brought in, and Republicans regained control of the Senate by a comfortable margin. That will go a long way towards stopping Obama, but only if Obama respects the boundaries of his constitutional power. By tradition, a President respects the constitutional powers of the other branches of government, although there always is tension. When that respect is breached, there is precious little constitutional enforcement power. Congress can write laws, but it cannot execute those laws; for that Congress depends on the Executive Branch, which is given some level of enforcement discretion since no legislation can be so specific as to delineate who does what and when. Similarly, the Courts are loathe to get involved in refereeing political disputes between Congress and the President, and there even are questions as to whether Congress has "standing" to sue to demand enforcement. The Supreme Court has no army, other than the public expectation that its decisions will be respected. On the flip side, Congress has no power, for example, to conduct its own foreign policy, appoint its own ambassadors and operate its own embassies. The bonds that keep our constitutional system working are not through the barrel of a gun, but through the core good faith of each branch respecting constitutional boundaries.

Religious organizations challenging the PPACA's contraception mandate have lost their latest battle against the Act's "religious accommodation." Last week the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia threw out a series of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the accommodation on multiple grounds. These organizations have argued that the accommodation does not provide adequate protections to religious freedom because an organization's request actually "triggers" a provision that activates substitute coverage:
The contraceptive coverage opt-out mechanism substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ religious exercise, Plaintiffs contend, by failing to extricate them from providing, paying for, or facilitating access to contraception. In particular, they assert that the notice they submit in requesting accommodation is a “trigger” that activates substitute coverage, and that the government will “hijack” their health plans and use them as “conduits” for providing contraceptive coverage to their employees and students. Plaintiffs dispute that the government has any compelling interest in obliging them to give notice of their wish to take advantage of the accommodation. And they argue that the government has failed to show that the notice requirement is the least restrictive means of serving any such interest.
The Court, however, was not convinced:

From the "totally unofficial" Harvard Parody website, "Eve of Destruction: Ron Klain, Ebola Czar": Adding to Harvard Law School's already considerable reputation for producing "elite" lawyers who fill high-level government positions for which they are totally incompetent (in terms of the real-world practical skills and ethical...

The Council on American-Islamic Relations is the hyper-aggressive group which designates almost anyone critical even of radical Islam as "Islamophobic." CAIR has done more than any group, except perhaps the Southern Poverty Law Center, at chilling speech on topics of national and international concern. CAIR also is a key component of the Democratic Party coalition, using its media savvy to demonize opponents. I wonder how CAIR is going to wiggle out of being designated by the United Arab Emirates as a terrorist group? Is the UAE "Islamophobic"? Rosie Gray at Buzzfeed Reports:
The United Arab Emirates has listed two American Muslim organizations on its list of designated terrorist groups, according to an announcement released on state media on Saturday. The UAE has classified the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim American Society as terrorist groups, according to a story on the website of WAM, the official news agency. Also reportedly designated as terror groups were the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Association of Britain, and the charity Islamic Relief. The list also covers groups widely thought of as terrorist groups, like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban.

Reports have surfaced that "Jihadi John," the masked Brit responsible for the beheadings of four western hostages, was injured last Saturday's airstrikes near the Iraqi-Syrian border. Via the Daily Mail:
‘We are aware of reports that this individual [Jihadi John] has been injured, and we are looking into them,’ a Foreign Office spokesman told The Mail on Sunday. This newspaper has received an independent account of how Jihadi John was injured and rushed to hospital after a devastating air strike in Al Qaim, in Anbar Province, Western Iraq. The Foreign Office spokesman added: ‘We have a number of sources of information coming in. ‘The incident occurred last weekend, and so we have received the reports in the last few days. We don’t have any representation inside Syria, and so it is difficult to confirm these reports.’ The Foreign Office also issued an official statement saying: ‘We are aware of reports. We cannot confirm these reports.’ A spokesman for US Central Command said they were unable to confirm the details for security reasons. The joint US-Iraqi mission left at least ten IS commanders dead, and around 40 injured. Those reportedly hurt included IS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi.
The Mail provides a great infographic detailing the fractured timeline as we have it so far: 1416081735658_wps_43_BANNER_jpg