1

How The ‘Revolution’ Is Eating Its Own

At a forum at the College of William & Mary on Sept. 27, the ACLU got a sample of what conservatives have been experiencing on campuses for years.

As Claire Gastanaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, began speaking to a small audience, a group of demonstrators marched in with a large banner that said, “Blood on Your Hands.” They lined up in front of the stage, holding placards.

Apparently clueless about what was about to transpire, Ms. Gastaaga said, “Good. I like this. Good.”

She went on to say that she was going to inform the students about their right of protest, “which this illustrates very well.”

No, it didn’t. The students shut her down. They began loudly chanting inane slogans, including “ACLU, you protect Hitler, too!” and “ACLU, free speech for who?” and “The oppressed are not impressed!” The ACLU is also apparently guilty of perpetuating a system of “white supremacy” for not defending jackboot tactics like those seen at Berkeley and Middlebury College against conservative speakers.

What was supposed to be a #blacklivesmatter event was populated almost entirely by white students, presumably many from the W&M’s tony Williamsburg campus. Oppressed, they are not, unless you count the unbearable minutes when they can’t find a parking space for their Audis or Beamers.

For a taste of what Ms. Gastanaga endured for more than an hour and a half, you can see a brief video by an American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) team that filmed the event. It’s strangely satisfying. (See below)

Since the French Revolution, when it was famously observed that “revolutions devour their own,” the progressive left always seems surprised when the forces they have unleashed turn on them. Think back to the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, when old-line liberals like Vice President Hubert Humphrey were stunned by the street violence of the extreme left.

More recently, U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had that deer-in-the-headlights look when the antifa crowd, like the Occupy movement a few years ago, turned utterly violent. To her credit, she finally denounced their tactics.

In a more serious venue than campus playpens, the ACLU had another sobering experience this past week. During arguments on Tuesday in Gill v. Whitford, several U.S. Supreme Court justices indicated a reluctance to plunge into what Felix Frankfurter in 1946 called the “political thicket,” which is where the ACLU wants them to go. It’s part of the ACLU’s vision to do away with the state and local powers that still hamstring the federal government’s relentless growth.

A split federal panel had invalidated Wisconsin’s redistricting plan for its state legislature, calling it an unconstitutional gerrymander because the Republican-controlled legislature had drawn districts favoring the Republican Party.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing essentially that legislatures, being composed of politicians, should not have the authority to create voting districts. It’s time to change the rules of the game since the vast majority of state legislatures are now controlled by Republicans.

The ACLU had no such problem when Maryland’s Democratic legislators in 2011 drew a bizarre district that meandered from the conservative Western part of the state to liberal Montgomery County. This was intended to unseat outspoken conservative Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. It worked. Mr. Bartlett had won the 6th district by 28 points in 2010, but lost his seat by 21 points to Democrat John Delaney in 2012.

In progressive California, the politically-drawn district maps are so squiggly that they resemble Rorschach blots. But any court-ordered “solution” for redistricting would be an ongoing nightmare, with unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in control.

Who would appoint the “non-political” panels? How would they determine exactly how many voters of either party or no party should be included in each district? Would distinct communities be split for numerical balancing? Would they do this after every election? How much politics is too much politics? Apart from the difficulties, the whole thing would be unconstitutional.

On August 4, the American Civil Rights Union submitted an amicus brief in Gill, noting that the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine the “Times, Places, or Manner” of holding federal elections but leaves to the states the power to determine who votes. Therefore, establishing districts comprising voters is a state function, not a federal one.

Since the 1960s, the courts have variously waded into the issue, solidifying the principle that there is no place for racial bias in districting, but avoiding a sweeping “solution” to political gerrymandering.

On May 22, in a dissent in Cooper v. Harris, Justice Samuel Alito alluded to Frankfurter’s famous statement and warned against making federal courts “weapons of political warfare,” which would “invite the losers in the redistricting process to seek to obtain in court what they could not achieve in the political arena.”

Speaking of losers, as the ACLU ramps up its campaign against voter ID laws, traditional districting methods and other obstacles to its goal of fundamentally transforming America, its unruly children will be out in the streets in black masks, trying to intimidate anyone who disagrees with them.

When the ACLU itself comes under attack for not joining the mob, it’s a sign that the revolution has begun nibbling on its own.


This article first appeared on The Washington Times’ website.




In Socialism We Trust

“In God We Trust” is the national motto, even though Barack Obama told a Jakarta, Indonesia audience last November that our national motto is E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one).

At least Obama got the translation right. Al Gore once said that it meant “out of one, many.” Perhaps he was employing the same math formulas that work so well in his global warming calculations.

The real motto is, indeed, “In God We Trust,” and Congress re-emphasized this on Oct. 25, passing a resolution saying so in a 396 to 9 vote. Sponsored by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the bill affirms the motto and “encourages its display in public buildings and government institutions.”

Forbes explained that the reminder was needed in light of Obama’s recasting of the motto and also because of the mysterious replacement of the motto at the National Capitol Visitors Center “with stars in a replica of the House Chamber – and cropping an actual picture of the chamber so you could not see the words ‘In God We Trust.'”

Well, the idea of affirming “In God We Trust” was too much for Jerrold Nadler, the New York progressive who represents ACORN in the House of Representatives and also the socialist Working Families Party and Occupy Wall Street.

“Here we are, back to irrelevant issue debates, the kind of thing people do when they have run out of ideas, when they have run out of excuses, when they have nothing to offer a middle class that is hurting and that has run out of patience,” Nadler said, explaining his vote against the resolution.

Nadler’s comments mirror those of President Obama, who rebuked the House and delivered this non sequitur: “I trust in God, but God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work.” Translation: God wants big government to get even bigger.

Jay Carney, Obama’s spokestheologian, further mangled things by asserting that, “I believe that the phrase from the Bible is ‘the Lord helps those who help themselves.'”

Sorry, Jay, that phrase is not in the Bible, which the White House later admitted.

If you’re keeping score, besides Nadler, others voting against the resolution included Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), and Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA).  Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Rep. Melvin Watt (D-NC) voted “present.”

It’s not that Nadler opposes resolutions per se. He sponsored a resolution in 2009 commemorating the 40th anniversary of the drag queen revolt known as the Stonewall riots. He also sponsored a resolution in 2009 condemning the murder of “pro-choice doctor” and “health care provider” George Tiller, the Wichita abortionist. Tiller, who was shot to death at his church, was the nation’s leading practitioner of the gruesome infanticide known as partial birth abortion.

It’s good that Nadler is against people being shot, especially in church, but it’s curious that the Forbes resolution acknowledging America’s debt to God for our abundant blessings drives him crazy enough to take the floor to condemn it.

“This is simply an exercise in saying, ‘We’re more religious than the other people,'” Nadler nattered sarcastically. “‘We’re more godly than the other people, and by the way, let’s waste time and divert people’s attention from the real issues that we’re not dealing with,’ like unemployment.”

Well, okay. How about unemployment? Nadler reliably voted against the job creation bills that the House passed in recent months, all of which were aborted in Harry Reid’s Senate upon delivery.

And if we’re supposed to be addressing “real issues,” where is the evidence that in a time of massive unemployment and economic uncertainty, Americans are just itching to redefine marriage as two guys on a pink cake? Nadler is a chief sponsor of the bizarrely titled Respect for Marriage Act, which would dump a Capitol Domeful of cowpies right on the institution of marriage, destroying its real meaning.

It makes perfect sense that a leading progressive would hate the thought of honoring God while trashing the institution created by God as the fountainhead of families, churches and communities. Those things get in the way of the all-powerful state, which has a devil of a time creating the new socialist man while families, churches and communities are imbuing citizens with personal responsibility.

Speaking of the new socialist man, it’s also difficult to birth this creature as long as the United States still has freedom of the airwaves. That may be why Nadler in January called for re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC’s stranglehold on broadcasters that was lifted in 1987, leading to an explosion in conservative talk shows.

If you recall, progressives were calling for “civility” and trying to blame talk radio and conservatives in general for the January 8 wounding of Arizona Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of at least six people by Nazi-inspired nutcase shooter Jared Lee Loughner at a Tucson shopping center.

However, in August, the FCC finally took the Fairness Doctrine off its books, and it remains to be seen whether progressives like Nadler will continue their Dracula impression, trying to pry open the crypt anyway, releasing the monster in a different form.

Right now, Nadler is busy siding with the Occupy Wall Street protesters over the interests of his own constituents.

Asked by the Washington Times about complaints from businesses in his district around Zuccotti Park that are experiencing loss of customers, restroom overload, broken sinks and other delights, Nadler responded, “I think businesses are being damaged a hell of a lot more by our stupid economic policies and all of us have to live with expressions of democratic demonstrations or whatever.”

Whatever, indeed.


Become a Sustaining Partner of our Work

You can become a Sustaining Partner with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form. Your gift will go even further than ever because:

  • Our paperwork will be reduced.
  • Our income will be more predictable, leading to improved cash management.
  • Our administrative costs will be reduced, putting your gift to work immediately.
  • It is simpler and saves time for you!