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 October 01, 2014 16 Comments
2014 is a crucial cycle for Republicans; for months, House and Senate candidates have focused on Democrats' failure of leadership in the White House and the Senate to pinpoint examples of how progressive policies have made life harder for Americans. Examples aren't enough, though. In order to flip the balance of power in Washington, Republicans need to hit voters where it hurts Democrats. Enter Elbert Guillory, a Louisiana State Senator and candidate for Lt. Governor in 2015 who famously switched to being a Republican. Guillory appears in a devastating video by Free At Last PAC:

LATEST NEWS

Posted by New Neo on October 01, 2014 32 Comments
On September 19 the Secret Service managed to stop an intruder with a knife who had entered the White House, but why did it take so long for the fuller (and even more alarming) story to emerge?:
An armed man who jumped the White House fence this month made it far deeper into the mansion than previously disclosed, overpowering a Secret Service agent inside the North Portico entrance and running through the ceremonial East Room before he was tackled, according to a member of Congress familiar with the details of the incident. The man, Omar J. Gonzalez, who had a knife, was stopped as he tried to enter the Green Room, a parlor used for receptions and teas, said the congressman, Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the Republican chairman of a subcommittee looking into the security breach. Earlier, Secret Service officials indicated that Mr. Gonzalez, 42, had only made it steps inside the North Portico after running through the door.
That wasn't the only error made, either, not by a longshot. There were multiple slip-ups of basic protocol. What on earth is going on?

Posted by Amy Miller on October 01, 2014 12 Comments
On Monday, we told you about a new California law that essentially outlaws sloppy, reckless sex between college students. Now, a new app has launched that seeks to eliminate all debate over whether or not that hot guy or girl at the bar is "good to go"---home with you. Via the New York Daily News:
“Good2Go should be treated in the same manner as putting on a condom,” its website explains. “It may stop the action for a second, but everyone understands it is in the interest of safety, so it is worth the momentary pause.” The free app works as follows: After sparks fly with a potential hookup, one of the people involved launches the free Good2Go app on his or her phone. When it is opened, the app will display the question, “Are we Good2Go?” The other party then selects “No thanks,” “Yes, but...we need to talk” or “I’m Good2Go.” If the first option is chosen, a screen pops up that says “Remember! No means No! Only Yes means Yes, BUT can be changed to NO at any time!” The second choice pauses the app so the pair can have their discussion.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on September 30, 2014 48 Comments
A man traveling from Liberia in West Africa to Dallas, Texas has been diagnosed with Ebola, becoming the first patient to present with the disease on US soil. CDC and local Texas health officials emphasized in a news conference today that they anticipate that the disease will be readily contained.
The first Ebola case has been diagnosed in the United States, but a top health official said today there is "no doubt... we will stop it here." Dr. Tom Frieden, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the patient left Liberia on Sept 10 and arrived in the U.S. on Sept. 20. The patient sought medical help on Sept. 27 and was put in isolation on Sept. 28, Frieden said. Tests confirming the Ebola diagnosis came back today. The White House said President Obama was briefed about the patient by Frieden. Frieden stressed that the patient was not sick on departure from Liberia or upon arrival in the U.S. and the disease can only be contracted by someone exhibiting symptoms of the disease. Frieden said he was confident there would not be an Ebola outbreak in the U.S. "There is no doubt in my mind we will stop it here," he said.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 30, 2014 4 Comments
The latest video from the Foundation for Government Accountability argues that Medicaid expansion under Obamacare places convicts in line for Medicaid benefits before the elderly and vulnerable.

According to the FGA:

“Everyone should know that a lawmaker calling for expansion is asking for criminals to get priority medical care at the expense of the disabled, elderly, children and others already enrolled in the current Medicaid program,” said FGA CEO Tarren Bragdon.

“What’s worse is that the victims of violent crimes will now be paying the medical bills of those who victimized them, all while watching their grandparent’s and children’s health care suffer.”

Lawmakers in expansion states have decided to put their most needy citizens on the chopping block so they can move able-bodied, working-age adults; almost all of whom (82 percent) have no children to support, nearly half of whom (45 percent) do not work, many of whom (35 percent) with a record of run-ins with the criminal justice system to the front of the line. So what happens to those on the ObamaCare chopping block? States that previously expanded Medicaid had to eliminate coverage for life-saving organ transplants, overload waitlists for services, cap enrollment and raise patient costs, all because promises were broken and costs exceeded projections.

Here's the quite operatic video:

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

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

University of San Francisco Ditching Mascot Over Student Complaints

Maine School Administrator Objects to Dogs in the Classroom, Citing Muslim Views

UT-San Antonio Student Apologizes for Gleefully Mocking Assassination of Charlie Kirk

SEE MORE

Posted by Amy Miller on September 30, 2014 5 Comments
In case you haven't noticed, the Affordable Care Act has been the subject of multiple lawsuits since its inception; most recently, states have gone to the courts to challenge an IRS rule providing federal subsidies on the Obamacare health care exchanges. A district court in Oklahoma is the latest federal court to steamroll the federal government's argument---and the judges who decided to allow it:
Noting that Obama administration wants to issue Exchange subsidies in states with federal Exchanges even though the PPACA (quoting Halbig) “unambiguously restricts the [Exchange] subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges ‘established by the State,’” Judge White argues that the government’s interpretation (quoting the Tenth Circuit in Sundance Assocs., Inc., v. Reno) “leads us down a path toward Alice’s Wonderland, where up is down and down is up, and words mean anything.” As evidence, White quotes the concurring opinion in King: “‘[E]stablished by the State’ indeed means established by the state – except when it does not[.]”

Posted by Amy Miller on September 30, 2014 4 Comments
A recent Gallup poll shows that Americans are fairly evenly divided in their beliefs about the proper roll of government. When asked to rate their preference on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 meaning the respondent prefers limited government, and 5 meaning the respondent prefers a government that takes active steps to improve the lives of citizens) 35% of Americans said that they would prefer Washington take a more limited role in their daily lives. 32%, on the other hand, favor big government, and the remaining third of respondents fell somewhere in between. Via Gallup:
Gallup has asked this question four times since 2010, and each time, Americans have divided themselves roughly into thirds favoring a more active government, a less active government, or something in between. This division is especially noteworthy because the government's role in solving the nation's problems has been arguably more salient in recent years during the housing crisis, financial crisis, economic recession, and passage of the Affordable Care Act.
Generally speaking, Republicans favor a smaller role for government, while Democrats are happy with expanding federal reach. One thing that Americans do seem to agree on, however, is the current level of influence policymakers in Washington have on our everyday lives:

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 30, 2014 8 Comments
Do we really need to invent new terror groups to justify America's actions in the Middle East? Is the Obama administration so reluctant to admit that al-Qaeda still exists? If you ask Andrew C. McCarthy of National Review, the answer to both of those questions is yes:
The Khorosan Group Does Not Exist We’re being had. Again. For six years, President Obama has endeavored to will the country into accepting two pillars of his alternative national-security reality. First, he claims to have dealt decisively with the terrorist threat, rendering it a disparate series of ragtag jayvees. Second, he asserts that the threat is unrelated to Islam, which is innately peaceful, moderate, and opposed to the wanton “violent extremists” who purport to act in its name. Now, the president has been compelled to act against a jihad that has neither ended nor been “decimated.” The jihad, in fact, has inevitably intensified under his counterfactual worldview, which holds that empowering Islamic supremacists is the path to security and stability. Yet even as war intensifies in Iraq and Syria — even as jihadists continue advancing, continue killing and capturing hapless opposition forces on the ground despite Obama’s futile air raids — the president won’t let go of the charade. Hence, Obama gives us the Khorosan Group. The who? There is a reason that no one had heard of such a group until a nanosecond ago, when the “Khorosan Group” suddenly went from anonymity to the “imminent threat” that became the rationale for an emergency air war there was supposedly no time to ask Congress to authorize. You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan — the –Iranian–​Afghan border region — had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it. The “Khorosan Group” is al-Qaeda.
Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing. As we all know, the Obama administration loves to fuss with nomenclature.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 29, 2014 28 Comments
The latest victim in the Obama administration's overregulationpalooza appears to be just about anyone who wants to snap a picture in a nationally designated forest. Proposed regulations would require permits for still photography and commercial filming on National Forest System Lands. According to the Federal Register:
"The proposed amendment would address the establishment of consistent national criteria to evaluate requests for special use permits on National Forest System (NFS) lands. Specifically, this policy provides the criteria used to evaluate request for special use permits related to still photography and commercial filming in congressionally designated wilderness areas." 
The commenting period for the amendment is open until November 3. September 25th, the National Forest System released a statement to clarify the proposed amendment. “The US Forest Service remains committed to the First Amendment,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “To be clear, provisions in the draft directive do not apply to news gathering or activities.” The agency claims the measures are to protect federal lands, and I'm sure that's the case, and have no objection with these types of wildlife preserves. But even the clarifying statement is vague:

Posted by Andrew Branca on September 29, 2014 25 Comments
Miguel from the excellent GunFreeZone blog brings the goods again with his post "New Jersey slaps some lipstick to their gun laws pig." In that post, Miguel shares a memorandum from acting New Jersey Attorney General John J. Hoffman that allowed County prosecutor Jim McClain to back away from his outrageous prosecution of Shaneen Allen, and may have saved Chris Christie's Presidential aspirations from an early death at the hands of the Garden State's draconian gun laws. Allen is the Philadelphia nurse who broke New Jersey law by carrying her Pennsylvania-licensed handgun in her car's glovebox into the Garden State. As punishment, the Atlantic City prosecutor demanded that Ms. Allen spend a minimum of three years in prison. The handgun was never taken out of the glovebox while Allen was in New Jersey, except when confiscated by the New Jersey State Police after the ill-informed Allen volunteered to them at a traffic stop that she possessed the gun, in the mistaken belief that her Pennsylvania gun permit was valid in New Jersey. Allen, who had no prior criminal history of any sort, was peremptorily denied access to New Jersey's pre-trial intervention (PTI) program, despite the fact that no one alleged she had any intent to use the gun unlawfully or to harm any person.  (In contrast, Baltimore Ravens football player Ray Rice was quickly ushered into the state's PTI program after videotape emerged of him punching his wife unconscious in an elevator.) Atlantic City prosecutor McClain drew widespread condemnation, and created a particularly awkward situation for New Jersey's Governor Chris Christie. Imprisoning a young mother who had no malicious intent was not going to help him win over America's 100 million gun owners.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 29, 2014 9 Comments
The campaign of Martha Robertson, the Democratic challenger in my home district of NY-23, really should have been on the list of the Worst Campaigns of 2014. While Robertson started out with strong support from Emily's List and was a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee "Red-to-Blue" designee, literally nothing has gone right with the campaign, and a lot has gone wrong including:

Posted by Amy Miller on September 29, 2014 38 Comments
We've written previously about California's proposed "affirmative consent" bill, which codifies -- for lack of a more delicate terminology -- what constitutes acceptable foreplay between consenting adults on college campuses. On Sunday, that bill became law. Via Fox News:
[Bill author Sen. Kevin] De Leon has said the legislation will begin a paradigm shift in how college campuses in California prevent and investigate sexual assaults. Rather than using the refrain "no means no," the definition of consent under the bill requires "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity." "With one in five women on college campuses experiencing sexual assault, it is high time the conversation regarding sexual assault be shifted to one of prevention, justice, and healing," de Leon said in lobbying Brown for his signature. The legislation says silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent.
The bill holds hostage funding for colleges and universities unless "the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking..." That policy is strictly defined within the bill, and mandates new, uniform procedures for the reporting, counseling, and investigation of alleged sexual misconduct on campus.
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH