Image 01 Image 03

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

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

LATEST NEWS

That's the take away from today's press conference, which still is in progress as of this writing. So Democrats should run on it in 2014. https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/414123765698945024 https://twitter.com/AceofSpadesHQ/status/414127598596149248 https://twitter.com/charliespiering/status/414127354651213824 https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/414127417658470401...

Robert A. Brown, President of Boston University, will be issing a formal statement rejecting the Amercian Studies Association's anti-Israeli academic boycott.  The statement is not yet posted on BU's website, but was obtained by Legal Insurrection and confirmed with the President's office. President Brown, however, is deferring the decision on withdrawal of Institutional Membership to the American and New England Studies Department on grounds of the academic freedom of that department. Here is an email from President Brown to a Legal Insurrection reader announcing the statement and the membership deferral.  We confirmed with the President's office the authenticity of the email:
Thank you for your email expressing your concern about the recent vote of the American Studies Association (ASA) to boycott Israeli universities. Please see below my formal statement about this unfortunate action by the ASA.
I am disappointed and concerned that the American Studies Association, invoking the principle of academic freedom, would vote to boycott Israeli academic institutions. Research, teaching, and scholarship flourish through robust exchange of ideas, across borders and among institutions in different parts of the world. Universities and their faculties can often transcend even profound political differences. It is ill-advised to make academic institutions the instrument with which to promote a political agenda by attempting to isolate students and scholars. Boston University cannot support this boycott.
I hope that there will be a serious discussion within our American and New England Studies Program which has an institutional membership in the ASA which, obviously, is funded by the University. This institutional membership does not come with a vote that is exercised by either the program or the University. The poll taken by the ASA represents the votes of individual members of the organization. We are not prepared to suggest (implicitly or explicitly) to faculty members who hold individual memberships (some of which are funded out of professional funds allocated to individual faculty members) how they should vote. That would lead us onto a slippery slope. I do hope the faculty in the American and New England Studies Program will consider whether or not continuing membership in the ASA will create the opportunity for a temperate and thoughtful reconsideration of the wisdom of the boycott.

We reported on some of the gruesome details and testimony at the trial of the killers of British soldier Lee Rigby on a street in London by machete and knife wielding Islamic radicals, Killer of British soldier Lee Rigby: “I am a soldier and this is war”. The evidence concluded last week, and this week the jury returned guilty verdicts. Via Fox News, 2 Muslim radicals -- 'soldiers of Allah' -- convicted in brutal murder of British soldier:
A jury on Thursday convicted two men who called themselves "soldiers of Allah" of murdering a British soldier who was run down with a car, stabbed to death and nearly decapitated in a brutal attack on a London street. The jury of eight women and four men deliberated for just 90 minutes before finding Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale guilty of murdering Fusilier Lee Rigby. They were acquitted of attempting to murder a police officer. Both men had pleaded not guilty to murder, though neither denied taking part in the May 22 attack. Neither defendant reacted as the jury foreman announced the verdicts. Adebolajo smiled and kissed a copy of the Quran as he was led down to the cells.
Lee Rigby Here is a video timeline of what happened that murderous day:

The Obama administration had a bright suggestion for their insurance companies (they do seem to belong to the governement, don't they?):
The Obama administration said Thursday it would allow millions of Americans whose insurance policies had been canceled to purchase bare-bones plans next year, in another 11th-hour tweak to the law likely to cause consternation among health insurers. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a group of six senators in a letter that people whose policies had been canceled because of new requirements under the Affordable Care Act would be allowed to purchase "catastrophic" plans. Those plans previously had been restricted under the new law to people under the age of 30 or those who qualified for a set of specific hardship exemptions.
Basically, this means they've expanded the definition of "hardship" to include "screwed by the Obamacare regulations." Come to think of it, that makes sense. In fact, though, it's even later than the eleventh hour. Many insurers are saying this move would amplify the chaos in an already chaotic situation. The Washington Post also reports:
The Obama administration on Thursday night significantly relaxed the rules of the federal health-care law for millions of consumers whose individual insurance policies have been canceled, saying they can buy bare-bones plans or entirely avoid a requirement that most Americans have health coverage. The surprise announcement, days before the Dec. 23 deadline for people to choose plans that will begin Jan. 1, triggered an immediate backlash from the health insurance industry and raised fairness questions about a law intended to promote affordable and comprehensive coverage on a widespread basis
I have a question for Obama, Sebelius, and the rest: if the individual policies cancelled were such terrible "junk," why are you allowing those who originally had them to purchase a type of policy you defined as "junk" in the first place? Might it be because catastrophic insurance can sometimes be a valid choice for people, and not "junk" at all?

A college student's documentary as part of a senior project highlights the impact of social media after Hurricane Sandy, and I think illustrates the role that such communications played in bringing people, community, and information together during a time of need. From Newsworks/Down the Shore blog:
A new documentary by a Rutgers University student focuses on the social media response to Superstorm Sandy. Elizabeth Herlihy, a senior journalism major, recently released "Sandy: A Social Media Storm," chronicling how individuals, media, elected officials, and small organizations leveraged social media to assist storm-ravaged shore communities. Herlihy, whose family lives at the shore, produced the documentary as part of the final requirement for her minor,  "Digital Communication, Information and Media." "Through this minor, I have been able to explore various forms of new media and study its expanding role in our digital society," she said.

Note: You may reprint this cartoon provided you link back to this source.  To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here. Branco’s page is Cartoonist A.F.Branco ...

The Obama administration and Obamacare has increased distructs of Big Government so much even a majority of Democrats view government as the greatest threat, via Gallup, Record High in U.S. Say Big Government Greatest Threat:
Seventy-two percent of Americans say big government is a greater threat to the U.S. in the future than is big business or big labor, a record high in the nearly 50-year history of this question. The prior high for big government was 65% in 1999 and 2000....
Gallup Big Govt Threat chart 12-2013

I've never watched Duck Dynasty. I don't know what it is other than from a cursory review of headlines. But the Duck Dynasty guy (whatever his name is) is suspended from his hit TV show because of these comments in an interview with GQ Magazine:
Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there’s no stopping them from rushing out. Like this one: “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.” ... What does repentance entail? Well, in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles. (He and Si take turns going on about why the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed outside courthouses.) He sees the popularity of Duck Dynasty as a small corrective to all that we have lost. “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.” What, in your mind, is sinful? “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
The attacks on him are focused on the claims that he compared homosexuality to beastiality.  Professor Althouse argues that that is not true:

Readers have been very good at posting contact information in the comment section at the Reader crowdsourcing project to fight American Studies Assoc anti-Israel boycott You also need to start sending emails to Presidents, Trustees and others who have a stake when a university lends its name and funds to an organization engaged in an academic boycott which would include boycotting the university's own joint programs and scholars. Even though membership decisions typically are made at the department level, where many of the Israel-haters rule, the decision has university-wide implications. The membership is in the university name and the boycott affects university programs and scholars beyond the American Studies department. Moreover, use of university funds to subsidize ASA is a university decision, and in the case of public universities, also involves the state. As of this writing, I still have not received a response to My email to President of UT-Austin regarding academic boycott of Israel. Here is the email I sent yesterday to the President of Princeton University, one of the Institutional Members of the American Studies Association and an institution that supports the ASA financially through covering costs of attending ASA meetings.
To: Christopher L. Eisgruber [[email protected]] CC: Martin A. Mbugna, Communications [[email protected]] Mary DeLorenzo, Asst. to the President [[email protected]] Dear President Eisgruber: Princeton University is an Institutional Member of the American Studies Association (ASA), contributing its good name and dues to the ASA, and also funding ASA indirectly through covering the cost of attending the ASA annual meeting. The ASA just adopted an academic boycott of Israel. The American Association of University Professors has rejected academic boycotts of Israel in general, and has rejected the ASA boycott specifically, on grounds of violation of academic freedom. The anti-Israel academic boycott also amounts to discrimination on the basis of national origin as Israeli academics will be subjected to verification procedures not applicable to academics from any other nation. The ASA boycott is pernicious because it includes boycott of programs run by Israeli academic institutions and encourages American academics to police compliance with the boycott. You can find an explantion in my prior post about the boycott.

The last time I wrote about the Catholic Church, the church had selected its new pope. And, as anticipated, the first pope from Latin America is shaking things up at the Vatican and around the world. However, I was a bit surprised that Pope Francis would so soon be engaged in an economics debate with Rush Limbaugh, triggered by the recently released 84-page "apostolic exhortation" Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel) that "attacked unfettered capitalism as a new tyranny" and seems to be a laundry-list of progressive dream programs. Gateway Pundit has a clip of Limbaugh's original comments and the papal response.
Today Pope Francis responded saying, “The Marxist ideology is wrong.” But, then he went on to attack free-market “trickle-down” economics. (Via Vatican Insider)
Some of the passages in the “Evangelii Gaudium” attracted the criticism of ultraconservatives in the USA. As a Pope, what does it feel like to be called a “Marxist”? “The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.”
Here's the point I want to make:

Eugene Kontorovich wrote an important essay for Commentary, Israel, Palestine, and Democracy. Here are three critical paragraphs from the middle of the essay:
The Palestinians have developed an independent, self-regulating government that controls their lives as well as their foreign policy. Indeed, they have accumulated all the trappings of independence and have recently been recognized as an independent state by the United Nations. They have diplomatic relations with almost as many nations as Israel does. They have their own security forces, central bank, top-level Internet domain name, and a foreign policy entirely uncontrolled by Israel. The Palestinians govern themselves. To anticipate the inevitable comparison, this is not an Israeli-puppet “Bantustan.” From their educational curriculum to their television content to their terrorist pensions, they implement their own policies by their own lights without any subservience to Israel. They pass their own legislation, such as the measure prohibiting real estate transactions with Jews on pain of death. If Israel truly “ruled over” the Palestinians, all these features of their lives would be quite different. Indeed, the Bantustans never won international recognition because they were puppets. “The State of Palestine” just got a nod from the General Assembly because it is not.

2014 may come down to which side makes the scarier videos. Chris Cillizza at The Washington Post says This is the ad every Democrat should be scared of in 2014. Aleister says This Is The Ad Every Republican Should Run In 2014. I say the response will be: War On Women! It worked before. Someone actually said this: "They do not want poor women to have joy" and "they want to sacrilize sperm":

Brandeis University becomes the second confirmed university to drop its Institutional Membership in the American Studies Association over the anti-Israel academic boycott. Earlier we reported that Penn State Harrisburg would be dropping its membership. The real key will be whether universities also will refuse to allow university funds to be used to subsidize attendance at ASA events, which is how ASA makes most of its revenue. Yair Rosenberg at Tablet Magazine reports:
Brandeis University has become the second institution to withdraw from the American Studies Association, following the organization’s decision to boycott Israel. “We view the recent vote by the membership to affirm an academic boycott of Israel as a politicization of the discipline and a rebuke to the kind of open inquiry that a scholarly association should foster,” Brandeis’s American Studies Department posted on their web site. “We remain committed to the discipline of American Studies but we can no longer support an organization that has rejected two of the core principles of American culture–freedom of association and expression.”
The Brandeis statement reads:

The White House is expected to release a task force report of recommended changes to National Security Agency surveillance policies this afternoon, earlier than initially planned. From CNN: An independent assessment of National Security Agency surveillance ordered by President Barack Obama following classified leaks by Edward Snowden...

A tourist in Australia was rescued after falling off a pier and into the Port Phillip Bay while she was browsing Facebook on her cell phone. From BBC:
A Taiwanese tourist had to be rescued after accidentally walking off a pier in the Australian city of Melbourne while checking her Facebook page. The woman tumbled from St Kilda's pier into Port Phillip Bay late on Monday night. Police were alerted to the incident by a witness and rescued her in a speedboat after about 20 minutes. The woman, who apologised, was taken to hospital for observation but police said she was fine. Senior Constable Dean Kelly of the water police said officers found her floating metres from the pier.
In an interview posted at The Age, Kelly described that he and the other officers arrived by boat and found the woman floating on her back in the water about 30 meters from the pier. ‘‘She wasn’t splashing around too much. She wasn’t in a panic even though she was in the water for probably 20 minutes,’’ Kelly said. He also indicated how police found out what had distracted the woman.
‘‘She had a mobile phone in one of her hands and when we brought her onboard one of the first things she did was apologise and say sorry,’’ Senior Constable Kelly said.