Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

October 2014

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on October 21, 2014 30 Comments
Houston Mayor Annise Parker made national headlines last week when it was revealed she subpoenaed the sermons of local pastors. Following a brutal battle over a city ordinance which many believed was an egregious encroachment of local government into the territory of religious freedom, Parker, Houston's first openly gay mayor, subpoenaed the full text of sermons mentioning her name or anything having to do with homosexuality. Right leaning citizens weren't the only ones to shirk from Parker's drastic and seemingly vindictive actions. The ACLU and other liberal leaning organizations expressed grave concern with Parker's unprecedented overreach. The ACLU said in a statement, "“While a lot of things are fair game in a lawsuit, government must use special care when intruding into matters of faith. The government should never engage in fishing expeditions into the inner workings of a church, and any request for information must be carefully tailored to seek only what is relevant to the dispute." Following blowback, Parker announced the City of Houston would clarify the subpoenas which were, "too broad." "We are glad that Mayor Parker has acknowledged that subpoenas issued in ongoing litigation were too broad and that there is no need to intrude on matters of faith to have equal rights in Houston. There was no need to include sermons in the subpoena in the first place," said the Texas Chapter of the ACLU.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on October 21, 2014 1 Comment

Ever since I started covering the anti-Israel academic boycott of the American Studies Association in December 2013, I have interacted with some of its members who are reasonable people concerned about the direction the ASA has taken.  But those voices have been drowned out by a shrill and vocal minority.

A little publicized fact is that less than one quarter of the membership voted in favor of the boycott (and depending on which membership numbers you use, perhaps as few as 16%), but it was enough to change the course of the organization due to low overall participation.

Once known as a somewhat obscure but well-regarded organization, ASA now is a pariah (as the NY Times described it) because of the boycott. ASA has become the poster child for how a relatively small group of anti-Israel radicals can take over key committees of a relatively small organization and leverage that power for a political agenda.

In this case, the agenda is the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement, conceived of and scripted at the anti-Semitic 2001 Durban conference.  Part of the Durban script was to have Palestinian civil groups issue a call for a boycott.  That took place, and now groups like ASA cite the civil call for a boycott as their justification, ignoring its roots and preplanning.

At a time when the Humanities and Social Sciences are suffering and Ph.D. graduate students in fields like American Studies have few job prospects, the leadership and activists at ASA devote their energies to demonizing and delegitimizing Israel.

During this year's annual meeting, an entire day will be devoted to an offsite program run by ASA's Activism Caucus (yes, there really is such a thing) to teach faculty from around the country how to boycott Israeli universities, faculty, and scholars. ASA in a real sense has become a political activist organization.

The boycott, as applied to ASA's annual meeting, was discriminatory, and the hotel was put on notice that the hotel had potential liability.

Posted by Andrew Branca on October 21, 2014 10 Comments
The Marissa Alexander defense team had a terrible, awful, very bad day yesterday in a pre-trial evidentiary hearing.  Much evidence that would have been favorable to their case was excluded by the trial judge, and the remaining evidence left undecided also seems unlikely to be admitted. The hearing was live-tweeted and reported on by Larry Hannan of the Florida Times-Union newspaper. As has become in the norm in many of these cases a great deal of misinformation has been promulgated about this case in an effort to control the public narrative. We have previously debunked much of this in prior posts here at Legal Insurrection, most recently:  Three Weird Myths About Marissa Alexander That People Think Are True. Alexander's defense counsel Faith Gay and Bruce Zimet wished to exclude evidence of Marissa Alexander's domestic assault of Rico Gray.  Alexander later pleaded guilty to criminal charges resulting from the case.  She also had her bail revoked, and as a result spent several years in jail. The defense also sought to exclude all evidence recovered by police in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, including the hole in the wall behind Rico Gray's head that puts the lie to the popular "warning shot" narrative. Marissa Alexander bullet hole Finally, the defense sought to admit evidence of alleged prior acts of violence by Rico Gray upon other women with whom he has had relationships. Arguing against these motions were Assistant state attorneys London Kite and Richard Mantei. By the time the hearing was finished, the state had won on the first two motions, and seemed highly likely to also win on the third.

Posted by Amy Miller on October 21, 2014 3 Comments
A memo recently circulated amongst lawyers working for the Obama Administration and in the intelligence community has sparked debate about the future of the United Nations Convention Against Torture as it applies to enhanced interrogation techniques used by Americans overseas. The Administration has a month to decide its stance on the treaty in advance of a scheduled presentation before the UN Committee Against Torture. It will have to choose between the opinion of the State Department, that of the intelligence community, or something in between: From the New York Times:
State Department lawyers are said to be pushing to officially abandon the Bush-era interpretation. Doing so would require no policy changes, since Mr. Obama issued an executive order in 2009 that forbade cruel interrogations anywhere and made it harder for a future administration to return to torture. But military and intelligence lawyers are said to oppose accepting that the treaty imposes legal obligations on the United States’ actions abroad. They say they need more time to study whether it would have operational impacts. They have also raised concerns that current or future wartime detainees abroad might invoke the treaty to sue American officials with claims of torture, although courts have repeatedly thrown out lawsuits brought by detainees held as terrorism suspects.
You may remember that the Bush Administration used a constitutionally-based interpretation of the Treaty that allowed for the use of tactics covered by the treaty if they were used on non-citizens outside of the United States. The Administration took heat for the interpretation, and then-Senator Barack Obama spoke out in favor of adhering to the transnational spirit of the treaty and banning cruel treatment no matter where it may take place.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on October 21, 2014 4 Comments
Lawyer Stanley Cohen pleaded guilty last spring to federal charges related to his scheme to conceal income through cash transactions elaborately orchestrated to cover his tracks. He also failed to file income tax returns. See our prior posts: We noted before that Cohen was obsessively anti-Israel, so much so that he announced he'd rather serve 18 months in prison than dine with a Zionist. Cohen may get his wish, as his plea deal calls for an 18-month sentence, though I don't think the court is bound by that. The sentencing was supposed to take place today, but has been postponed a week because -- according to the court docket -- two new letters, which are not public, were received. In typical Cohen fashion, he claimed political persecution by Zionists, and his supporters sang along with his anti-Zionist conspiracy theories. Because the Zionists made him stock his safe deposit box full of cash, arrange money orders and physical cash transfers to cover his tracks, and fail to file income tax returns -- or something. Those Zionists sure are tricky, aren't they Stan, they made you do all those illegal things and then caught you and charged you, and even made you admit in open court that the prosecutors could prove their case. NBC News reported (and quoted me), Terror Suspects' Lawyer Stanley Cohen Rants Before Prison Sentence:
A Hamas-defending, Israel-slamming Jew, Cohen simultaneously confounds and agitates. He’s known for f-bomb-laced rants against what he calls a “Zionist hijacking” of his religion. He demeans the tax charge to which he pleaded guilty in April as a government attempt “to silence me.” ....

Posted by David Gerstman on October 21, 2014 22 Comments
Remember when President Barack Obama said that the United States will "always have Israel's back" when it comes to Israel's security---especially in regards to Iran's nuclear program? Or when Secretary of State John Kerry said that with Iran "no deal was better than a bad deal?" They were lying. The administration's aim is to make a deal with Iran even as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warns that the emerging deal "is a threat to the entire world, and, first and foremost, this is a threat to us." Kerry's negotiation team continues to operate from a premise that "any deal is better than no deal." The Los Angeles Times is now reporting that the administration has sweetened its deal to allow Iran 4000 operational centrifuges.
The Obama administration has sweetened its offer to Iran in ongoing nuclear negotiations, saying it might accept Tehran operating 4,000 centrifuges, up from the previous 1,300, according to a semiofficial Iranian news agency. The Mehr news agency also said Monday that Iran and the six world powers seeking to negotiate a nuclear deal remained divided over how much uranium-enrichment capacity the Middle East nation should be allowed to maintain, and how to lift punitive sanctions from its economy.
Ray Tayekh, a critic of the current negotiations, observed that "the U.S. sweetener may encourage Iran to drag out negotiations to see what better offer it might receive after a few more months of talks."

Posted by Amy Miller on October 20, 2014 8 Comments
Texas Democrats weren't happy when Governor Rick Perry headed overseas in spite of the first diagnosed cases of Ebola in the U.S. appearing in Texas. While this might have served as a valuable distraction from Wendy Davis's falling poll numbers, Perry's decision to maintain his international schedule is shaping up to put him ahead of the growing pack of candidates expected to seek the Republican presidential nomination. Even David Frum at The Atlantic has been forced to admit that Perry is building momentum both for his own campaign, and for America's foundering international reputation. In his article, Frum compares Perry's speeches overseas with those given during Obama's now-infamous "apology tour"---and emphasizes the crucial difference between the two statesmen:
Like Obama, Perry acknowledged faults and flaws in American democracy and European history. But he seemed to have Obama’s ‘fault on both sides’ argument very much in mind when he countered with these words: “The shortcomings of Western democracies, the systematic savagery of the enemy—to a certain way of thinking, it all gets mixed up as one: ‘They’ve got bad guys over there, we’ve got a few of our own—what’s the difference?’” Perry’s London speech focused on the threat from ISIS and the Middle East. In Warsaw, he would have spoken about another—nearer—challenge: from Vladimir Putin and a revanchist Russia. In his prepared, undelivered remarks, Perry paid due tribute to the fact that it is the president, not governors—not even Texas governors—who make America’s foreign policy. ... The list of Republican candidates for 2016 is long. Still, a Texas governor always belongs near the top of that list given the state’s lode of electoral votes and deep-pocketed donors.
You should really read the entire article; it's extraordinarily gracious considering Perry's history on the national stage. Conventional knowledge tells us that foreign policy is traditionally not the platform plank that gets voters to the polls; but that's not to say that Perry can't use the current crisis to his advantage.

Posted by Amy Miller on October 20, 2014 37 Comments
We're less than 6 hours into the first day of early voting in Texas, and we've already documented evidence of first (electoral) blood between gubernatorial candidates Greg Abbott and Wendy Davis. Behold: These tweets source back to Abbott's recent interview with the San Antonio Express-News editorial board, in which he brushed aside questions regarding a hypothetical (and highly unconstitutional) scenario regarding a ban on interracial marriage (click through to Salon if you hit a paywall):
In an interview with San Antonio Express-News editorial board, flagged by Talking Points Memo, Abbott, who is married to a Latina, objected to answering the “hypothetical” question. “Right now, if there was a ban on interracial marriage, that’s already been ruled unconstitutional,” he told the paper. “And all I can do is deal with the issues that are before me … The job of an attorney general is to represent and defend in court the laws of their client, which is the state Legislature, unless and until a court strikes it down.” Challenged on the vagueness of his answer, Abbott continued to evade the question. “Actually, the reason why you’re uncertain about it is because I didn’t answer the question. And I can’t go back and answer some hypothetical question like that,” Abbott said.
He didn't "evade" their "gotcha" question; he stated that the ban would be unconstitutional and moved on. But even if we allow ourselves to assume that there is indeed some sort of secret Greg Abbott Interracial Marriage Ban Conspiracy brewing at campaign headquarters, there's still a bit of a problem with Davis's allegations:

Posted by Amy Miller on October 20, 2014 16 Comments
At the beginning of this year, Professor Jacobson wrote an article claiming that "the most dangerous years of the Obama presidency are upon us." If the latest reports about the President's next solo move in the area of foreign policy are trustworthy, then no truer article was ever written about the Obama Administration. We've already seen President Obama take it upon himself to threaten executive action on issues like immigration and the elusive closing of U.S. detainment facilities at Guantanamo Bay. We know he wields his executive authority like a sword, and we also know he's more likely than not to start apologizing on behalf of the American people the moment we turn him loose on foreign delegations. If President Obama stays true to form, discussions about the continuation of Iran's nuclear program are about to get very, very tense. From the New York Times:
No one knows if the Obama administration will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iran that would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it.

Posted by Amy Miller on October 20, 2014 21 Comments
We've reported several times on Democratic candidates' unwillingness to be associated with Obama's failed Administration, but things just got a little bit more embarrassing for the President and his supporters. At yesterday's GOTV rally for Maryland gubernatorial candidate Anthony Brown, Democrat supporters who had waited hours for the chance to see the President speak reportedly walked out once Obama began his remarks. Reuters reports:
President Barack Obama made a rare appearance on the campaign trail on Sunday with a rally to support the Democratic candidate for governor in Maryland, but early departures of crowd members while he spoke underscored his continuing unpopularity. ... "You've got to vote," Obama repeated over and over at a rally for Brown in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, near Washington. Democrats have a history of not turning up to vote in midterm elections. "There are no excuses. The future is up to us," Obama said. A steady stream of people walked out of the auditorium while he spoke, however, and a heckler interrupted his remarks.
Reuters and Politico both filed stories about the walkout, and soon after those reports hit Twitter, Maryland Democrats furiously attempted to spin the stories in their favor. Jeff Quinton over at The Quinton Report did a great job curating the panicked tweets of Maryland Democratic Party representative Yvette Lewis. (I've republished a few here, but you really should click through for the full meltdown.)

Posted by Amy Miller on October 19, 2014 37 Comments
Salon.com said This may be the worst race-baiting campaign ad since Willie Horton. Greg Sargent at WaPo announced Willie Horton is back!. The freaking out was over an NRCC-sponsored ad linking Rep. Lee Terry's (R-Neb.) Democratic opponent to convicted murderer Nikko Jenkins, who also happens to be African American. The ad attacks state Sen. Brad Ashford over his support for the state's "good time" laws, and blames those laws for Jenkins' early release. It doesn't mention Jenkins' race. Here's the ad: Here's the original Willie Horton Ad:
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH