Image 01 Image 03

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

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

Several of most prominent promoters of the American Studies Association academic boycott of Israel attended a bizarre "redwashing" panel discussion in Beirut, at which they tried to delegitimize the Jewish people's indigenous history in Israel and connection to other indigenous peoples. I'll have much more on that insidious conference in another post, but for now you can read the posts by Jeffrey Goldberg and Prof. Jonathan Marks. These academic boycotters gave an interview to The Daily Star of Lebanon that is very revealing. They played upon classic anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish money controlling the press in trying to minimize the overwhelming rejection of the academic boycott throughout most of academia. ASA scholars stand firm by Israel boycott (emphasis added):
Since then, the organization has been forced to defend itself from a barrage of highly vocal critics who have accused the ASA of everything from anti-Semitism to threatening academic freedom. At the conference this week, however, many ASA members reiterated their strong support for the motion. “The boycott is also about the vision of a right to education for people; it’s about a right to democratic participation of all people and it’s about the right to land,” said Alex Lubin, a professor at AUB [American University in Beirut, on leave from University of New Mexico] and ASA member. Despite efforts to publish op-ed pieces explaining the ASA’s position, Lubin said the organization had “effectively been blocked out of [the] U.S. press.” The reason, he said, was “donor dollars that come to them [the publications] from the Israel lobby.” Lubin also said many Americans took issue with the comparison between the treatment of Palestinians and Native Americans.

LATEST NEWS

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will hold a press conference this morning at 11:00am, where he is expected to comment on the Bridgegate controversy. You can watch the press conference opening statement below. (Full transcript here) https://twitter.com/jeffzeleny/status/421339032480514049 https://twitter.com/DrewMTips/status/421339226320277504 https://twitter.com/larryelder/status/421327394897551360

Call it the political equivalent of the "Polar Vortex". As we enter Day 244 of the Internal Revenue Service scandal of suppressing conservative groups by the unfair application of tax-exempt status rules, there is a development that is chilling the hearts of citizen activists everywhere. The IRS is planning to codify its tactics into truly heavy-handed regulations. Matt Kibbe of Freedom Works explains:
“While you were all celebrating Thanksgiving with family and friends, the Obama Administration was quietly releasing a new set of draconian IRS regulations that would make it virtually impossible for tea parties that want to participate in the political process to do their business. They’re going after conservative groups, they’re going after libertarian groups, and they’re going after citizen groups that want to organize people based on the values of the constitution; based on the ideas of freedom and have an impact on the political conversation.”
In a nutshell, the agency will be using one of the administration's favorite tactics: Redefining terms. There would be favorable rulings for groups promoting "social welfare."

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie issued a statement late Wednesday in response to the reports that a top staffer from his office and others were involved in controversial NJ lane closures at the George Washington Bridge. In his statement Wednesday, Christie said he was misled by a member of his staff and called the conduct “completely inappropriate and unsanctioned.” From News 12 New Jersey:
“What I've seen today for the first time is unacceptable. I am outraged and deeply saddened to learn that not only was I misled by a member of my staff, but this completely inappropriate and unsanctioned conduct was made without my knowledge. One thing is clear: this type of behavior is unacceptable and I will not tolerate it because the people of New Jersey deserve better. This behavior is not representative of me or my Administration in any way, and people will be held responsible for their actions.”

[Image: Republican David Rouzer] Long time readers of Legal Insurrection may recall our support in 2012 of conservative candidate for North Carolina’s 7th Congressional District, David Rouzer. Rouzer, a former state Senator, challenged the 16 year incumbent, Mike McIntyre, and nearly unseated the Congressman in dramatic fashion, narrowly falling to McIntyre by 655 votes in an election that saw more than 330,000 ballots cast. In April of last year, Rouzer officially announced that he would again challenge McIntyre in the 2014 midterm elections, laying the groundwork for what promised to be another hotly contested race. Earlier today, however, McIntyre announced his retirement from the U.S. House of Representatives. Rouzer issued a statement this afternoon responding to the news.
I have genuine respect and appreciation for the work Congressman Mike McIntyre and his staff have done to help countless individuals across Southeastern North Carolina.  He has been a tireless advocate for the local needs of the district during his time in office, and I personally appreciate his strong devotion to the Christian Faith.  After falling just a handful of votes short in 2012, it is with great optimism that my supporters and I continue our mission to bring conservative leadership to Southeastern North Carolina.  I will work hard to find long-term solutions to the significant challenges facing our coastal, business and farm communities as well as our Veterans.
Who the Democrats put forward as a candidate to replace McIntyre remains to be seen, but they can be sure they’ll be facing a tough opponent in Rouzer, assuming he successfully wins the primary again.

Few among us will soon forget the “eccentric” jurisprudence demonstrated by Judge Debra Nelson during the George Zimmerman trial. I am pleased to discover that, to the good fortune of legal bloggers everywhere, Florida apparently has a surfeit of such judges. You ask for a similarly “eccentric” Florida judge in another Florida self-defense case? I give you Judge Russell Healey in the upcoming Michael Dunn trial. Interestingly, it seems the Sunshine took several swings at the ball before seating Judge Healey to try this case, a pattern also reminiscent of the multiple judges rotated through the early days of the Zimmerman trial. The first judge assigned to the Dunn case, Judge Suzanne Bass, recused herself in May 2013 in response to a defense motion claiming several of her rulings against the defense revealed bias. You can view the defense motion for recusal by clicking here. The second judge assigned, Judge Mallory Cooper, recused herself after only 5 weeks on the case, for reasons not made clear. Judge Healey is thus the third judge—so far—to preside over the Dunn trial. [caption id="attachment_75374" align="alignnone" width="450"]Judge Russell Healey, overseeing trial of Michael Dunn Judge Russell Healey, overseeing trial of Michael Dunn[/caption] Before we get into some of Judge Healey’s more interesting jurisprudence, it may be useful to quickly summarize the case. Michael Dunn is charged with first-degree murder in the death of Jordan Davis, a 17-year-old high school student.

The President of Middlebury College issued one of the most stinging rebukes to the American Studies Association anti-Israel academic boycott: “the vote is a sad reflection of an extreme and hateful ideology of some members of the academy …. I urge others in the academic community to condemn the ASA boycott and reaffirm their support for academic freedom.” Now the American Studies Program at Middlebury College has followed suit by issuing an Open Letter to ASA's President and Executive Committee. (H/t Inside Higher Ed) The Middlebury professors made one of the points I made in the challenge to ASA's tax-exempt status, that the ASA mission as expressed in its Constitution does not include the anti-Isrel political activism which now dominates ASA.  The Open Letter reads, in part (emphasis added):
Below is an open letter to the President and Executive Committee of the American Studies Association. Though written by faculty at Middlebury College, we hope that many other institutional members of the ASA, American Studies programs, individual members, and present and former officers of the organization will support the letter’s call for discussion of the ASA’s mission statement.... To the President and Executive Committee of the American Studies Association: .... The American Studies Program at Middlebury does not support, and will not honor, the American Studies Association’s resolution to boycott academic institutions in Israel.... Beyond our concerns about the merits of academic boycotts in general (and this one in particular), we are concerned that the ASA resolution is inconsistent with the stated mission of the organization. The ASA seems to be neglecting, or at the very least interpreting in a particularly tendentious way, the language of its own constitution. Effectively a mission statement, Article I, Section 2 of the ASA constitution reads:
Sec. 2. The object of the association shall be the promotion of the study of American culture through the encouragement of research, teaching, publication, the strengthening of relations among persons and institutions in this country and abroad devoted to such studies, and the broadening of knowledge among the general public about American culture in all its diversity and complexity.

Expect former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to quickly be turned from hero of the Democratic Party for being a Republican willing to work for Barack Obama, into just more trailer trash because of his tell-all book about that service which reinforces an accurate meme about Hillary Clinton: She has no core, and will say anything to win. From Chris Cillizza at WaPo, How Bob Gates’s memoir could haunt Hillary in 2016:
In a new memoir of his time as secretary of defense in the Obama administration, Gates writes: “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.” Oomph. Just to jog your memory, Clinton announced that she opposed the Iraq surge being pushed by President George W. Bush in the days leading up to the announcement of her presidential bid. She instead proposed a freeze in troop levels in the country and advocated for a troop increase in Afghanistan.... At one level, Gates's allegation is not at all surprising. Politicians factor in politics when making decisions? Gasp! .... But, remember this is Hillary Clinton we are talking about. And, the criticism that has always haunted her is that everything she does is infused with politics -- that there is no core set of beliefs within her but rather just political calculation massed upon political calculation. Remember that she began slipping in the 2008 Democratic primary when her opponents seized on an overly political answer on giving drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants during a debate in late 2007.

At the end of October the New York Times hailed President Obama's foreign policy as "pragmatic," while largely ignoring the consequences. The two month old article was written by the White House reporter, but a recent article written from Beirut, Power Vacuum in Middle East Lifts Militants paints a somewhat less flattering picture of the administration's foreign policy.
For the first time since the American troop withdrawal of 2011, fighters from a Qaeda affiliate have recaptured Iraqi territory. In the past few days they have seized parts of the two biggest cities in Anbar Province, where the government, which the fighters revile as a tool of Shiite Iran, struggles to maintain a semblance of authority. Lebanon has seen two deadly car bombs, including one that killed a senior political figure and American ally.

George Mason University apparently has an active anti-Israel group.  It has proclaimed the achievement of boycotting Israeli hummus, and staged a walkout on a commencement speaker with close ties to Israel. The propaganda-named Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) now is playing the race card against GMU's President, who tweeted his opposition to the academic boycott of Israel: https://twitter.com/CabreraAngel/statuses/420266494463717376 https://twitter.com/CabreraAngel/statuses/420311957200060416 There's no racism in those tweets. Except that the SAIA say that the reference to "blowing up" relationships is a racist referral to all Palestinians as bombers, GMU President Cabrera’s Racist Tweet Opposing Academic Boycott:
His line that “Universities exist to build bridges of understanding, not to blow them up” insinuates that being in solidarity with Palestinians is on par with terrorism. Not only is this metaphor racist and distasteful, but it was also irresponsible. Supporters of the academic boycott are endangered when their activity is distorted through fear mongering. Cabrera’s use of damaging language is a blatant response to the support GMU SAIA received from faculty as a result of the NO HONOR IN APARTHEID campaign. His response is only a small part of the national “McCarthyite” campaign to destroy the positive learning environments student organizations have created regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on campuses. While academic integrity is often cited as a value of the administration, Cabrera’s rhetoric serves to limit discussion, exploration, and academic freedom around critical issues. While President Cabrera’s support for Israeli apartheid is no secret, his allegiance, to the best of our knowledge, is linked to position and profits.
Why does the anti-Israel group assume that referring to blowing up relations among universities is a reference to Palestinians blowing themselves up in cafes, buses, pizza shops and Passover Sedars?

The War on Women is the never-ending Democratic Party strategy. But this one is over-the-top even for that War. Via Newsbusters: In an outrageous ad aired on the local Washington D.C. NBC affiliate WRC-4, Virginia Democratic state senate candidate Jennifer Wexton – running to replace newly elected Virginia...

Most universities which were listed as Institutional Members of the American Studies Association have left it up to particular departments which took out the membership to decide whether to continue. Of the 83 Institutional Members listed by ASA, at least 11 deny being members, as detailed...

US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois yesterday handed down a stinging defeat to the City of Chicago, and it's mayor Rahm Emanuel. Despite clear Constitutional direction derived from D.C. v. Heller, and McDonald v. Chicago, the city of Chicago had insisted it possessed the power of law to deny almost all otherwise lawful purchases and transfers of guns in the city. Federal District Court Judge Edmond E. Chang, however, disagreed:
Three Chicago residents and an association of Illinois firearms dealers brought this suit against the City of Chicago (Mayor Rahm Emanuel is sued in his official capacity, which is the same as suing the City), challenging the constitutionality of City ordinances that ban virtually all sales and transfers of firearms inside the City’s limits.1 R. 80, Second Am. Compl. The ban covers federally licensed firearms dealers; even validly licensed dealers cannot sell firearms in Chicago. The ban covers gifts amongst family members; only through inheritance can someone transfer a firearm to a family member. Chicago does all this in the name of reducing gun violence. That is one of the fundamental duties of government: to protect its citizens. The stark reality facing the City each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun. But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment. This right must also include the right to acquire a firearm, although that acquisition right is far from absolute: there are many long-standing restrictions on who may acquire firearms (for examples, felons and the mentally ill have long been banned) and there are many restrictions on the sales of arms (forexample, licensing requirements for commercial sales). But Chicago’s ordinance goestoo far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms, and at the same time the evidence does not support that the complete ban sufficiently furthers the purposes that the ordinance tries to serve. For the specific reasons explained later in this opinion, the ordinances are declared unconstitutional.

Well, Marissa Alexander simply can't bring her self to abide by the orders of a court, according to a story from First Coast News (FCN), Florida. The last time she was out on bail, and under a restraining order to stay away from her estranged husband,...

When the National Council of the American Studies Association endorsed the academic boycott of Israel in early December, and put the boycott Resolution to a quick membership vote, I wondered how the ASA National Council could do such a thing not just on the merits, but because the boycott put ASA's tax-exempt status at risk. I stated my intention of filing a challenge to that tax-exempt status should the Resolution pass and the academic boycott go into effect. The ASA membership approved the boycott Resolution with less than a quarter of the total membership voting for it (there was such low turnout, that was enough). The reaction to ASA's boycott has been overwhelmingly negative.  At least 125 universities and leading academic organizations have spoken out against the boycott and issued strong statements as to the damage to higher education such boycotts inflict. Earlier today my attorneys filed with the IRS a whistleblower complaint challenging ASA's 501(c)(3) tax exempt status in light of the academic boycott. The Complaint without Exhibits is embedded below. The Complaint with Exhibits is available here. Here is the Introduction, which summarizes the reasons why ASA no longer is organized and operating exclusively in accordance with its educational exempt purpose, and no longer is entitled to its 501(c)(3) status under the IRS Code and Regulations.