CONCEALED CARRY SAVES LIVES:  A man with a concealed carry permit in Utah shot and killed a man who was trying to carjack a woman outside a grocery store.  He shot only one round.  Now that police are being restrained by various political and legal forces, it’s good to know our neighbors can protect us.

BANNING POLITICAL SPEECH:  It has come to this.  New York City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority has voted to ban all political, religious and opinion ads. The reason?  An April 21 decision by federal district judge John Koeltl to enjoin the Transit Authority from refusing to run an ad sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) that said, “Hamas MTV:  Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah.”  Underneath this caption, the ad said, “That’s His Jihad, What’s Yours?” Here’s a copy of the ad:

The ad was designed to be anti-Hamas and pro-Israel.  A similar, crowd-sourced ad campaign by AFDI was characterized as “Islamorealism.”

The Transit Authority cited “security” concerns in its decision to reject the ad, but Judge Koeltl responded:

While the Court is sensitive to the MTA’s security concerns, the defendants have not presented any objective evidence that the Killing Jews advertisement would be likely to incite imminent violence. Indeed, as the defendants knew when considering whether to run the ad, substantially the same advertisement ran in San Francisco and Chicago in 2013 without incident. The advertisement qualifies as protected speech, and the defendants have restricted it based on its content without a compelling interest or a response narrowly tailored to achieving any such interest. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is granted.

In an oped for Breitbart, Pamela Geller, co-founder of AFDI writes:

This is a classic case of the powerful trumping the rights of the common man so as to protect their little club. The political and media elites only allow the public discourse to fall within a certain political spectrum. My ads drove them crazy because they fell outside of that spectrum; I was vaulting over their controls and bringing truths to the public that they didn’t want known. They had to move to shut me down.

I’m siding with Geller on this one.  The NYC Transit Authority is banning all political/religious/opinion ads in an attempt to prevent its rejection of AFDI’s ads from being characterized as a “content-based” restriction on free speech, which is presumptively unconstitutional.  And while it’s true that the Transit Authority has now banned all such ads– not just AFDI’s–it’s a sad day when government opts to shut down all speech merely because some of it may be offensive.  The ad was not the functional equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater; it was controversial because it defies the liberal/progressive worldview of Hamas and the Palestinian effort as virtuous, and Israel as an apartheid state.

Free speech isn’t worth much if government can ban it whenever it offends.  As the Supreme Court said in its 1971 decision, Cohen v. California:

The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. It is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity and in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests. To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance. These are, however, within established limits, in truth necessary side effects of the broader enduring values which the process of open debate permits us to achieve. That the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense not a sign of weakness but of strength.

NY Transit Authority’s action shows that, from the leftist perspective, Americans can’t handle potentially “offensive” speech by averting their eyes, but need to be paternalistically protected from being exposed to it at all.  We aren’t producing “a more capable citizenry” anymore; quite the contrary.  NY Transit Authority’s decision is a sign of societal decay and weakness, not strength.

ICE, ICE BABY:   Stop. Collaborate and listen:  Ice is back, and apparently, it isn’t at risk of disappearing, as Steven Hayward explains.  Okay, it’s a bad reference to Vanilla Ice, but the horrific, imminent doom-and-gloom melting of the Earth’s ice caps–which Al Gore predicted would disappear completely by 2013— are doing quite well, thank you very much.  Indeed, satellite images show the Arctic ice cap has grown and thickened 43-63% since 2012.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) website still claims that the ice caps are the “canary in the coal mine” and “harbinger of things to come” for global warming climate change.  Back in 2009, global warming climate change soothsayer James Hansen of NASA warned the globe that President Obama only “has four years to save the earth.”  Of course, Hansen’s wild exaggerations and data manipulation have been debunked, but this doesn’t stop the leftists, since we all know global warming climate change isn’t really about climate at all, but about wealth redistribution.

President Obama was just down here in South Florida, giving a speech in the Everglades on the hazards of global warming climate change, where he did his best Al Gore imitation:

This is not a problem for another generation.  Not anymore.  This is a problem now.  It has serious implications for the way we live right now.  Stronger storms.  Deeper droughts.  Longer wildfire seasons.  The world’s top climate scientists are warning that a changing climate already affects the air that our children are breathing.  The Surgeon General and I recently met with doctors and nurses and parents who see patients and kids grappling with the health impacts.  The Pentagon says that climate change poses an increasing set of risks to our national security.

Huh– that’s weird:  How come Obama and the Surgeon General are seeing “patients and kids grappling with the health impacts” from the “air that our children are breathing,” when the EPA’s own data indicates that U.S. air quality has improved markedly since 1980? And it seems odd to conclude that “our national security” is at risk due to global warming climate change, when the Obama Administration’s massive Clean Power Plan will cause severe electricity reliability problems, which could cause a major breakdown of law-and-order if coal-fired plants are shut down without first identifying adequate electricity generation alternatives to meet citizens’ needs.

It’s almost like Obama and the global warming climate change alarmists are making this stuff up or something.

VOTER FRAUD IS REAL:  There is growing evidence non-citizens are voting.  And of course this is precisely why leftists keep challenging voter ID laws, while simultaneously taking executive action to undermine existing immigration law and grant legal permission for illegals to remain in the country.  Since when is asking for ID discriminatory?  I think I’m going to sue my public library.  And maybe the police department, the next time they pull me over.

THE MORAL IMPERATIVE OF CAR CONTROL!:   Motor vehicle accidents killed 35,369 Americans in 2013.  So I’m sure the Democrats will be calling for “car control” soon.  Right?  We need to take these dangerous instruments out of peoples’ hands!  Too many people are dying because of cars!

The accidental discharge of guns, btw, was involved in only 505 deaths.  And of course there’s that pesky Second Amendment that impedes progressives’ gun-free nirvana.

OBAMALAW?:  Al Sharpton is calling for the creation of a national police force.  And it looks like President Obama is considering the option.  While the federal government undoubtedly lacks a “police power” and the concomitant authority to create a national police force, it does have a “spending power,” implied from the Constitution’s enumerated power to levy taxes, and the Supreme Court has upheld the imposition of “strings,” or conditions, on the receipt of federal funds.

In the March 2015 Interim Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing--a group created by Obama’s executive order in the wake of the Ferguson incident –certain recommendations foretell plans to provide federal funding for state and local police, the receipt of which would be dependent upon such police departments meeting requirements established by the federal government, such as:

1.8.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should create a Law Enforcement Diversity Initiative designed to help communities diversify law enforcement departments to reflect the demographics of the community.

1.8.2 ACTION ITEM: The department overseeing this initiative should help localities learn best practices for recruitment, training, and outreach to improve the diversity as well as the cultural and linguistic responsiveness of law enforcement agencies.

2.1 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should collaborate with community members to develop policies and strategies in communities and neighborhoods disproportionately affected by crime for deploying resources that aim to reduce crime by improving relationships, greater community engagement, and cooperation.

2.2  RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should have comprehensive policies on the use of force that include training, investigations, prosecutions, data collection, and information sharing. These policies must be clear, concise, and openly available for public inspection.

2.6 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should be encouraged to collect, maintain, and analyze demographic data on all detentions (stops, frisks, searches, summons, and arrests). This data should be disaggregated by school and non-school contacts.

7.1 RECOMMENDATION: The President should direct all federal law enforcement agencies to review the recommendations made by the Task Force on 21st Century Policing and, to the extent practicable, to adopt those that can be implemented at the federal level.

For recommendation 7.3, the COPS Office should consider taking actions including but not limited to the following:

Many of the report’s recommendations are probably good ideas, but the worrisome part is that the Report contemplates federal control of local police practices via conditions placed on the receipt of federal funds.  This would allow the federal government to effectively “takeover” local police practices–something the Constitution clearly would not allow the feds to do directly.

This is one to watch, folks– dangerous constitutional territory.  State and local government can easily be coerced into adopting federal policies by dangling juicy federal funds in front of them.

CHEATERS GONNA CHEAT:  Britain has informed a U.N. sanctions panel that Iran is attempting to procure illicit nuclear materials.  But hey, I’m sure they won’t cheat on us.

NEWS YOU CAN USE:  22 weird facts about animal sex.  If there’s reincarnation, I think I’d like to come back as a Bonobo.  Or maybe a whale.

6 BALTIMORE PD OFFICERS CHARGED WITH FREDDIE GRAY HOMICIDE:  Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced that Freddie Gray’s death was a homicide, and has filed second-degree murder and manslaughter charges against the six officers involved in Gray’s arrest and transportation.  Gray’s spinal and neck injuries are consistent with those of being involved in an automobile accident, and Gray was not belted during his transfer in the police van.  The van driver, officer Caesar Goodson, has been charged with second-degree murder on theory that he intentionally failed to secure Gray and then gave him a “rough ride” to throw Gray against the van’s walls.  All other officers have been charged with manslaughter for neglecting to provide medical attention to Mr. Gray.

The Baltimore Fraternal Order of Police has written a letter to Ms. Mosby, asking her to step aside and appoint an independent prosecutor, based on her conflicts of interest with Gray family attorney William Murphy, prosecutor’s connections with local media (who are likely to be witnesses in the case), and Ms. Mosby’s husband’s role as Baltimore City Councilman.

Strangely, in all of the media reports I’ve read thus far, I still cannot ascertain the race of any of the six officers charged.  I assume someone will report on this soon, though.  It would be interesting to know.

CLUSTER HIRING, BECAUSE DIVERSITY!:   When I read this report, paid for with over $3.4 million of your tax dollars, another word commonly paired with “cluster” came to mind.  The report, “Faculty Cluster Hiring for Diversity and Institutional Climate,” was produced by a coalition of urban universities and the Association of American Medical Colleges with an NIH grant.  The report is a cheerleading exercise for “cluster” hiring of minority faculty:

Yeah, right–they really want to foster an “inclusive” and “desirable” climate in universities, unless the faculty is conservative, in which case they will never be hired in the first place, much less “thrive.”  Just ask Teresa Wagner.

But of course the goal of “diversity” isn’t really diversity of thought and views (which one might foolishly think is important in higher education), but the antithesis of that–namely, hiring a “critical mass” of racial minorities, which liberals/progressives, in their infinite wisdom, believe will spout liberal/progressive views in the classroom.  It’s a horrible stereotype of racial minorities, of course, but liberals/progressives believe it with all their hearts, and it’s enforced mercilessly by attacking minorities who refuse to abide by it.  Just ask Clarence Thomas, U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), Dr. Ben Carson, Allen West, or Condoleezza Rice, or U.S. Rep. Nia Love (R-UT).   Because #diversity!

HOUSE NDAA REAUTHORIZATION ENCOURAGES DOD TO HIRE ILLEGALS IN U.S. MILITARY:  The House Armed Services Committee on Thursday passed the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), including an amendment offered by Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) that explicitly encourages the Secretary of Defense to hire illegal aliens granted amnesty by President Obama’s unilateral executive orders.

On Congressman Gallego’s website, he explains the purpose of his amendment as follows:

Our military needs the best soldiers, marines and airmen it can get.

We shouldn’t let our broken immigration system stand in the way of our military’s recruitment goals.

By statute, the Secretary can authorize the enlistment of non-citizens when it is “vital to the national interest.”  And enabling the best and brightest in our nation to serve in uniform, including DREAMers, is clearly “vital to the national interest.” 

Gallego’s amendment squeaked by on a 33-30 vote, with the support of 3 Republicans.  (The Committee has 36 Republicans and 27 Democrats).  The 3 Republican “yes” votes came from:  Frank LoBiodo (R-NJ); Mike Coffman (R-CO); and Chris Gibson (R-NY). 

But Gallego’s Armed Services Committee colleague Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), issued a press release Thursday slamming the amendment:

“It makes no sense to me that, at the same time the Army is downsizing and issuing pink slips to American soldiers serving in Afghanistan, there are Congressmen who help illegal aliens deprive American citizens of military service opportunities.

“It’s appalling that some members of the Republican conference, and frankly all members of the Democratic conference, place illegal immigrants on pedestals over American citizens, contrary to the needs andwishes of the American people.

“Illegal aliens are already taking jobs from and suppressing the wages of struggling American families in the private job market.  Now Democrats and wayward Republicans are similarly and actively undermining Americans’ opportunities to serve in the military.

“It is no wonder that, in the face of such economic hostility emanating from Washington, America’s youth are too often despondent and all-to-willing to express their dissatisfaction via arson, assaults, riots, and other forms of criminal conduct.”

Rep Brooks is right, and the his fellow Republicans– Reps. Coffman, LoBiondo and Gibson–ought to be ashamed.  The Democrats have been trying to get this language approved for years.  It is more than ironic that this language gets approved in a Republican-controlled committee, now that the Republicans have retaken control of Congress, in no small part because of Americans’ opposition to the President’s unconstitutional executive orders on immigration.

If you live in Rep. Coffman, LoBiondo or Gibson’s districts and oppose the Gallego amendment, give them a call:

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO):  202.225.7882

Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ):  (202) 225-6572

Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY):  (202) 225-5614

For national security reasons, the U.S. military should be restricted to U.S. citizens, and the invocation of this “vital national interest” must be rarely, if ever, invoked.  And I hardly think that, in an era of Obama-ordered military troop reductions and even pay cuts, there is any “vital national interest” that would require hiring illegal immigrants, no matter how sincere their desire to serve our country.  They can serve our country in other, honorable ways, such as working hard, paying taxes, going to school and being good, law-abiding neighbors.

TRIGGER WARNING:  MICROAGGRESSION AHEAD!:  So apparently liberals/progressives now need trigger warnings when other liberals/progressives try to educate the rest of us about our #whiteprivilege.   The Asian American Students’ Association at Brandeis University was–get this–forced to apologize for a display of common microaggressions directed at Asian Americans.  The display was so disturbing to the delicate flowers on campus that they were forced to apologize:

[W]e would like to acknowledge and apologize to the Asian students on campus who were triggered or hurt by the content of the microaggressions in our installation. We understand and empathize with the effects that this installation could have without the context of the explanation provided on our Tumblr. As a response to student concerns, we installed a condensed physical explanation of our mission statement today at the Rabb steps. We want to reinforce that this installation is a commentary on how these insults build up together to create a campus environment that does not welcome Asian students.

As Asian students, we had no intention of mocking or harming our own community and ourselves. We acknowledge the disconnect between intention and effect.

This is deliciously ironic:  In their attempt to educate the world about how to avoid offending their hyper-sensitive feelings, liberals/progressives are offending hyper-sensitive liberals/progressives.  Classic, entertaining idiocy–like a dog chasing its own tail.

Brandeis, btw, is a $60,000+ per year college, and a bastion of progressive thinking, best known for a “tolerant” and “open-minded” environment in which students and faculty successfully convinced the school’s administration to revoke its invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an advocate for women and girls’ rights, to give a commencement speech, on grounds that she is “Islamophobic.”

Spoiled, intolerant, ignorant brats.

BECAUSE IT’S ALL HE KNOWS HOW TO DO:  Obama says he wants to return to community organizing after his presidency ends. And it can’t end soon enough.  Too bad we can’t just buy out his contract or something.

HILLARY CLINTON: CONGENITAL RULE-BREAKER:  Ron Fournier over at National Journal excoriates Hillary for her history of being above the law.   Fourier’s opening salvo:

Hillary Clinton doesn’t play by the rules.

That’s not a partisan attack. It’s not a talking point. It’s not a fantasy. It’s a fact—an agonizing truth to people like me who admire Clinton and her husband, who remember how Bill Clinton rose from a backwater governorship to the presidency on a simple promise: He would fight for people who “work hard and play by the rules.”

The evidence is overwhelming and metastasizing: To co-opt a William Safire line, Hillary Clinton is a congenital rule-breaker.

Ouch.  Read the whole thing.

TEXAS TO MONITOR US MILITARY EXERCISE:  Governor Greg Abbott announced that he has ordered the Texas State Guard to monitor U.S. military as it conducts an upcoming two-month, 1,200 troop training exercise in the State.  Abbott ordered monitoring to assuage concerns of Texans that the exercise will provide a platform for U.S. military occupation of,  and imposition of martial law on, Texas.  Abbott explained in a letter to the Commander of the Texas State Guard, Major General Jake Betty:

“During the training operation, it is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed.  By monitoring the Operation on a continual basis, the State Guard will facilitate communications between my office and the commanders of the Operation to ensure that adequate measures are in place to protect Texans.”

This is why I love Texans.  And kudos to Abbott for doing what he thinks is right, knowing the onslaught of mainstream media criticism to come.  A healthy dose of suspicion is warranted, especially with this Administration.

ARE ELECTED JUDGES POLITICIANS?:  According to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision yesterday in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, the answer is “no.”  The Court’s 5-4 split is itself worth noting:  Chief Justice John Roberts– in a classic move he made in the case upholding Obamacare, NFIB v. Sebelius–joined the Court’s four liberal Justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor) and wrote the majority opinion.  Eight Justices (all of them except Ginsburg) agreed that a Florida ban on judges soliciting campaign contributions was a presumptively unconstitutional violation of free speech under the First Amendment and subject to “strict scrutiny.”

Roberts’ majority concluded that banning judges’ solicitation of campaign contributions survived strict scrutiny because it furthered the compelling government interest in protecting judicial integrity and the public’s confidence therein, and was narrowly tailored to serve that interest. This integrity is essential, said the Roberts’ majority, because “judges are not politicians,” even when they are elected, and the public needs to have confidence that judges will decide cases impartially, without regard to who has given contributions to them.

But is this really true?  Judges in 39 states are elected in some manner.  In 30 of these states, elected judges are banned from soliciting direct campaign contributions.  In the Williams-Yulee case, for example, Ms. Williams-Yulee (who ran for a county court in Florida, but lost) sent out a mass mailing to potential supporters, signed it, and then posted the same letter on her website.  This triggered disciplinary proceedings by the Florida Bar, which resulted in her reprimand and payment of court costs of almost $2,000, which was affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court.

When we elect our judges, do we really think they aren’t politicians?  What is a “politician,” if not someone who is elected (and hence, politically accountable) to the people via elections?  I’m sure we all agree that judges (elected or not) should be impartial, and apply the law rather than make it up themselves.  But that aside, if we choose to elect our state judges (federal judges are constitutionally required to be appointed for life), doesn’t that mean that they are politicians, and that we want them to be politically accountable to us for their behavior while on the bench?

If elected judges are “politicians” in this sense, then why shouldn’t they have a robust First Amendment right to ask for campaign money, the same as elected members of the executive and legislative branches?  Indeed, under most states’ judicial solicitation bans, judges cannot even ask for campaign contributions from their own family members, though they can set up “campaign committees” that issue contribution solicitations indirectly.  They can even write personal “thank you” notes when such committees receive contributions.  As Adam Liptak observed in his New York Times summary, “Under Wednesday’s ruling, then, judicial candidates can say thank you, but they may not say please.”

Moreover, in most states, judicial candidates and judges can ask lawyers for other benefits, such as tickets to a football game, but they cannot ask for a $1.00 campaign donation.  These gaps and inconsistencies in judicial solicitation bans led Justice Samuel Alito to observe, in dissent, that Florida’s law was “about as narrowly tailored as a burlap bag.”

The four, dissenting conservative Justices in Williams-Yulee have a point:  The liberal Justices (plus Chief Justice Roberts) just don’t seem to like judicial elections very much, and seem to paternalistically justify protecting the “Brotherhood of the Robe” by claiming that citizens will somehow think elected judges raising money like other politicians will make them less partial than they otherwise would be.  Maybe this is because, when judges are elected, they tend to vote more conservatively.

Here in Florida, where our appellate judges are subject to retention elections, I assume simultaneously that judges are both “politicians” (politically accountable via elections) but also “impartial,” as the Code of Judicial Ethics requires them to be.  If I received a letter in the mail from some judge (or candidate) asking me for money, I would probably just chuckle and throw it in the trash.  If I gave money, it would be because I knew the person and believed him/her to be a good judge (or potential judge).  I certainly wouldn’t think I could “buy” a judge for the limited contribution allowed of $1,000- $3,000.

If contribution limits are accepted as an appropriate means for preventing members of the legislative and executive branches from being “bought,” then why aren’t they similarly accepted for elected judges?  According to the Williams-Yulee Court, it’s because judges are just “different.”  I don’t see how this distinction is supported by the First Amendment.

FIFTY SHADES OF FREDDIE GRAY:  The Washington Post reports that a prisoner sharing a Baltimore police transport van with Freddie Gray could hear Gray “banging his head” against the van walls and believes Gray was “intentionally trying to injure himself.”

Earlier reports that Gray may have had prior spine or neck surgery due to an automobile accident–which may have rendered Gray’s spine vulnerable or weak–now appear to be untrue.  The Baltimore Sun examined the court records related to this rumor and determined that the lawsuit involved claims by Gray and his sister that they were injured by exposure to lead paint.

All of this just emphasizes the need to have a full investigation before jumping to conclusions, much less rioting.  But then again, the actual facts of police encounters in cases such as Ferguson and Baltimore don’t seem to matter to the protesters.

THE BLUE-CITY MODEL:  The Wall Street Journal has an excellent editorial today, explaining how the Baltimore riots demonstrate the utter failure of progressivism in urban America:

The men and women in charge have been Democrats, and their governing ideas are “progressive.” This model, with its reliance on government and public unions, has dominated urban America as once-vibrant cities such as Baltimore became shells of their former selves. In 1960 Baltimore was America’s sixth largest city with 940,000 people. It has since shed nearly a third of its population and today isn’t in the top 25.

The dysfunctions of the blue-city model are many, but the main failures are three: high crime, low economic growth and failing public schools that serve primarily as jobs programs for teachers and administrators rather than places of learning.

Exactly.  John Nolte over at Breitbart has a similar take:

Baltimore is not America’s problem or shame. That failed city is solely and completely a Democrat problem. Like many failed cities, Detroit comes to mind, and every city besieged recently by rioting, Democrats and their union pals have had carte blanche to inflict their ideas and policies on Baltimore since 1967, the last time there was a Republican Mayor. . . .

Liberalism and all the toxic government dependence and cronyism and union corruption and failed schools that comes along with it, has run amok in Baltimore for a half-century, and that is Baltimore’s problem. . . .

Poverty has nothing to do with it. This madness and chaos and anarchy is a Democrat-driven culture that starts at the top with a racially-divisive White House heartbreakingly effective at ginning up hate and violence.

Nolte’s right:  The rioting in Ferguson and Baltimore isn’t driven by poverty, race, or even police brutality.  It’s driven by progressive culture, which teaches that successful business people “didn’t build that,” accepts abortion/divorce/children out of wedlock as normal behavior, proclaims that poor children (particularly minorities) cannot succeed, that police and authority in general are the “enemy,” and that law is rigged against minorities.  Urban music, “leaders” like Al Sharpton, and a Democrat strategy of balkanizing Americans through identity politics–echoed daily by mainstream media–has created a culture that has no respect for the rule of law.  In the eyes of progressives, the American Dream is dead, and they are literally dancing on its grave.

Until this progressive culture changes (if it ever can) or is marginalized politically, we will have lawless behavior every time these destructive, sociopathic cultural expectations are reinforced by tragedies like the deaths of Michael Brown or Freddie Gray.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ORAL ARGUMENTS:  The audio is available here, if you are curious to hear the arguments.  A good, short analysis of various Justices’ questions and comments, can be found here.

I’M SURPRISED IRS GOT ANYTHING BACK AT ALL:  Two-thirds of Obamacare subsidy recipients had to pay money back to IRS.  The average payback to IRS was $729.  What government giveth, government may taketh away.

SAN FRAN DIVERSITY LOSS IS “CONCERNING”:  A new report finds that San Francisco’s racial and ethnic diversity is declining, as affluent whites flock back to the city, while minorities move out to the suburbs due to ever-increasing rent and other costs.  The report, “An Equity Profile of the San Francisco Bay Area,” by a group called PolicyLink, reads like a liberal/progressives’ dream, lamenting various inequalities between whites and non-whites, and concluding:

Wow! So all we have to do is just pay minorities more, and the economy will improve! It’s magic!

WHAT IS “MARRIAGE”?:  The Supreme Court will be asking this question today, as oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges begin at 10 a.m.  The arguments involve four consolidated cases from Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee and raise two distinct questions:  (1)  Is there a constitutional right for two people to marry?; and (2) Must states recognize a marriage recognized by a sister state, if the marriage is between two people of the same gender?

Notice that the question presented isn’t whether the Constitution recognizes a right to same-sex marriage, per se.  Instead, the question posed is whether there is a right to marriage between two people.  And if marriage is defined as a union between two people, it is a foregone conclusion that the Court will conclude that it should be permitted between two people of the same gender.  The counter-argument is that “marriage” isn’t just a union of “two people,” but inherently and necessarily a union of “one man and one woman.”

The Supreme Court has long stated that “marriage” is one of the “fundamental” and “basic” rights protected by the word “liberty” in the Due Process Clauses.  In the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia (one of the great all-time case names, btw), the Court ruled that a state anti-miscegenation law violated the Equal Protection Clause because the law inherently involved a suspect racial classification (with no compelling justification for such classification).  It also violated the Due Process Clause:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

One need only substitute “sexual orientation” for “racial” to see how the Obergefell Court will conclude that due process “liberty” gives any two individuals the right to marry.  And to make matters even clearer, the Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, Justice Kennedy (the “center” of the Court) struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), stating:

This status [marriage]  is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality. . . .

The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.  In determining whether a law is motivated by an improper animus or purpose, “ ‘[d]iscriminations of an unusual character’ ” especially require careful consideration. . . . The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.

The Windsor Court thus concluded that Congress’ “one man, one woman” definition of marriage for purposes of administering federal law was motivated by a “bare desire to harm” homosexuals and was thus discriminatory in purpose and effect.  While the Windsor Court gave lip service to States’ traditional power to define marriage, its conclusion was based upon its belief that the law was motivated by sexual orientation animus– a desire to keep “two people” from obtaining “dignity in the community equal with all other marriages.”

So once the Court accepts that “marriage” is a union of “two people,” the conclusion seems obvious.

While I do take issue with constitutionalizing the definition of marriage via edict of 9 unelected Justices rather than allowing the political process to continue to unfold– as it has very successfully done over the past decade or so–the marriage is “two people” definition, if accepted, will have some predictable consequences.

If marriage is “two people,” then presumably the next front of litigation will be adult, consensual incestuous relationships– probably first cousins, who are prohibited from marrying in 25 States.  Once this legal restriction falls, other adult, consensual incestuous relationship bans should presumably fall, too, such as parent/child (whether same- or opposite- sex), aunt/uncle- niece/nephew, etc.  Presumably, nonage laws limiting marriage of minors would continue to be upheld pursuant to States’ parens patriae power.

But why stop at “two people”?  Why not three, four, or fifty-six?  Would restricting marriage to “two people” be discriminatory animus directed at the polyamorous?  Or is it somehow “rational” for government to limit “marriage” to “two people”?  Once the word “marriage” is unmoored from the male-female sexual union, things start to get very complicated.  If Americans wish to limit “marriage” to “two people,” it may be advisable to begin thinking about a constitutional amendment defining it as such.

LORETTA LYNCH’S FIRST TEST:   She’s sending two DOJ officials to Baltimore to meet with community leaders.  That’s good.  But the real question is:  What will they do and say, once they arrive?  Will they mimic Erick Holder’s DOJ, and prioritize lectures about white privilege and racism?  Or will they provide a voice of calm and reason, and unequivocally condemn the random violence?

Lynch has a chance to break with the embarrassingly biased Holder past and start rebuilding trust in DOJ as a department interested in actual justice (for all).  Will she take it?

“BECAUSE THIS CAMPAIGN ISN’T GOING TO BE ABOUT ME”:   Oh, Hillary, bless your sweet little heart.  Clinton’s puff-piece op-ed in today’s Des Moines Register is a pitiful attempt to divert attention away from her abominable, treasonous behavior as Secretary of State.  It’s now all about Hillary and her ethics (or lack thereof).  The only real question is:  Who will take the mantle of the Democrat party when she is forced to drop out?  Somehow, I doubt it will be Martin O’Malley.  But then again, nominating a white male would be a smart move for a party that has shown absolutely zero interest in, and downright hostility toward, this segment of the population for the past 6+ years.

VIRTUAL, MY HINEY:  Elizabeth Warren’s Virtual Candidacy.  Mark my words:  Warren will run, and her platform will be indistinguishable from Obama III.  Progressives are salivating at the prospect.