Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

September 2014

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 21, 2014 16 Comments
Everyone suddenly seems to like the idea of having Condoleezza Rice take over leadership of the NFL for some reason. Judy Kurtz of The Hill recently wrote:
Condoleezza Rice: NFL commissioner? Now, some are saying Condoleezza Rice — who expressed an interest in the NFL job before — should replace Goodell. A Tuesday editorial in The Washington Post wrote that the NFL is “an institution in dire need” of Rice’s help, with a blaring headline: “Condi Rice: The one person who could save the NFL.” According to a 2002 story in The New York Times, “[Rice] wants to be commissioner of the National Football League. She is serious. ‘That's absolutely right,' she said, 'though not immediately and not before Paul Tagliabue is ready to step down. I want to say that for the record.’”
While that may seem like a great idea, it could also be a waste of her talent. Shouldn't she aspire to a higher office? Allahpundit of Hot Air knows what I'm talking about:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 20, 2014 10 Comments
It started out sounding like a classic racial profiling case. A white man is in a car kissing a black woman. The cops pull up, suspecting it's a case of prostitution. It wasn't. Just a husband and wife having a little fun, until the worst stereotypes of black women infected police minds. The woman was handcuffed, cried. And her wrists were cut by the handcuffs. The couple claimed the police approached only because they were an interracial couple. And it went viral. I remember seeing it at Buzzfeed via Twitter, and thinking: Not good. But then something happened. Neighbors -- the ones who called the police in the first place because of allegedly lewd public exposure -- produced photos that appeared to show the couple doing the nasty in the front seat. In broad daylight. While parked in a visible and trafficked area. TMZ was all over it:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 20, 2014 7 Comments
Post-September 11, George W. Bush encouraged Americans to return to normalcy. Go shopping, go to restaurants, don't be afraid. When the dust settled and it became clear that our enemy was al Qaeda, the joke became, "don't let the terrorists win!" Not in the mood to grab a beer? "Don't let the terrorist win!" And so on. When I read this article, "don't let the terrorists win!" seemed an appropriate response. The Washington Post reported:
Busch Gardens — which operates parks in Williamsburg, Va., and Tampa, Fla. — said in a statement that it has stopped using the props during Howl-O-Scream, an event that is already underway at the Virginia park. “Many of the scenes depicted at Busch Gardens’ Howl-O-Scream are graphic in nature, but they are fictional and are not intended to provide commentary on current world events,” Busch Gardens Williamsburg communications manager Kevin Crossett said in a statement. “The props in this year’s event were designed and purchased several months ago. “In light of recent events, some of these props have the unintended consequence of appearing insensitive and are being removed. Busch Gardens apologizes for any offense they may have caused.” Howl-O-Scream is scheduled to open in Florida later this month, according to the park’s Web site.
But it looks like this was all the fault of the Virginia Gazette who posted pics of the exhibit on their front page:

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 20, 2014 5 Comments
With the midterms approaching and Obama's approval rating in the gutter, vulnerable Democrats are avoiding any discussion of one particular subject. Obama. Colby Itkowitz of the Washington Post has the story:
These days, Democrats aren’t talking much about Obama in congressional speeches When President Obama took office in 2009, congressional Democrats were euphoric. With control of the House, Senate and the White House, and high public approval for their new party standard bearer, Democrats eagerly embraced Obama and all the long-awaited policy initiatives he’d surely help them achieve. In that first month, congressional Democrats mentioned Obama during floor speeches 200 or so more times than Republicans. In the next year and a half, the parties referred to the president at similar rates, sometimes with the Republicans having more to say, other times the Democrats. One can reasonably assume that when the Democrats speak of the president publicly it’s in a favorable way and when Republicans do it’s, well, not quite as glowing. As positive public opinion of Obama began to dip after his first year, the spread between how often Republicans and the Democrats invoked Obama grew wider. Put simply, the Democrats weren’t mentioning Obama by name nearly as much as Republicans.
How could this be?

Posted by Andrew Branca on September 20, 2014 33 Comments
Two days after the shooting of 29-year-old black man Charles Smith, a wanted felon, by Savannah GA police officer David Jannot, new information is finally being revealed about both men, as reported by WSAV News, an NBC television affiliate in Savannah, GA. Particularly interesting finds by WSAV include Smith's arrest record and his apparent Facebook page.

Smith's Arrests Included Aggravated Assault, Cruelty to Child

It had previously been reported that Smith had served at least three felony sentences. Candid photographs apparently taken in prison reveal extensive tattoos, including one running from shoulder-shoulder under his neck stating "Cut Throat." [caption id="attachment_100196" align="alignnone" width="450"]Charles Smith tattoos in prison Charles Smith, apparently in prison, showing tattoos.[/caption]

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 19, 2014 15 Comments
Earlier this week the Democrats released a video contrasting Rand Paul statements against Rand Paul's previous statements on a handful of issues. The video is a hatchet job and of course some things are taken out of context, but it highlights a major issue that's been bugging me about Rand Paul. Take a look at the video the Democrats put together: It's not uncommon for politicians to change their views, platforms, or opinions on issues. They are there to serve at the will of the people (at least in theory). Take ISIS for example. ISIS is a different kind of threat to American interests now than they were a few years ago. A policy change from isolationism to one that's considering an intervention strategy is warranted and few would fault Paul for changing his mind on this particular issue. My criticism of Paul is not because he's become an interventionist in a Libertarian body, after all, people don't flock to presidential election polls all riled up about foreign policy. My criticism is not that he's changed his mind. My criticism stems from Rand Paul's refusal to 1) admit his policy stance has changed and 2) handle this policy shift gracefully rather than indignantly.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 19, 2014 28 Comments
The last time we visited the Kansas Senate race, we noted that Republican Pat Roberts was at risk, but that he may have caught a lucky break when the Democratic candidate was not permitted to take his name off the ballot in order to unite around the independent candidate. Having the Democrat's name on the ballot would have siphoned away some votes from the independent challenger, helping Roberts. The Kansas Supreme Court, however, ruled yesterday that the Democrat's name must be removed from the ballot:
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that the state must remove the name of the Democratic candidate running against Republican Sen. Pat Roberts from the November ballot, adding another twist to a now-hotly contested race. The court's decision leaves independent Greg Orman, who has been rising in the polls, as the only major opponent currently in the running to take on the 78-year-old incumbent. The court agreed with Democrat Chad Taylor, saying his formal letter of withdrawal to the secretary of state's office was sufficient to get his name off the ballot. The court also said it did not "need to act" regarding Secretary of State Kris Kobach's "allegation" that the Democratic party must name a new candidate for the race. Kobach said earlier Thursday that the Democratic Party is legally obligated to pick a new nominee and set a Sept. 26 deadline.
There had been the possibility that Democrats would be forced to name a replacement:

Posted by Andrew Branca on September 19, 2014 44 Comments
A JD student at the University of Miami School of Law--and a long-time fan of "The Law of Self Defense"--contacted me recently to share a notice he'd received from the school. It seems for the Fall 2014 semester they will be offering a "short course" (good for one credit) with a focus on the Trayvon Martin case, entitled "Legal Advocacy, Media and the Pursuit of Social Justice." The first note of interest is that the course is being "taught" by none other than Jasmine Rand, an attorney with the firm of Crump & Park. Benjamin Crump, of course, was the public legal face of the Martin family, as he is currently the public legal face of the Mike Brown family in the Ferguson shooting. Attorney Rand herself "leads the firm’s Civil Rights Department. Her evolving practice focuses on civil rights, wrongful death, civil rape, and catastrophic personal injury." Ms. Rand is perhaps most memorable for her appearance on the Greta Van Susteren show on Fox News in the aftermath of the George Zimmerman trial. Zimmerman was, of course, unanimously acquitted by the jury of all charges after mere hours of deliberations. In the course of her four minutes or so of air time Ms. Rand expressed her view that the jury in that trial had not delivered "justice." When asked if it was not her duty as a lawyer to accept a duly empaneled jury's verdict, Ms. Rand responded that she has a greater duty than being a lawyer, and that was to be a "social engineer."  Good stuff:

Posted by David Gerstman on September 19, 2014 3 Comments
The New York Times earlier this month published an expose of how foreign money influenced think tanks. One of the subjects of the article was the Brookings Institution, its vice president Indyk and $14.8 million grant that the government of Qatar had given Brookings. A former scholar at Brookings cautioned that because of Qatar's influence any report coming out of the institution is likely not to be the "full story." The New York Times didn't seem much concerned with the implication of its reporting but some people did notice. In Tablet this week Lee Smith pounced on the Times for not looking into the implications of what it reported.
Or maybe the editors decided that it was all on the level, and the money influenced neither Indyk’s government work on the peace process nor Brookings’ analysis of the Middle East. Or maybe journalists just don’t think it’s worth making a big fuss out of obvious conflicts of interest that may affect American foreign policy. Maybe Qatar’s $14.8 million doesn’t affect Brookings’ research projects or what the think tank’s scholars tell the media, including the New York Times, about subjects like Qatar, Hamas, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other related areas in which Qatar has key interests at stake. Maybe the think tank’s vaunted objectivity, and Indyk’s personal integrity and his pride in his career as a public servant, trump the large piles of vulgar Qatari natural gas money that keep the lights on and furnish the offices of Brookings scholars and pay their cell-phone bills and foreign travel.
Smith also observed that the Qatar connection made Indyk poorly suited as an interlocutor for both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 19, 2014 10 Comments
A new study from Johns Hopkins University suggests exactly what many conservative activists have been complaining about for years: Washington is out of touch with the rest of America. From Johns Hopkins:
Surveying 850 people who either work in government or directly with it, researchers found that the inside-the-Beltway crowd has very little in common with America at large. Washington insiders are more likely to be white. They are more educated. Their salaries are higher, they vote more and have more faith in the fairness of elections. They are probably Democrat and liberal. They more diligently follow the news. And they think the mechanizations of government couldn’t be easier to comprehend.
There are easy and reasonable explanations for much of this: if you live in Washington, you likely either work for the government, or work at a firm that works with the government. Many of these jobs are specialized---law, policy analysis, statistical consulting---and generally require a graduate degree. Of course you vote---that's how you decide who you have to put up with at work for the next two, four, or six years. You read the news because you're either in it, making it, writing it, or countering it. But we all know that when it comes to mass messaging and perception, none of that matters.

Posted by Casey Breznick on September 19, 2014 6 Comments

The Democratic challenger for New York’s 23rd district, Martha Robertson, spoke briefly about her election campaign against incumbent Republican Tom Reed at a Cornell Democrats event Wednesday evening.

Speaking for 30 minutes to a crowd of about 40 students, Robertson, Cornell Class of 1975, mainly stuck to her autobiography and her major talking points.

We have full coverage at the Cornell Review, of which I am the Editor-in-Chief.

Legal Insurrection has covered extensively the race in NY23. Some more recent examples include: Democrat's fat shaming ads backfire in key House race (#NY23) and Martha Robertson  raising money, but still in hiding (#NY23).

Also, does everyone remember the last time Robertson visited Cornell campus? Read more here: Martha dodges my questions about fundraising.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 19, 2014 10 Comments
The BBC reports:
A statement said planes had attacked an IS logistics depot in north-east Iraq. France was already carrying out reconnaissance flights over Iraq and providing weapons to Kurdish fighters. President Hollande said on Thursday that French air strikes would only target the jihadist group's positions in Iraq, and not neighbouring Syria. He also insisted that he would not send ground troops. On Friday, Mr Hollande's office said Rafale planes had carried out the attack and "the objective was hit and completely destroyed".
Yesterday, French President François Hollande pledged his support to the U.S.-led campaign in the Middle East, citing an international duty to confront "unremitting brutality:"
The Islamic State, also known by the acronyms ISIS or ISIL, “massacres anyone who resists it; hunts minorities, notably Christians; commits atrocities against civilians; decapitates journalists; crucifies opponents; kidnaps women,” he said. “That is the movement we are up against.” Mr. Hollande traveled to Baghdad last week to help mobilize support for military strikes against Islamic militants. On Thursday, he said he had met with his top miliary advisers and had agreed to Iraq’s request for air support to reinforce Iraqi soldiers and Kurdish fighters. He said French fighter jets would strike once targets had been identified. “That means in a short time frame,” he said.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 19, 2014 5 Comments
In our post on September 9, we asked Was Prosecutor’s union-operative wife behind “John Doe” investigation of Scott Walker?. That post was based on a report by the well-regarded legal reporter Stuart Taylor about anti-Scott Walker political bias in the office of Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm, who has led the "John Doe" investigations against Walker and a wide-range of conservative activists in Wisconsin. In his report, District attorney’s wife drove case against Wis. Gov. Walker, insider says, Taylor reported, among other things:
…. Walker became a national figure in 2011, when his “Budget Repair” bill cut state spending and sharply curbed public employee unions — perhaps the biggest reversal of public union power in U.S. history. Conservatives were delighted and liberals alarmed. Now a longtime Chisholm subordinate reveals for the first time in this article that the district attorney may have had personal motivations for his investigation. Chisholm told him and others that Chisholm’s wife, Colleen, a teacher’s union shop steward at St. Francis high school, a public school near Milwaukee, had been repeatedly moved to tears by Walker’s anti-union policies in 2011, according to the former staff prosecutor in Chisholm’s office. Chisholm said in the presence of the former prosecutor that his wife “frequently cried when discussing the topic of the union disbanding and the effect it would have on the people involved … She took it personally.”
The reaction to Taylor's report was furious and aggressive, but from an unlikely source: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which not only outed Taylor's confidential source, but personally attacked the source in a detailed column by reporter/columnist Daniel Bice, Source who accused Chisholm of vendetta has troubled past. When I first read Bice's column, the two things struck me.

Posted by Andrew Branca on September 19, 2014 32 Comments
Here we go again.  Maybe. Late yesterday morning David Jannot, an officer with the Savannah-Chatham (Georgia) Metropolitan Police Department, shot and killed Charles Smith, a suspect that had already been handcuffed behind his back and placed inside a police cruiser, reports CNN and other news agencies. Smith was a 29-year-old black man. Bizarrely, no word has yet been released on Officer Jannot's race or ethnicity, and I was unable to locate any photographs that might be informative.  Indeed, I was unable to find any indication that any reporter had even bothered to inquire into Jannot's race or ethnicity, a seemingly odd lapse in the aftermath of Ferguson. Apparently Smith had been picked up by police on outstanding warrants around 11AM on a road that typically enjoys heavy pedestrian traffic.  It is anticipated that there will be numerous witnesses to events, and it is known that at least some of the action was captured by cameras installed in the patrol car. The police department has reported that Smith was handcuffed behind his back and placed in the patrol car.  There he managed to move his hands to the front of his body and kick out one of the car's windows. He then attempted to exit the car, and the officers saw that he had a firearm.  It was then that officer David Jannot shot and killed Smith.
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH