Leadership Fail: Maryland's Democratic Senate Leader Opposed Removing Statue of Notorious Judge from Dred Scott Case

Statue of Roger Taney at the Maryland State House

Maryland State Senate President Mike Miller

 It's 2017. And finally -- many years too late -- America is starting to purge itself of Confederate symbols and statues. This trend is now accelerating because of resurgent white-supremacist terrorism and a mad-man President who seems to endorse their world view. Truthfully, I can't believe any country would honor its traitors with statues and state songs. But hey, there are lots of things about America that I can't believe.

Here in Maryland, we've had our own racist statue. It's of Roger Taney; a Marylander who was the fifth Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Taney's statue -- until a few hours ago when it was removed -- sat regally on the grounds of the Maryland State House in Annapolis. What was Taney best known for? In 1857, he wrote the 7-2 decision in the famous Dred Scott case which upheld slavery and posited that black people could not be citizens of the United States. Legal scholars agree that this was one of the worst decisions in the entire history of the court. It was highly controversial at the time. And the enormous outrage over it was one factor that led to the Civil War a few years later. 

So Taney got his statue outside the state house in 1872. And you can imagine how offensive this was to African-Americans (and really anyone with a shred of decency). Over the years many politicians had tried to have it removed but were stymied by mysterious insider forces (translation: Maryland Senate President Mike Miller). Former State Delegate Jolene Ivey once awesomely quipped that the statue "sits like a turd in front of Maryland's State House" but she was powerless to remove it.

As part of Republican Governor Larry Hogan's attempts to distance himself from Trump's Basket Of Deplorables™ before his 2018 re-election, he cannily announced that he wants to remove Taney's statue. It required a majority vote by the four voting members of the Maryland State House Trust. The four members are Hogan, Miller, Speaker Mike Busch and Charles Edson who is the chairman of the trust's board. Apparently each of these four members also has veto power over decisions that are made regarding the State House. They voted via email last Wednesday and it was quietly removed in he pre-dawn hours his morning.

So how did the votes go? They voted remove Taney's statue 3-0 with one abstention. The abstention came from Mike Miller: 

"The fourth member of the panel, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, did not immediately cast a vote Wednesday evening. Miller has said he does not support removing the statue, but will not try to block its removal."

Say WHAT?!? The longstanding Democratic leader of the Maryland State Senate abstained while the Republican Governor voted to remove the statue of the racist? Are you kidding me?

No. Unfortunately, I'm not kidding you. In fact, Miller followed up his abstention with a full-on criticism of Hogan and support for keeping the statue where it is:

"In a letter to the governor, Miller defended Taney’s legacy and said the memorial should stay put to help educate people about the past."

Miller also made some noises about the process, but truthfully, that just seems like concern trolling.

Let me be clear about Miller's pro-Taney advocacy: It is a massive failure of leadership. We are at a point in time when White Supremacists are resurgent and have elected their man to the White House. Fights over similar statues are raging all across the country. And Trump has (of course) weighed in on the side of the racist statues. Democrats are supposed to be fighting against the racists, not on their side. Yet here in Maryland, we are stuck with Miller -- like many many times before -- carrying water for right-wingers.

Hey, Maryland Senators: It's long past time to show Mike Miller the door. He has got to go. Find your collective backbones and confront this man. If you do, you might just be the next President of the Maryland State Senate.

My Senator and Congressman Want To Jail Me for the Sake of Israel's Settlements

A couple of days ago, I was alerted to a truly astonishing bill that has been introduced in Congress. It's so ridiculous that you won't even believe it's real. When you find out it's being spearheaded by Maryland's senior US Senator and co-sponsored by the majority of our state's congressional delegation you will wonder if they have collectively lost their minds. 

The topic which has inspired bizarre and confounding behavior by our members of Congress is a familiar one: Palestinian Human Rights.

Senator Ben Cardin 

(D-LovesIsraeliSettlements)

Congressman John Delaney 

(D-WantsToBeGovernor?) 

The bill is the called "The Israel Anti-Boycott Act". It was introduced in the Senate by Ben Cardin (D-MD). There is an identical bill in the House. The bill does what it's name indicates. It makes peacefully boycotting Israeli products or companies a crime. Violations could land people in jail for up to 20 years. Not only would boycotting Israeli products/companies be a crime, but boycotting products from Israel's settlements in the Occupied West Bank could also earn someone 20 years in the slammer -- even though everyone knows these settlements are a gross violation of international law.

Can you believe it? Maryland's members of Congress -- most of the Democrats -- want to throw peaceful political activists in jail. And they want to do so in service of a foreign government which is violating international law. This is deeply authoritarian. It's an attack on the First Amendment. It is simply un-American and indecent. I would expect such a law from totalitarian states like China and Saudi Arabia, not from the US Congress. There are innumerable Marylanders who would be at risk of being jailed. As a vocal proponent of Palestinian human rights, I am one of them.

The bill has a huge bi-partisan list of sponsors. Here is Maryland's delegation position on the bill:

• Senator Ben Cardin (D): Original sponsor
• Senator Chris Van Hollen (D): Not a sponsor
• Congressman Anthony Brown (D-MD-04): Co-sponsor
• Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD-07): Not a sponsor
• Congressman John Delaney (D-MD-06): Co-sponsor
• Congressman Andy Harris (R-MD-01): Co-sponsor
• Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-MD-05): Co-sponsor
• Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD-08): Not a sponsor
• Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD-02): Co-sponsor
• Congressman John Sarbanes (D-MD-03): Co-sponsor

Seven out of ten of our members of Congress support this bill. Does this make sense to you? It doesn't make sense to me. And it doesn't make sense to many of their constituents either. Take a look at some their reactions from social media:

It's not just social media which is on fire about this bill. Liberal organizations are panning it and mainstream news sources are writing about this highly controversial bill as well:

• Glenn Greenwald blows the whistle on this bill in The Intercept
• The ACLU condemns the bill
• MoveOn.org opposes the bill
• ThinkProgress shames the bills sponsors
• The Washington Post runs an Op-Ed tearing into the bill.
• The Gothamist writes about the controversy
• Vice News rips the bill
• Even the right-wing National Review - not exactly a pro-Palestinian magazine - calls the bill "mind-bogglingly stupid"
• And many, many, many more...

It's time these 7 wayward Congress-members accept their mistake, renounce their support for this horrible bill, and go read the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I'm pasting it below for their benefit in case they've never seen it before:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Why are these Montgomery County Senators supporting Israel's illegal settlements?

The four Montgomery County Senators who co-sponsored the pro-Settlement bill.

From left: Cheryl Kagan, Brian Feldman, Craig Zucker & Rich Madaleno

Remember last December when the Obama Administration abstained from voting on United Nations
Security Council Resolution 2334 that said the Israeli settlements in the West Bank had "no legal validity"? Sure you do. Republicans had a massive freakout against President Obama for this completely reasonable position. They threatened to defund the UN and kick it out of America. They even passed a resolution in the US House (supported by most Democrats, sadly) condemning 2334.

Well that same fidelity to Israel's settlements has now filtered down to our local politics. Four Montgomery County state senators have just co-sponsored a bill (Senate Bill 739). Under the guise of opposing BDS (the movement to apply boycotts and sanctions to end the occupation of Palestine) these four senators have co-sponsored a noxious bill that is actually designed to insulate the illegal settlements from political pressure like UN Resolution 2334.

Map of Israeli-occupied West
Bank with illegal settlements
shown in black

SB 739 purports to oppose discrimination against Israelis. But actually, it has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with Israel's occupation and illegal settlements. You see, some companies opposed to the occupation don't do business in the West Bank settlements. For example McDonalds has restaurants in Haifa, Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities. But it doesn't open restaurants in any of the settlements. SB 739 says that any company (or person or church or other organization) that boycotts Israel or "Israeli controlled territories" (that means the settlements) should be blacklisted. Entities on that blacklist will be denied contracts with the State of Maryland and divested from our state pension fund. McDonald's could be blacklisted because it avoids the settlements.

The way this bill has been used in other states makes it's real intent very clear. In Illinois, where it passed, Governor Bruce Rauner is warning European companies that if they follow the UN Resolution, they might lose business with Illinois's government. Several companies that currently do business within Israel's pre-1967 internationally-recognized borders were blacklisted simply because they don't operate in the settlements. 

Creepy attempts by our politicians to kowtow to Israeli settlers are unfortunately pervasive in Maryland. Last month Jamie Raskin was doing it. Ben Cardin has been at it his entire career. But it really should raise some very serious eyebrows. Can you imagine any other foreigners enjoying this level of support for their violations of international law from our local elected officials? Just imagine if Ike Leggett came out in support Russia's annexation of Crimea. Or if Larry Hogan announced his support for China's aggressive actions in the South China Sea. Wouldn't we erupt in outrage and mockery? Of course we would. What Kagan, Feldman, Zucker and Madaleno are doing here is no less bizarre.

President Obama condemned Israel's illegal settlements. These four senators support them. Side with Obama, not with them.

<New Development> President Donald Trump just yesterday condemned Israel's settlements which goes to show just how far out on a limb these senators are.

Ask them to withdraw their support for the pro-settlements bill using the contact information below:

• Senator Cheryl Kagan (D-Rockville)
  • cheryl.kagan@senate.state.md.us
  • (410) 841-3134
• Senator Brian Feldman (D-Potomac)
  • brian.feldman@senate.state.md.us
  • (410) 841-3169
• Senator Craig Zucker (D-Olney)
  • craig.zucker@senate.state.md.us
  • (410) 841-3625
• Senator Rich Madaleno (D-Kensington)
  • richard.madaleno@senate.state.md.us
  • (410) 841-3137

New liberal Congressman Raskin sides with Trump and Republicans over Obama on illegal Israeli settlements

Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Progressive Except on Palestine)

Last Tuesday was the first day of the 115th Congress. Congressmembers and Senators who just won their elections were sworn in and took their seats. Here in Montgomery County, MD, liberal superstar State Senator Jamie Raskin became a Congressman.

On Thursday Jamie was asked to vote on House Resolution 11, a purely-symbolic resolution condemning the Obama administration for allowing the passage of United Nation Security Council Resolution 2334 which identified the illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied West Bank as a "flagrant violation" of international law and "having no legal validity".

Leading up to the vote on HR 11, many people were wondering how Jamie would vote on this resolution. He was a Constitutional Law professor at American University. He had positioned himself as possibly the most liberal member of the Maryland Legislature. He has been battling Republican and right-wing forces all his life. Meanwhile Trump, the Republican Party and some Democrats had been pulling out all the stops against Obama/Kerry calling UNSC 2334 "shameful" and a "betrayal of Israel" all the while pointedly refusing to acknowledge the harm these settlements cause to Palestinian lives. Surely Jamie would side with liberal supporters of human rights and international law over Trump and the Republicans? He's no supporter of the illegal Israel settlements, right?

Wrong! Although 76 Democrats stuck with Obama, Jamie joined the Republicans (and a majority of Democrats) in rebuking the administration by voting in favor of HR 11. The 76 included outspoken liberals like Nancy Pelosi, Keith Ellison, Raul Grijalva, Jan Schakowsky, Don Beyer and Pramila Jayapal.

All seven other Congressmen from Maryland also voted for HR11. But the two new Congressmen Jamie Raskin and Anthony Brown (from Prince Georges County) were the ones whose votes were most in question. Rep. John Delaney took the extra step of adding his name as a co-sponsor of the resolution, but that's not that much of a surprise since he had already expressed his hostility towards human rights for Arabs/Muslims with his craven vote against Syrian refugees.

So we have this weird situation where Raskin presents himself as a progressive innovator on all issues from gay rights to gun control to immigration reform yet he votes in favor of well-known violations of international law by a racist, right-wing Israeli government. What's going on here?? Why is Jamie to the right of Obama and many other Democrats on the issue of Israeli settlements?

Ladies and gentlemen, what is going on here is a textbook case of "Progressive Except on Palestine" (PEP). PEP is an archetype of someone who is liberal on every issue under the sun -- but takes hawkish right-wing positions against Palestinians. This archetype is especially common amongst Congressional Democrats. It's a testament to the power of the anti-Palestinian lobby (AIPAC, Christians United for Israel, Zionist Organization of America and others) and to the weakness of those who stand for Palestinian rights. This power imbalance is largely due to the importance of big campaign donations and to the anti-Arab/Palestinian racism widespread in American society but especially pronounced among conservatives.

Within the Democratic Party, however views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are rapidly shifting in favor of the Palestinians. And Jamie's vote has provoked a bit of a backlash amongst liberals (shown below). Let's hope these liberals can hold Jamie's feet to the fire and make sure he doesn't vote against human rights again in the future.