Baltimore and What Happens After the Riot

baltimore riots

There’s a lot to report on, and infer about, what happened in Baltimore last night.

A protest over the death of Freddie Gray, who was critically injured in police custody, started peacefully with thousands marching through downtown streets before the demonstration turned violent and volatile.

The chaotic scene Saturday night prompted the first public remarks from Freddie Gray’s twin sister, who pleaded for peace at a news conference alongside the mayor.

“My family wants to say, can you all please, please stop the violence?” Fredricka Gray said. “Freddie Gray would not want this.”

Given there’s no way to do it all justice in any meaningful way — who understands what it’s like to be in the storm when they’re watching it on TV (sorry, Twitter)? — but there are few questions that bear noting now:

First, it is true that riots solve exactly nothing. There was apparently a rather well organized (ahem) peaceful protest in the afternoon that went wonky as the sun began to go down. But the question is this: did anyone think that peaceful protest would disperse peacefully in a city that takes great pride in being the home of The Wire? This is a city that is heavily segregrated, both racially and economically, so the disenfranchised will likely exploit an opportunity to be heard, even if the way they speak is coarse, self-involved, and patently ineffective. Surprise that the riot happened was most surprising.

Court Watcher: ACA’s Defenders Should Hope for Judicial Activism in King v. Burwell

Earlier this week Harvard ConLaw professor Noah Feldman posited in a Bloomberg View column that Obamacare supporters better hope that liberal Justice Anthony Kennedy (pictured above, right) provides the crucial vote to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s subsidy provisions as promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service, which would be strong judicial activism on Kennedy’s part:

The uncomfortable truth (for liberals, at least) is that the ACA case arises from a piece of statutory language that on its face explicitly says that tax subsidies are only available for health insurance purchased on an exchange “established by the state.”

Plato Told Hillary

 


Hillary’s Nipponized bit of the Sixth Avenue el hasn’t come back to haunt us yet, but it surely will.

Originally posted, with great fanfare, at The Ancient & Noble Order of the Gormogons. You have no idea what we had to promise to get them to agree to let us use it. We don’t want to talk about it. ~ Ed.

Posted by — ‘Puter

‘Puter awoke this morning to the crew on Morning Joe announcing in Very Serious Voices ™ the New York Times broke another Clinton Family scandal.

‘Puter yawned, assuming this would be another quickly dismissed “the Clintons are on the take” disclosure, one of which the media would quickly tire. Hey, ‘Puter remembers the Clinton-Media Complex from way back in Bill’s White House days.

Not so fast, though. Sure, this scandal’s about the Clintons and their congenital lust for money and power, no matter how dirty the source. But it’s also more than that, and ‘Puter thinks this scandal just may have staying power.

Fifth Amendment Challenge Against USDA’s “Raisin Taking” Makes It To The Supreme Court

raisin outlaw

California raisin farmer, Martin Horne, has been battling a Depression era U.S. Department of Agriculture regulation for over a decade. Horne says that the 1937 revision of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act amounts to a violation of his Fifth Amendment protections, and is nothing short of government theft.

The Act gave birth to the Raisin Administrative Committee and the National Raisin Reserve ( yes, these are real things), and allowed them to confiscate a portion of raisin crops each year in an effort to stabilize raisin prices. The regulations are (surprise!) convoluted in that they don’t permit taking of crops from growers (producers) of grapes, but from handlers who dry and package raisins.  Horne is both.

In 2001, Horne claimed he was not subject to the USDA’s raisin taking, but they demanded 47% of his crop. When he refused, they slapped him with a $700,000 fine.  Horne has been navigating the court system since.

In 2013, the Supreme Court booted the challenge back to the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that the Fifth Amendment’s “Taking Clause” was not applicable in the case of raisins, and if it were ( ?) handlers were compensated by the controlled pricing on the raisins allowed to be sold by the Raisin Administrative Committee.

Christie and Rubio Join the Fair-Weather Federalists on Weed

marijuana prohibition

 

Meant to have this edited and published yesterday for 4/20. Mea culpa, stoners. ~ Ed.

As marijuana is gradually legalized across the country, the issue of how to handle it at the federal level becomes trickier by the year, and as we enter election season, potentially disastrous. Chris Christie and Marco Rubio are now finding that out.

Though only one has officially announced for the White House run, both have come out against relaxing federal restrictions on marijuana use that would allow states to continue their legalization efforts. Technically, while it remains a federally controlled substances states are only legalizing weed at the whim of the president (and attorney general). If the chief executive wanted to authorize the DEA to arrest everyone who is legally using marijuana in Colorado and Washington, he would be well within his rights to do so. So there’s a big asterisk hanging over any state and local legalization efforts. And Christie and Rubio would turn that asterisk into a hammer.

While Rubio said he disagrees that states can affect federal policy on the issue, Christie went so far as to say he would “crack down” on the ones trying to do so. Both risk alienating even Republican primary voters, who overwhelmingly think states should be free to legalize marijuana as they wish. The days of “tough on crime” prohibition as a mandatory platform for elective office are long gone.

Entitlement and Leaders We Deserve

catfight

I was going to write about Marco Rubio declaring his intent to run today, because the hilarity has already started and that’s just a fun thing to address. But Rubio’s handling things just fine on his own:

So instead, I think I’ll talk about the most hilarious person of the week, one ESPN reporter named Britt McHenry; not to pile on to the controversy (was she justified in being a horrendous human being because the company is predatory and miserable themselves? Or did Britt just reveal who she really is when put under pressure, as so many of us do? Talk amongst yourselves…), but because I think she’s representative of something culturally that may actually impact our next presidential election. I know. Just bear with me…

Equal Pay Day: Economic Illiteracy and Hillary Hypocrisy

I realize it’s tax week and I should be condemning our convoluted tax code and oppressive IRS.

But I can’t resist getting diverted to another topic. It’s time to debunk the notion that there is rampant sexism in the private economy that causes women to by systematically underpaid.

I addressed the issue back in 2010, citing the solid work of Christina Hoff Summers. And I cited more of her work, as well as some analysis by Steve Chapman, when writing about the topic in 2012. The bottom line is that rigorous analysis finds that the so-called gender gap largely disappears once you consider factors such as occupational choice, hours worked, and education.

I’ll add my two cents to the discussion. For decades, I’ve been dealing with leftists who repeatedly tell me that business owners are consumed by greed and put profit above everything. Yet if women truly were making less money than men for doing equal work, then why aren’t these greed-filled business owners firing all their male employees and hiring women who will work for 80 percent of what it costs to employ men? Or 85 percent? Or 90 percent?

Quality of Healthcare Going Down Say Voters

GOPhealthcareplan

About 70 percent of likely voters rate the quality of the health care they receive as good or excellent, down one point since January, according to a recent Rasmussen poll. While that might seem “not so bad,” that is the lowest level in two and a half years of polling. This number should be relatively good for limited government activists, however it is coupled with another statistic that is rather worrisome.

About 38 percent of respondents on this poll stated that they are for a single-payer system for health care. More disturbing is that 64 percent of those voters feel that more government involvement in health care would be a good thing.

Now that everyone is really scared, the silver-lining remains that a majority (51%) believe that Obamacare will make health care in America worse, and support for less government involvement in health care (44%) still outpaces support for a single-payer system.

Yes, this means that more Americans are thinking that less government would be a good thing, however this trend is starting to flatline a bit. One big reason for this is the lack of a concrete proposal from Republicans to replace Obamacare. Repeal is simply not going to be enough, if only because of the few items under the new law that are extremely popular, like keeping children on parental policies until age 26, and protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

How the media is #ReadyForHillary, in two tweets

propaganda

We all knew the media that served as praetorian guard for Obama, including constructing narratives for his 2012 reelection, would be in the tank for Hillary Clinton. I don’t think we expected them to dive in head first into the empty pool the day of her announcement.

On the evening after the hilariously flawed launch, Mark Halperin, who was already responsible for the only Sarah Palin portrayal worse than Tina Fey’s, was shocked, SHOCKED that anyone might think he and his comrades might be Team Hill.

LOL! Ok, Mark… I mean, what would give anyone the idea that major media establishments were colluding with the Democrat Machine. It’s not like they’re hosting cocktail parties together or anything…

She’s Ready for Her Closeup Mr. DeMille: Hillary Declares

hillarydeclares

Well, it looks like she’s ready, even if we’re not.

Hillary Clinton is planning to officially launch her US presidential campaign on Sunday while en route to Iowa, a source familiar with the campaign has confirmed to the Guardian.

The former secretary of state is scheduled to declare her second run for president on Twitter at noon eastern time on Sunday, the source told the Guardian, followed by a video and email announcement, then a series of conference calls mapping out a blitzkrieg tour beginning in Iowa and looking ahead to more early primary states.

Clinton’s Sunday schedule is booked beginning with takeoff from New York to Iowa, where speculation has centered for weeks that Clinton was focusing attention for an April campaign launch. Her scheduled calls are with advisers in other key battleground states.

The announcement very likely won’t, sadly, meet the snark standard of Twitter, but the platform is certainly a nod to the millennials. That’s no accident and is a pretty good indication that, although she’s a good 40 years senior, Hillary still knows how to hire staff that keep their fingers on the pulse of how things work.

 


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.