Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

January 2015

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 06, 2015 15 Comments
One chapter in the saga of Stanley Cohen has closed, another started. Cohen was to report today to prison to begin serving his 18 month sentence, the result of a plea bargain, for concealing and failing to report large cash transactions and failing to file income tax returns for several years. Cohen pledged during his criminal case that he would rather serve 18 months than dine with a Zionist. Twitter - @StanleyCohenLaw - Rather serve 18 mos than dine with Zionist Cohen left for prison with his supporters singing the tune that he was a political prisoner.  Cohen still sees himself that way as well, with the last tweet from his Twitter account, as of this writing, showing him sharing the claim that he's a political prisoner: https://twitter.com/mayasdreams/status/552325601328373760 On January 5, 2015, Cohen issued a statement via Twitter, ending with these words:
Pray for Palestine and Bless the Resistence. Up the Rebels everywhere. They cannot stop us.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on January 06, 2015 14 Comments
Californians are starting 2015 with a fresh round of new taxes, and the inauguration of Democrat Jerry Brown for an unprecedented fourth term as California's governor. As part of his inaugural address, Brown derided critics of the state's current economy, and conjured up a fantasy of balanced budgets and robust employment.
“We are at a crossroads,” Brown said in his inaugural address. “With big and important new programs now launched and the budget carefully balanced, the challenge is to build for the future, not steal from it, to live within our means and to keep California ever golden and creative, as our forebears have shown and our descendents would expect.”
However, the true fiscal picture for the Golden State is a little less dreamy:

Posted by Amy Miller on January 06, 2015 42 Comments
Last night Charles Krauthammer took the outgoing Congressional leadership to task over their legacy of obstructionism. Watch: Via the Daily Caller (emphasis mine):
”It sounds like Schumer is saying that, for the first time in living memory, we’re going to have amendments introduced in the U.S. Senate, which is a remarkable constitutional achievement and it’s because Harry Reid is gone. The grown-ups are now in control of the Congress. This idea that we should be using American oil in America is so idiotic, it’s almost unworthy of talking about. So what we’re going to do is we’re going to use the Canadian oil and if we export it, which we will because we have a surplus, we’re going to substitute gallon by gallon American oil, it makes no sense at all.” “Look, I think what’s really important here is that Republicans are going to have a chance to show how retroactively for the last six years everything has stopped in the Senate. Democrats stopped it, Harry Reid stopped it and they effectively acted as a shield to make Obama look as if he wasn’t the one stopping stuff. Well now he’s going to be exposed because he’s going to have to exercise the veto. Schumer and the others could prevent a few of the bills from landing on the president’s desk with these ridiculous amendments on Keystone, for example. But I think it will expose them. But the days of hiding under Harry Reid’s desk are over.”
This is important, and it's not a point that should be ignored by conservatives. Starting today, we'll be holding accountable not just a newly-minted leadership, but a President who now finds himself in the minority after six comfortable years of playing pen-and-phone politics.

Posted by Amy Miller on January 06, 2015 37 Comments
Here we go! The Washington Post has the updated whip count as of 10 this morning. They have also confirmed Reps. Amash and Webber as firm "nos," giving the anti-Boehner coalition 2 more votes toward an alternative candidate. Boehner is predicted to lose more votes than in his previous bid for speaker, but he also has more room for error:
As Politico reports, at least 12 House Democrats are skipping the speaker vote to attend former New York governor Mario Cuomo's (D) funeral. That increases the threshold for pushing Boehner to a second ballot to at least 35, making him even safer. That 35 number, we would emphasize, is a minimum. Boehner needs a majority, so if some members don't vote, Boehner's threshold for winning will be lower than the usual 218 votes — as it was in 2013, when it was 214 votes. So if some of these Boehner opponents vote for nobody — as Labrador and Mulvaney did in 2013 — that hurts Boehner less.
We'll be providing live updates and reactions to the vote, so stay tuned! You can watch a live stream of the House session here, via C-SPAN. UPDATES The live stream is up!

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 06, 2015 45 Comments
Alan Dershowitz, along with others including Prince Andrew of Britain, were accused in a court filing involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein of participating in forced sex with a 17-year old. The court filing was not criminal, and was not even under oath. It merely was a motion suing prosecutors for agreeing to a light sentence for Epstein, without any evidence accompanying the allegations. I'll let you in on a not-so-secret lawyer secret: When you want to smear someone without having to back it up, just put it in a court pleading. Statements made in court pleadings are absolutely privileged, meaning you can't be sued for them. If you make the statements out of court, for example in a press release, then you can be sued. If you make the statements under oath, you could be subject to criminal prosecution. But keep it in the court pleadings, and you likely are home free. Step two in the tactic is to make sure the media picks up on the court pleading, so that the smear gets out into the public domain while your hands are clean. In high profile or celebrity cases, local media typically will be alerted to new filings either from routine checks or a tip off from the clerk. If all else fails, the tactic may require a nod and a wink to local reporters by the lawyer. It is the perfect smear tactic, which leaves the target short on options. The target is not a party in the case, and has no right to clear his or her name in the court case. All that is left is public denials that the accusations are false, but that also helps to spread the accusations.

Posted by Jeffrey Herf on January 06, 2015 1 Comment
[WAJ Intro: University of Maryland Professor Jeffrey Herf helped lead the battle to defeat anti-Israel resolutions at the American Historical Association, as we wrote about on Sunday.  I asked him to submit this Guest Post to recount the events and strategies, in the hope they will inform others facing similar anti-Israel tactics.] --------------- By now readers of this blog probably know that by a vote of 144 to 51 with three abstentions, members of the American Historical Association, at their Business Meeting of annual meeting in New York City on January 4, 2015, decided not to pursue two resolutions that denounced aspects of the policies of the government of Israel. For readers of Legal Insurrection it is important to point out that the defeat of these resolutions was due to procedural issues that were also matters of substance. Details of the events are readily available in the reports by The New York Times, Inside Higher Education, Algemeiner and The Tablet . It is the most decisive defeat that groups supporting resolutions denouncing Israel have suffered since “BDS” (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) efforts gathered steam in American universities in recent years. This is a preliminary anatomy of its defeat.

Posted by David Gerstman on January 06, 2015 5 Comments
In an op-ed published in The New York Times on Monday, former American peace negotiator Dennis Ross wrote that it's time to hold the Palestinians responsible for turning down peace.
Since 2000, there have been three serious negotiations that culminated in offers to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Bill Clinton's parameters in 2000, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's offer in 2008, and Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts last year. In each case, a proposal on all the core issues was made to Palestinian leaders and the answer was either "no" or no response. They determined that the cost of saying "yes," or even of making a counteroffer that required concessions, was too high. Palestinian political culture is rooted in a narrative of injustice; its anticolonialist bent and its deep sense of grievance treats concessions to Israel as illegitimate. Compromise is portrayed as betrayal, and negotiations -- which are by definition about mutual concessions -- will inevitably force any Palestinian leader to challenge his people by making a politically costly decision. But going to the United Nations does no such thing. It puts pressure on Israel and requires nothing of the Palestinians. Resolutions are typically about what Israel must do and what Palestinians should get. If saying yes is costly and doing nothing isn't, why should we expect the Palestinians to change course?
Abbas, as Ross noted, torpedoed the American-sponsored peace process last year (just as former Israeli negotiator Tzipi Livni recently recounted) only to see political pressure brought to bear on Israel. Ross ends by asking, "But isn't it time to demand the equivalent from the Palestinians on two states for two peoples, and on Israeli security? Isn't it time to ask the Palestinians to respond to proposals and accept resolutions that address Israeli needs and not just their own?"

Posted by Amy Miller on January 05, 2015 25 Comments
During this past Saturday's services for fallen NYPD Officer Wenjian Liu, officers again turned their backs on New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio as he stood to speak. The silent protest did not please Mr. Mayor, and now he's speaking out against the officers who chose to pivot away from the stage and screens. Mediaite has video of De Blasio's remarks:
The mayor said he didn’t think it was appropriate, nor “the right and decent thing to do,” considering the back-turning takes away from the officers being honored and their mourning families:
“Those individuals who took certain actions this last week––or last two weeks, really––they were disrespectful to the families involved. That’s the bottom line. They were disrespectful to the families who had lost their loved one. And I can’t understand why anyone would do such a thing in a context like that.”
De Blasio added it was also disrespectful to the people of New York.
You can also watch here (embedded), via the Daily Mail:

Posted by Amy Miller on January 05, 2015 22 Comments
Tomorrow's vote for Speaker of the House will bring a welcome end to what has become our long national right-wing nightmare. According to reports from multiple sources, Boehner has drawn more fire this time around, and can expect to lose as many as 20 votes when the chamber finally votes.
“Washington is broken in part because our party’s leadership has strayed from its own principles of free market, limited government, constitutional conservatism,” new Rep. Dave Brat of Virginia wrote Sunday on the conservative website Breitbart.com. “While I like Speaker Boehner personally, he will not have my support for speaker,” added Brat, who shocked the GOP establishment by toppling then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a primary last year. Brat had once said he would back Boehner. “I want us to have [a] leader who is willing to stand up for conservative, religious principles I believe in,” North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones told a home-state newspaper Saturday, citing Florida Rep. Daniel Webster as a potential alternative. So far, Boehner’s two announced challengers are Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert and Florida Rep. Ted Yoho — both long-shot candidates at best. Gohmert said he would fight “amnesty tooth and nail,” while Yoho said Boehner is part of the “status quo.”
Big words from a small group of fighters, but it doesn't look like their efforts have drawn enough support from those who we expect to support Boehner. Here's what the vote breakdown looks like right now, courtesy of WaPo: Screen Shot 2015-01-05 at 6.01.38 PM The anti-Boehner coalition needs 29 votes to force a second ballot; they currently have 10.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on January 05, 2015 42 Comments
The fight to emasculate men rages on amongst our "feminist" friends. Lisa Bonos' editorial How to Find a Feminist Boyfriend is simply the latest example. For all the talk of equality and partnership, there's not one single mention of equality or partnership. True to form, the "feminist" definition of the aforementioned virtues translates into something along the lines of "this relationship is all about me and my insecurities as an individual, so either you're cool with that or this isn't going to work out, because feminism." That being said, Bonos' editorial provides a hilarious take on dating, albeit unintentionally. So how does one procure a feminist boyfriend? Apparently, to find this evasive diamond in the rough, one must adhere to a handful of principles, the first being to define what you want.
Is he a feminist if he proclaims, on a first date, that he could see himself taking his wife’s last name? (Maybe his own name is pretty generic.) If he insists on doing the dishes after you’ve cooked dinner together but proceeds to whip the dish towel at your ass, is that playful or objectifying? (Both.) Is he sexist if he cancels an Uber ride because a female driver is on her way to pick the two of you up? (Definitely.)
Let us pause and reflect upon the fact that whipping a dish towel is now considered objectifying behavior. But don't worry, it gets worse.

Posted by Amy Miller on January 05, 2015 29 Comments
Teachers in the San Francisco United School District are concerned about race. In an area where schools are almost 90% non-white, you'd expect that an emphasis on cultural diversity would happen by default, and that teachers wouldn't need the help of an institutionalized curriculum to get the job done. But in the wake of the Ferguson protests and rise of the "Black Lives Matter" movement, five teachers from the San Francisco area have teamed up to provide other educators with a guide to teaching about the Michael Brown shooting, the Ferguson protests, and race-based social justice movements. From the San Francisco Examiner:
Chalida Anusasananan, a teacher librarian at Everett Middle School who helped launch the resource guide, said both incidents and the subsequent protests have hit home with many public-school students in San Francisco, where nearly 90 percent are nonwhite. "We wanted to make sure that teachers had a means to teach what students were talking about with their families, or seeing on the news, or feeling every day," Anusasananan said. The resources, posted to the SFUSD's LibGuide page, includes the grand jury documents, poetry, videos and graphics, readings, and lesson plans and activities for elementary, middle and high school students. "What has to happen first and foremost is to create a safe space in the classroom for young people to talk about these things," said Karen Zapata, a humanities teacher at June Jordan High School and a co-founder of the grass-roots organization Teachers 4 Social Justice. "What's happened affects young people on an emotional level."
I took a look at the online curriculum provided by the five teachers, and it's pretty much what you'd expect to see. I took some screenshots: Screen Shot 2015-01-05 at 1.08.01 PM

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 05, 2015 35 Comments
For the last several weeks, we've been living in a sort of Twilight Zone episode where many people on the left including Obama and the media haven't realized how big the midterms were for Republicans. Until now. Reid Wilson of the Washington Post has just begun to notice:
Republicans in state governments plan juggernaut of conservative legislation Legislators in the 24 states where Republicans now hold total control plan to push a series of aggressive policy initiatives in the coming year aimed at limiting the power of the federal government and rekindling the culture wars. The unprecedented breadth of the Republican majority — the party now controls 31 governorships and 68 of 98 partisan legislative chambers — all but guarantees a new tide of conservative laws. Republicans plan to launch a fresh assault on the Common Core education standards, press abortion regulations, cut personal and corporate income taxes and take up dozens of measures challenging the power of labor unions and the Environmental Protection Agency. Before Election Day, the GOP controlled 59 partisan legislative chambers across the country. The increase to 68 gives Republicans six more chambers than their previous record in the modern era, set after special elections in 2011 and 2012. Republicans also reduced the number of states where Democrats control both the governor’s office and the legislatures from 13 to seven.
Was the election yesterday? Is this new information about how many Republicans won?

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on January 05, 2015 16 Comments
When he's not fighting with the teleprompter or holding rallies that summon Black Jesus, Al Sharpton stays pretty busy. But how does he make the big bucks? Isabel Vincent and Melissa Klein of the New York Post have the skinny:
Want to influence a casino bid? Polish your corporate image? Not be labeled a racist? Then you need to pay Al Sharpton. For more than a decade, corporations have shelled out thousands of dollars in donations and consulting fees to Sharpton’s National Action Network. What they get in return is the reverend’s supposed sway in the black community or, more often, his silence.
Even corporate behemoths like Sony Pictures aren't immune to the Sharpton shakedown:
Sony Pictures co-chair Amy Pascal met with the activist preacher after leaked e-mails showed her making racially charged comments about President Obama. Pascal was under siege after a suspected North Korean cyber attack pressured the studio to cancel its release of “The Interview,” which depicts the assassination of dictator Kim Jong-un. Pascal and her team were said to be “shaking in their boots” and “afraid of the Rev,” The Post reported. No payments to NAN have been announced, but Sharpton and Pascal agreed to form a “working group” to focus on racial bias in Hollywood. Sharpton notably did not publicly assert his support for Pascal after the meeting — what observers say seems like a typical Sharpton “shakedown” in the making. Pay him in cash or power, critics say, and you buy his support or silence. “Al Sharpton has enriched himself and NAN for years by threatening companies with bad publicity if they didn’t come to terms with him. Put simply, Sharpton specializes in shakedowns,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal & Policy Center, a Virginia-based watchdog group that has produced a book on Sharpton. And Sharpton, who now boasts a close relationship with Obama and Mayor de Blasio, is in a stronger negotiating position than ever. “Once Sharpton’s on board, he plays the race card all the way through,” said a source who has worked with the Harlem preacher. “He just keeps asking for more and more money.”
Sony is not the only corporation that landed in Sharpton's crosshairs. According to the NY Post, AEG, Plainfield Asset Management, Macy’s, Pfizer, General Motors, American Honda, and Chrysler have all "donated" to Sharpton's organization.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on January 04, 2015 13 Comments
Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi started 2015 with a bang. In a speech connected to the birthday celebrations for the Prophet Muhammad, Sisi said, "... we are in need of a religious revolution." Via Roger Simon of PJ Media is this clip from writer Raymond Ibrahim's translation of a New Year's Day speech:
I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible! That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world! Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible! I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now. All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective. I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.
Ibrahim adds this important caveat: "It is unclear if in the last instance of umma Sisi is referring to Egypt (“the nation”) or if he is using it in the pan-Islamic sense as he did initially to refer to the entire Islamic world."

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 04, 2015 4 Comments
At the American Historical Association annual meeting in New York City, an anti-Israel group called Historians Against the War sought to present two anti-Israel resolutions (here and here). Neither resolution called for a boycott of Israel, because they knew that would not pass (the AHA apparently is not controlled by anti-Israel radical activists, unlike the American Studies Association). So in a strategy we have seen at the Modern Language Association, a resolution condemning alleged Israeli offenses against Palestinian academic freedom was offered. (It failed at MLA, btw.) This is the stepping stone approach -- first get a resolution condemning, then later come back with a boycott resolution. The resolutions were factually inaccurate and engaged in unsubstantiated hyperbole. But the resolution sponsors missed the November 1 deadline for the resolutions to be considered at the business meeting. Only an affirmative vote at the business meeting could send the resolutions to a full membership vote. So the anti-Israel activists sought to have the business meeting rules suspended. That would require at least a 100 person quorum and a two-thirds vote. Based on the Twitter feed, it appears that the motion to suspend the rules met spirited opposition on a variety of grounds, including the lack of good grounds for missing the deadline, the importance of providing adequate time to fact check the resolution, and the merits of the ultimate resolution. The vote at the business meeting was taken just minutes ago.
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH