Glenn Greenwald: “Roe denied… the rights of citizens to decide democratically.”

By Rubashov

Glenn Greenwald is decidedly a man of the Left. He comes from that American strain of the democratic Left that once informed so much of the Democratic Party. Wikipedia’s entry on Greenwald notes that he is “an American journalist, author and lawyer.” It continues:

In 1996, he founded a law firm concentrating on First Amendment litigation. He began blogging on national security issues in October 2005, while he was becoming increasingly concerned with what he viewed to be attacks on civil liberties by the George W. Bush Administration in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. He became a vocal critic of the Iraq War and has maintained a critical position of American foreign policy.

Greenwald started contributing to Salon in 2007, and to The Guardian in 2012. In June 2013, while at The Guardian, he began publishing a series of reports detailing previously unknown information about American and British global surveillance programs based on classified documents provided by Edward Snowden. His work contributed to The Guardian's 2014 Pulitzer Prize win, and he won the 2013 George Polk Award along with three other reporters, including Laura Poitras.

Greenwald is married to David Miranda, a Member of Brazil’s Congress (affiliated with the left-wing PSOL party)... Greenwald is a vegan and an advocate for animal rights. He and Miranda have 24 rescue dogs. He is the author of seven books.

Glenn Greenwald has written a timely and balanced column on Roe v. Wade from the perspective of the democratic Left -- or what once was the democratic Left, before it embraced faith-based irrationality. We think Greenwald's column is worth reading and considering:

The Irrational, Misguided Discourse Surrounding Supreme Court Controversies Such as Roe v. Wade

The Court, like the U.S. Constitution, was designed to be a limit on the excesses of democracy. Roe denied, not upheld, the rights of citizens to decide democratically.

By Glenn Greenwald, Esq.

Politico on Monday night published what certainly appears to be a genuine draft decision by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Alito's draft ruling would decide the pending case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which concerns the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy except in the case of medical emergency or severe fetal abnormalities. Given existing Supreme Court precedent that abortion can only be restricted after fetal viability, Mississippi's ban on abortions after the 15th week — at a point when the fetus is not yet deemed viable — is constitutionally dubious. To uphold Mississippi's law — as six of the nine Justices reportedly wish to do — the Court must either find that the law is consistent with existing abortion precedent, or acknowledge that it conflicts with existing precedent and then overrule that precedent on the ground that it was wrongly decided.

Alito's draft is written as a majority opinion, suggesting that at least five of the Court's justices — a majority — voted after oral argument in Dobbs to overrule Roe on the ground that it was “egregiously wrong from the start” and “deeply damaging.” In an extremely rare event for the Court, an unknown person with unknown motives leaked the draft opinion to Politico, which justifiably published it. A subsequent leak to CNN on Monday night claimed that the five justices in favor of overruling Roe were Bush 43 appointee Alito, Bush 41 appointee Clarence Thomas, and three Trump appointees (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett), while Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by Bush 43, is prepared to uphold the constitutionality of Mississippi's abortion law without overruling Roe.

Draft rulings and even justices’ votes sometimes change in the period between the initial vote after oral argument and the issuance of the final decision. Depending on whom you choose to believe, this leak is either the work of a liberal justice or clerk designed to engender political pressure on the justices so that at least one abandons their intention to overrule Roe, or it came from a conservative justice or clerk, designed to make it very difficult for one of the justices in the majority to switch sides. Whatever the leaker's motives, a decision to overrule this 49-year-old precedent, one of the most controversial in the Court's history, would be one of the most significant judicial decisions issued in decades. The reaction to this leak — like the reaction to the initial ruling in Roe back in 1973 — was intense and strident, and will likely only escalate once the ruling is formally issued.

Every time there is a controversy regarding a Supreme Court ruling, the same set of radical fallacies emerges regarding the role of the Court, the Constitution and how the American republic is designed to function. Each time the Court invalidates a democratically elected law on the ground that it violates a constitutional guarantee — as happened in Roe — those who favor the invalidated law proclaim that something “undemocratic” has transpired, that it is a form of “judicial tyranny” for “five unelected judges” to overturn the will of the majority. Conversely, when the Court refuses to invalidate a democratically elected law, those who regard that law as pernicious, as an attack on fundamental rights, accuse the Court of failing to protect vulnerable individuals.

This by-now-reflexive discourse about the Supreme Court ignores its core function. Like the U.S. Constitution itself, the Court is designed to be an anti-majoritarian check against the excesses of majoritarian sentiment. The Founders wanted to establish a democracy that empowered majorities of citizens to choose their leaders, but also feared that majorities would be inclined to coalesce around unjust laws that would deprive basic rights, and thus sought to impose limits on the power of majorities as well.

The Federalist Papers are full of discussions about the dangers of majoritarian excesses. The most famous of those is James Madison's Federalist 10, where he warns of "factions…who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” One of the primary concerns in designing the new American republic, if not the chief concern, was how to balance the need to establish rule by the majority (democracy) with the equally compelling need to restrain majorities from veering into impassioned, self-interested attacks on the rights of minorities (republican government). As Madison put it: “To secure the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our enquiries are directed.” Indeed, the key difference between a pure democracy and a republic is that the rights of the majority are unrestricted in the former, but are limited in the latter. The point of the Constitution, and ultimately the Supreme Court, was to establish a republic, not a pure democracy, that would place limits on the power of majorities.

Thus, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-majoritarian. It bars majorities from enacting laws that infringe on the fundamental rights of minorities. Thus, in the U.S., it does not matter if 80% or 90% of Americans support a law to restrict free speech, or ban the free exercise of a particular religion, or imprison someone without due process, or subject a particularly despised criminal to cruel and unusual punishment. Such laws can never be validly enacted. The Constitution deprives the majority of the power to engage in such acts regardless of how popular they might be.

And at least since the 1803 ruling in Madison v. Marbury which established the Supreme Court's power of "judicial review” — i.e., to strike down laws supported by majorities and enacted democratically if such laws violate the rights guaranteed by the Constitution — the Supreme Court itself is intended to uphold similarly anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values.

When the Court strikes down a law that majorities support, it may be a form of judicial tyranny if the invalidated law does not violate any actual rights enshrined in the Constitution. But the mere judicial act of invalidating a law supported by a majority of citizens — though frequently condemned as “undemocratic" — is, in fact, a fulfillment of one of the Court's prime functions in a republic.

Unless one believes that the will of the majority should always prevail — that laws restricting or abolishing free speech, due process and the free exercise of religion should be permitted as long as enough citizens support it — then one must favor the Supreme Court's anti-democratic and anti-majoritarian powers. Rights can be violated by a small handful of tyrants, but they can also be violated by hateful and unhinged majorities. The Founders’ fear of majoritarian tyranny is why the U.S. was created as a republic rather than a pure democracy.

Whether the Court is acting properly or despotically when it strikes down a democratically elected law, or otherwise acts contrary to the will of the majority, depends upon only one question: whether the law in question violates a right guaranteed by the Constitution. A meaningful assessment of the Court's decisions is impossible without reference to that question. Yet each time the Court acts in a controversial case, judgments are applied without any consideration of that core question.

The reaction to Monday night's news that the Court intends to overrule Roe was immediately driven by all of these common fallacies. It was bizarre to watch liberals accuse the Court of acting “undemocratically" as they denounced the ability of "five unelected aristocrats” — in the words of Vox's Ian Millhiser — to decide the question of abortion rights. Who do they think decided Roe in the first place?

Indeed, Millhiser's argument here — unelected Supreme Court Justices have no business mucking around in abortion rights — is supremely ironic given that it was unelected judges who issued Roe back in 1972, in the process striking down numerous democratically elected laws. Worse, this rhetoric perfectly echoes the arguments which opponents of Roe have made for decades: namely, it is the democratic process, not unelected judges, which should determine what, if any, limits will be placed on the legal ability to provide or obtain an abortion. Indeed, Roe was the classic expression of the above-described anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values: seven unelected white men (for those who believe such demographic attributes matter) struck down laws that had been supported by majorities and enacted by many states which heavily restricted or outright banned abortion procedures. The sole purpose of Roe was to deny citizens the right to enact the anti-abortion laws, no matter how much popular support they commanded.

This extreme confusion embedded in heated debates over the Supreme Court was perhaps most vividly illustrated last night by Waleed Shahid, the popular left-wing activist, current spokesman for the left-wing group Justice Democrats, and previously a top aide and advisor to Squad members including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Shahid — who, needless to say, supports Roe — posted a quote from Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address, in 1861, which Shahid evidently believes supports his view that Roe must be upheld.

But the quote from Lincoln — warning that the Court must not become the primary institution that decides controversial political questions — does not support Roe at all; indeed, Lincoln's argument is the one most often cited in favor of overruling Roe. In fact, Lincoln's argument is the primary one on which Alito relied in the draft opinion to justify overruling Roe: namely, that democracy will be imperiled, and the people will cease to be their own rulers, if the Supreme Court, rather than the legislative branches, ends up deciding hot-button political questions such as abortion about which the Constitution is silent. Here's the version of the Lincoln pro-democracy quote, complete with bolded words, that Shahid posted, apparently in the belief that it somehow supports upholding Roe:

It is just inexplicable to cite this Lincoln quote as a defense of Roe. Just look at what Lincoln said: “if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, [then] the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.” That is exactly the argument that has been made by pro-life activists for years against Roe, and it perfectly tracks Alito's primary view as defended in his draft opinion.

Alito's decision, if it becomes the Court's ruling, would not itself ban abortions. It would instead lift the judicial prohibition on the ability of states to enact laws restricting or banning abortions. In other words, it would take this highly controversial question of abortion and remove it from the Court's purview and restore it to federal and state legislatures to decide it. One cannot defend Roe by invoking the values of democracy or majoritarian will. Roe was the classic case of a Supreme Court ruling that denied the right of majorities to decide what laws should govern their lives and their society.

One can defend Roe only by explicitly defending anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values: namely, that the abortion question should be decided by a panel of unelected judges, not by the people or their elected representatives. The defense of democracy invoked by Lincoln, and championed by Shahid, can be used only to advocate that this abortion debate should be returned to the democratic processes, which is precisely what Alito argued (emphasis added):

Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman's right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. Still others in a third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.

For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade….At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. In the years prior to that decision, about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State. As Justice Byron White aptly put it in his dissent, the decision Court represented the “exercise of raw judicial power,” 410 U. S., at 222….

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences…..It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 979 (Scalia, J, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what tho Constitution and the rule of law demand.

Rhetoric that heralds the values of democracy and warns of the tyranny of “unelected judges” and the like is not a rational or viable way to defend Roe. That abortion rights should be decided democratically rather than by a secret tribunal of "unelected men in robes" is and always has been the anti-Roe argument. The right of the people to decide, rather than judges, is the primary value which Alito repeatedly invokes in defending the overruling of Roe and once again empowering citizens, through their elected representatives, to make these decisions.

The only way Roe can be defended is through an explicit appeal to the virtues of the anti-democratic and anti-majoritarian principles enshrined in the Constitution: namely, that because the Constitution guarantees the right to have an abortion (though a more generalized right of privacy), then majorities are stripped of the power to enact laws restricting it. Few people like to admit that their preferred views depend upon a denial of the rights of the majority to decide, or that their position is steeped in anti-democratic values. But there is and always has been a crucial role for such values in the proper functioning of the United States and especially the protection of minority rights. If you want to rant about the supremacy and sanctity of democracy and the evils of "unelected judges,” then you will necessarily end up on the side of Justice Alito and the other four justices who appear ready to overrule Roe.

Anti-Roe judges are the ones who believe that abortion rights should be determined through majority will and the democratic process. Roe itself was the ultimate denial, the negation, of unrestrained democracy and majoritarian will. As in all cases, whether Roe's anti-democratic ruling was an affirmation of fundamental rights or a form of judicial tyranny depends solely on whether one believes that the Constitution bars the enactment of laws which restrict abortion or whether it is silent on that question. But as distasteful as it might be to some, the only way to defend Roe is to acknowledge that your view is that the will of the majority is irrelevant to this conflict, that elected representatives have no power to decide these questions, and that all debates about abortion must be entrusted solely to unelected judges to authoritatively decide them without regard to what majorities believe or want.

+++++

To access Glenn Greenwald’s full article – with links to what he references, and to the numerous speeches Greenwald has given over the years about the anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values embedded in the Constitution and the Court, including his 2011 lecture at the University of Maryland, his 2012 speech at the University of Indiana/Purdue University, and his 2013 lecture at Yale Law School – visit his page on Substack:

https://greenwald.substack.com/

Yes Alan Steinberg, once upon a time America did send people “back to where they came from”

What is a “Congresswoman of color”?  How does she differ from a plain old “Congresswoman”?  Are the duties, rights, and responsibilities different?

Terms like “Congresswoman of color” are generally used by people who come from mono-chromatic worlds – whether that world is an all Somali-neighborhood in Minnesota or a Palestinian enclave in Michigan.  You can tell such places by the flags they fly.  If a neighborhood flies a flag other than the American flag it’s a good chance you have wandered into a mono-chromatic world.

See, Americans are a mixed people.  Ethnically and racially – as was often pointed out by the great Harlem Renaissance poet Jean Toomer.  A Quaker, Toomer knew that Americans were a “people of the word” – what sets us apart are the words in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  Our freedoms make us who we are.  After spending many years traveling, Toomer lived and mentored in Doylestown, Bucks County, where he died in 1967. 

Those who think in terms of “people of color” and who are obsessed by the tint of one’s skin are almost always themselves racialists.  Wikipedia notes that “Racialism is the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races, that are ostensibly distinct biological categories.”

The philosopher W.E.B. DuBois argued that racialism was merely the philosophical position that races existed, and that collective differences existed among such categories.  DuBois held that racialism was a value-neutral term and differed from racism in that the latter required advancing the argument that one race is superior to other races of human beings.

Of course, science has largely erased such arguments.  Aside from some genetic correlations in the incidence of diseases in this subset or that, the idea of “racial identity” that is forced down every American child’s throat, that haunts our society in everything from census forms to employment applications, is entirely a political construct.  The American idea of “race” is nonsense and calling people “racist” is a nonsense game.  The actor Morgan Freeman got it right…

Enter Alan Steinberg, house “Republican” for a far-Left insider blog financed by some rather unsavory government vendors.  Steinberg longs for the days when the NJGOP was run by rich, so called “blue-bloods” (a mixed caste that claimed it could trace some measure of its history back to America’s colonial masters).  Unfortunately for Steinberg, all the rich “blue-bloods” are today Democrats, which is why Steinberg is such a decidedly anti-Republican “Republican”.  Like the writer Stefan Zweig, he longs for a lost monarchy, his queen, in exile. 

Alan Steinberg is a racialist.  He embraces the concept of race as central to our political, academic, economic, and cultural discourse in America.  He wants to elevate it to the center of all things, a thing that does not exist.  In some ways, Steinberg is like Donald Trump, who is also a racialist, albeit a tongue-in-cheek one.  Who can take half of what he tweets seriously?  How much of it is designed to arouse – like the comedic entertainer – simply for the pleasure of it.  Steinberg however, is very serious.  He applies heavy meaning to his racialism.

So do his allies in the Democrat Party.  As do those radical Democrats he claims he doesn’t like – Ms. A.O.C. and her posse.  They are racialists all. 

Alan Steinberg is deeply troubled by President Trump’s most recent taunt to Congresswoman A.O.C. and her… wait for it… fellow congresswomen of color, that they “go back to where you came from”.  Of course, they all came from here, from the America of made-up racial and ethnic “identities”.  All from mono-chromatic worlds.  Fake worlds, with flags from other places that are meant to impart some sense of false nationality, irrelevant to the place in which they actually live.  But fly them they do, in these make-pretend “colonies” that unwind and break-up as those within them meet, fall-in-love with, and are absorbed by the real place, by the nation that is, by America.

But as Steinberg fumes and pouts, it is funny to remember that – once upon a time – America really did send people “back where you came from”.  And for the most part, they could in no way be described as “people of color”.  Most of these people where Nazis, war criminals, and America was more than happy to use the words “go back to where you came from”.  Wikipedia notes:   

“According to a February 2, 2011 release from the United States Department of Justice, since 1979, the federal government has stripped 107 people of citizenship for alleged involvement in war crimes committed during World War II through the efforts of the Office of Special Investigations (OSI).  An unabridged 600-page Justice Department report obtained by The New York Times in 2010 stated, ‘More than 300 Nazi persecutors have been deported, stripped of citizenship or blocked from entering the United States since the creation of the O.S.I.’ The Los Angeles Times reported in 2008 that five such denaturalized men could not be deported as no country would accept them, and that four others had died while in the same situation.”

One wonders:  With Governor Murphy’s Sanctuary State directives and the unwillingness by many Democrats to in any way question an asylum seeker’s claims, how many sometime war criminals (or just plain violent criminals) will we be holding similar proceedings on some decades from now?  Stay tuned…

Tucker Carlson: Do Republicans know who their base is?

Tucker Carlson had author J.D. Vance on last evening…

Closer to home, New Jersey Republicans are searching for a winning message with which to build a defensive wall around their remaining legislative districts – and as a springboard for taking back some of what has been lost. While those professionals with experience running campaigns appear to be no closer to coming up with an umbrella message under which they can unify the party, activists like John Robert Carman of the New Jersey Constitutional Republicans (NJCR), are taking a stab at it…

John Robert Carman writes:

Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting with NJGOP Chairman Doug Steinhart, NJGOP Executive Director, Therese Winegar and GOP State Director, Ron Filan. I shared with them the 5 Point Plan the New Jersey Constitutional Republicans could help initiate with NJGOP to lead Republicans, “On to Victory” in New Jersey.

The 5-Point Plan consists of Point 1: Restoration- The historical circumstances that existed in the 1850’s leading to Civil War are uncannily like our present situation in NJ, and the nation. As Lincoln restored the initial principles of the Declaration of Independence being, the equality of all mankind before the law; natural rights (life, liberty & the environment from which to pursuit happiness); protecting the right of each person to own and keep property and the legitimacy of government by consent of the people.

Lincoln incorporated the necessity of preserving the Constitution in protecting the principles of the Declaration of Independence and thereby, assuring the preservation of our Union which is precisely what is needed in our fractured state and nation today. In restoring these initial Republican principles, we return to the solid foundation of our founding documents and incorporate these ideals and values into every sphere of public policy. Republican voters and those who want to vote Republican are looking for a distinct contrast from the Democrats in philosophy and ideology. A return to initial Republican principles will clearly demonstrate the difference and strengthen our Party.

Point 2: Education-The Key to Republican Resurgence in NJ! This is NJCR’s forte and encompasses many areas of study that positively starts with history; knowing the founding documents and the spirit of their intent. Educating citizens on constitutional republican government, limited government and the proper role of representative government. Educating citizens on the initial values of the Republican Party; equality under law; liberty and justice for all, due process, and individual accountability and responsibility. Educating our citizens on the necessity of civics and the forgotten , yet indispensable role the citizens plays in forming fair and just public policy. Educating citizens on the Laws of Nature and Natures’ God which are perpetual and remain constant throughout time and place. Educating also includes the negative impact progressivism and marxism and their significant role in marginalizing our constitutional republic leading to the great dilemma and division in our state and nation today. NJCR looks to participate with NJGOP in offering educational presentations throughout the state with County GOP organizations and Young Republican organizations that equip our citizens with the knowledge and encouragement they will need to enthusiastically nurture Republican voters and assure Republican representation at the local, state and national stages.

Point 3: Preservation: The Republican Party is the last, best hope for the preservation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution protecting those principles. Republicans are the only entity standing between a tyrannical mobocracy and the natural rights of individual liberty and justice the Constitution assures. The Democrats are determined to eliminate the principles of the DOI and the Constitution. Republicans must proclaim the message that we are the sole defenders of our Constitution and the only Party with the desire, ability and facility to protect it.

Point 4: Participation: Self Governance. Having people actively engaged with public policy and making their voices heard in the legislative process. Establishing relationships with their elected representatives, holding them accountable to securing the rights of all citizens they represent, not just those who vote for them, calling them, meeting them, writing them, emailing them. Mobilizing blast calls and immediate calls to action when potential legislation is brought to the State House floor for a vote. Encouraging a consistent dialogue with representatives and our responsibility as leaders of the Republican Party in equipping citizens to be successful in effectively participating in Self-Governance.

Point 5: Unification: Initially the Republican Party was made up of several parties and entities, the Whigs, the Know Nothings, Free Soilers, Union Democrats and Radical Republicans. It was a constant struggle for Lincoln to maintain the unity amongst these factions to abolish slavery; preserve the Union and win the Civil War. Today we must Incorporate all the factions that share our initial values which NJGOP has begun with Grassroots21 initiatives along with the necessity of incorporating fiscal and social conservatives; 2nd Amendment Defenders; Tea Partiers; Right to Lifers; Constitutionalist; MAGA’s; Independents; Unaffiliated, and Blue Dog Democrats all into one unified Republican Party. Give candidates that may come from these factions an opportunity to battle it out in primaries and give them all a sense of ownership within the Party and the belief they can win as Republicans. Go into urban areas and other Democratic strongholds with the initial principles of our Republican Party, promoting new, consistent and lasting relationships within the Black and Latino communities. Meet with Republicans and conservatives within these communities and empower them with all the tools, education and support they would need to reach their communities. This 5 Point Plan can work but only with the participation of thousands of like minded citizens determined to restore Republican principles and values; teaching truth and justice; preserving our constitution and our constitutional republic; participating in public policy making and unifying freedom and liberty motivated citizens all determined to reinstate our sovereignty, We the Peoples sovereignty within government in New Jersey and our nation.  

Join NJGOP and the New Jersey Constitutional Republicans today and may we march “On to Victory.”

Does this message get the job done? Is it motivational, concise, and easy to understand? Can you envision this as the basis for campaign mail, social media, broadcast, cable, and radio ads? In any case, it is a start, so be thankful for that.

Anti-Religious Asbury Park City Council Violated Constitution, Unwittingly Supported Hate and Neglected Black People

By Thomas DeSeno

NOTE:  This story originally appeared in MoreMonmouthMusings.net – courtesy of our friend, Art Gallagher.

Asbury Park Democrat Chairman Giuseppe Joe Grillo, Deputy Mayor Amy Quinn, Tommy DeSeno and Mayor John Moor. photo via facebook

The Asbury Park City Council, using government letterhead, made a declaration opposing a religious belief.  Government can no more denounce a religious belief than they can endorse one, without violating the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause.  They then went on an illegal bullying campaign against a Pastor.  So caught up in a mob-induced false narrative of gossip, they ignored that the Pastor was bringing financial relief to the Westside black community, something all City Councils failed to do for 50 years.

Pastor JD Shuttlesworth scheduled a weeklong “Festival of Life” here, as he does in poor communities across America, handing out cash cards, groceries, even a car.  He celebrates Jesus while doing so. He wanted to serve Asbury Park’s poor black community as he did in Camden.  The applicant for the permit to use Bradley Park was local Pastor Lyddale Akins, who was jointly sponsoring the event.

Unfortunately Asbury Park has an “outrage team.”  It is comprised mostly of middle-class white people who commit cultural appropriation, pretending to be marginalized.  They constantly protest whatever is in the news that week, outrageous or not.  They are inorganic. Different protests, same gang “virtue signaling” every time.

One of them started gossip that Shuttlesworth preaches hate against gays.  This triggered the outrage team.  They started false and heinous rumors, portraying this man as the second coming of Jim Jones. The City bought it.

They said Shuttlesworth is a Bible Belt Evangelical (a dog whistle to the virulently anti-Christian).  He’s actually a Pentecostal from Pennsylvania. While his religion believes  gay sex is a sin, stating that dogma isn’t “hate;” just as other pastors stating sodomy committed by straight people is sinful, is also not “hate.”

Be clear: Nothing compels me to agree with or defend Shuttlesworth here.  I’m not. That isn’t the point.  It’s Ok for every person, business, church and political officeholder to protest the Pastor’s religion. Have at it, if that’s your way.  But you know who is not free to protest his religion?  The Government itself.  If Government condemns some dogma you end up with a state religion of dogma not condemned, violating the Establishment Clause. That’s the point.

Pastor JD Shuttleworth preaching in Asbury Park

Let’s tell this story chronologically.  It spans about 96 hours. Its antagonists are the City Council, 3 local Pastors and the outrage team.   Let’s see how the rumors of one person from the outrage team quickly seduced the City Council to become a Star Chamber of religious intolerance and turned 3 local Pastors who joined them into Christian apostates and bullies.

The Wednesday before the Sunday the festival began, a City Councilperson who had been told an outrage team member claimed Shuttlesworth was homophobic, made a phone call to the City Manager. That Council member inquired what could be done about Shuttlesworth, and the manager responded that they should get a Special Events Permit for a protest.   That night the outrage team held a panic meeting to plan that protest, in league with a representative of the City.  The following morning (Thursday) the City Council issued their government position attacking the Pastor’s “rhetoric” on homosexual sex.  Let’s pause the chronology to look at that.

The “rhetoric” is one YouTube video, with Shuttlesworth sermonizing in church, citing his religion’s dogma that gay sex (not simply being gay) is a sin.  I have made dozens of requests of the City, the outrage team and their supporters  to show any other videos, and they can’t (most couldn’t cite that video, stating only they heard gossip the Pastor was bad). So the City Council issued a government position, condemning a church sermon about a religious belief, which is illegal for them to do.

Back to the chronology.  The next morning (Friday), the outrage team issued a statement that their protest would likely be in Atlantic Park, adjacent to Bradley Park.   To rent a park in Asbury, one must apply, get scheduled for a council meeting, be reviewed by the Special Events Committee, have a public comment session and win the council vote.  It takes about 45 days or longer.

Not so when the City itself is secretly planning the event for you.  Friday afternoon the outrage team walked into City Hall with an application and walked out with a one day permit.  The City Council wasn’t there.  The City Manager was at a meeting in Trenton.  But the City Manager gave word to a clerk to hand them a permit (normally he legally he can, but since this was his idea, it probably wasn’t legal due to a conflict of interest). Let’s stop the chronology again to look at that very moment.

The application was in the name of the owner of a concert sound company.  Why?  He has the biggest speakers in town to drown out the Pastor.  But the permit wasn’t issued to him.  It was issued to a non-existent entity called “Rally of Love.”  Since no such thing exists, the taxpayers are on the hook for liabilities.  For insurance, the President of the Chamber of Commerce has a business and tried to use hers, with a declaration page insuring the park and the City.  The problem is, if she didn’t tell her insurance company she was neither the applicant nor the permit holder, they will deny all claims, again leaving the taxpayer footing the bill for lawsuits.

The $1,500 fee to rent the park has not been paid.  Also, the outrage team used the park not 1 day like their “permit” said; the City let them use it 5 days.  They owe the taxpayers $7,500.00, and they aren’t paying it. I suggest the Homeowners Association take them and the City Council to court for it.

Back to the chronology.  By Saturday, Pastor Lyddale Akin was brow-beaten by the outrage team into pulling out as co-sponsor of Shuttlesworth’s Festival of Life. Who could blame him.  The outrage team are bullies.  Privately, businesses are expressing a fear of saying no to the outrage team’s constant demands for money or donations. With social media, they can start an online propaganda campaign, create posters and protest you near instantaneously.  Scarier, the City Council joins every protest, thus legitimizing them, while media reports on them dutifully.   The outrage team can conduct a digital Kristallnacht against your business or church at any time using this neo-fascist method. #Love though –  it says so on all their signs.

On Sunday, who was on the stage with giant speakers drowning out a Pastor preaching Gospel and handing out gifts to primarily poor blacks?  A City Council majority. It was their gig, from the idea of it, to planning, to greasing the permit, to the protest. It’s wrong, and I supported Mayor Moor and Deputy Mayor Quinn in their every election. I still admire and support them, noting that in this instance, they didn’t guard themselves from the impetuousness and groupthink of the outrage team.

The outrage team also claimed the City encouraged people to make noise complaints and bring Shuttlesworth to court, calling it “a new form of protest,” thus using our Municipal Judge as a weapon against a religion.  Government gone wild. Good grief.

Gays rightfully spent years fighting the government power to value some people less than others.  Now that some gays are in Asbury Park’s government,  they used government power to devalue Shuttlesworth.  I’ve always supported gays being themselves.  Some gays in Asbury don’t want Shuttlesworth to be himself. They want him to be exactly like them. #Diversity, I guess. Don’t accuse me of being too broad.  I know we’ve had gays on Asbury Park’s City Council in the past who didn’t act like this.

We have to talk about 3 Pastors: Pastor Friedel of Shore Christian Church, the Rev. Dr. Vanzant of Second Baptist Church and Reverend Harris of the AME Zion Church.  They stood onstage to protest Shuttlesworth for espousing that gay sex is a sin.  Hypocrisy alert:  All three of their churches have Christian dogma that holds gay sex is a sin.  They protested what they believe to be the Word of the Lord. Look Pastors –  I get your fear of the outrage team.  I also know that Peter denied Christ three times before the cock crowed, but at least he cried bitterly when he did.  And the Romans had swords.

Other Protestant churches in Asbury Park also say gay sex is a sin, as well as two Catholic Churches and the Mosque on Ridge Avenue.  I don’t see the City Council, the outrage team or these 3 Pastors protesting Mt. Carmel or Holy Spirit Church.  Of course they’d never picket the Mosque –  that would counter too many Democrat talking points in an election year.

Let me tell you something else Pastors Friedel, Vanzant and Harris – you’re bullies. Imagine justifying to your Youth Ministries what your consorts did to Shuttlesworth and the bullying you supported by standing with them:  They spread lies that Shuttlesworth is a pedophile, a drug addict, shows infidelity to his wife,  has sex with strangers in bathrooms and is gay (something wrong with being gay?).  They  claim to be mailing annoyances to his Church. They had children as young as 6 tearing down Shuttlesworth’s posters so poor people couldn’t find out free groceries were available. They harassed businesses who had the posters.  They went online and made fun of Shuttlesworth’s children and his family’s clothes. #Love? You teach this?  You let yourselves become this. Where’s your decency?

Pastors, you helped drown out a sermon in the public square instead of promoting listening and dialogue. Giant speakers were used against him. The outrage team tried to have bagpipes,  bands,  noisemakers  and drum circles to stop his sermon from his west. From his east, The Beach Bar’s DJ turned up his volume to drown out the sermon. They also surrounded him, driving cars around Bradley Park with radios on full. You pastors drowned out a sermon.  #Christian?

You didn’t just surround Shuttlesworth, you came at him from above. The outrage team reported that the Asbury Hotel, whose owners iStar are partners in contracts with the City, threw colored confetti onto Shuttlesworth’s crowd from their roof. The bullies laughed online when the primarily poor black crowd first began to cower from not knowing what it was. I know what it was – litter-trespass-assault-impoliteness-annoyance. It’s all iStar. It’s all the City. And it’s you 3 intemperate Pastors, too. #Welcoming?

Here is what Christianity expects from you, Pastors.  You should issue an apology to Shuttlesworth for what you and your co-adventurers did to him and his family while visiting Asbury Park.  You can keep your distance from his ministry; you owe an apology to his humanity.  But I expect less from you. Christianity expects you to never partner with the outrage team again.  But I expect less from you.

Christian Fuscarino of Garden State Equality. file photo

Another bad actor here was Garden State Equality, the LGBT activist group whose head, Christian Fuscarino, is on the outrage team.    Last year Fuscarino was on stage with some of these same Pastors, and nearly summoned the courage to bring up their Churches’ stance on gays.  He should have, but he chickened.  Last week he teamed with them again, knowing they believe the same as Shuttlesworth.  But the mob targeted only Shuttlesworth, therefore so did he.  Garden State Equality has an anti-bullying campaign.  Maybe you should attend one of the meetings, Fuscarino.

Fuscarino had an ugly display of Christo-phobia while Shuttlesworth was here, but also showed a callous disregard for the black community.  It was selfish.  Mr. Fuscarino, let me tell you and the 3 Pastors what is meant by “Black Lives Matters:”  You have 10 fingers.  If one is cut and bleeding, at that moment, that finger matters. Not that the rest don’t, but that finger needs particular redress. Shuttlesworth saw that poor blacks in Asbury’s Westside both matter and need redress.  But Garden State Equality couldn’t stand the sight of some marginalized group getting attention on a day they were not. Selfishly, it must always be about them. So they tore at a Pastor bearing gifts – poor blacks receiving those gifts be damned. The City Council helped. I know none of you intended racism, but reckless actions have unintended consequences, like de facto racism.  #InstitutionalRacism?

Fuscarino is useless to gays anyway.  After Omar Mateen pledged his support to the Islamic State and killed 49 at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Garden State Equality immediately issued a statement of solidarity –  with Islam. The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) recently reported there are 8 countries in the world that put gays to death and 5 more who legally can, and all 13 use Islamic law to do it. They reported zero non-Islamic country killing gays.

ILGA doesn’t bring that up because they are  Islamophobic.  ILGA doesn’t bring it up to say all Muslims are bad.  Simply put Mr. Fuscarino, no LGBT advocate should show “solidarity” with Islam with that being the state of their world, while also viciously attacking a Christian who says gay sex is a sin. Your loyalty lies not with gays, but with the Democrat talking point that believes votes can be gained by calling everyone else Islamophobic. So you pledged solidarity to Omar Mateen’s inspiration and threw gays not under the bus, but off the roof (the preferred method for killing gays in 13 countries).

Probably the hardest part to understand was criticism of a Pastor giving away money, when criticism is usually reserved for Pastors asking for money.  When the owner of Johnnie Mac’s bar walked around Asbury last Christmas handing out tens of thousands of dollars in gift cards, all these same people praised him.  Shuttlesworth was simply doing the same in June. Is this hatred because he is a preacher? Asbury Park was named after a circuit preacher, much like Shuttlesworth is one.  What has happened to this City?

I telephoned Pastor Shuttlesworth.  I found a man who was magnanimous toward his haters.  Even the government.  He spoke only of his thrill to be able to preach to the people in Asbury Park and lift them.  I tried to bait him into complaints about his detractors and he would only express his love for them.  He praised our police.  He rarely brings up homosexual sex in his sermons. It is unfortunate that became the hyperbolic scream of his Asbury Park protestors. He told me he is used to it.  In today’s world, wherever he preaches, an anti-Christian bias appears in protest.  He still loves them.

That conversation made me reflect upon the state of Asbury Park.  Since when do we believe that people are only one thing?  It is wrong to label people “all good” and “all bad.”  It is wrong to find one thing we disagree with about someone, then label them “all bad.”  Certainly someone who holds one trait we dislike can have a thousand others we do.  Certainly a person with whom we disagree with in one area is also capable of many good deeds.  Isn’t that the point of diversity, even multiculturalism?  What happens to love if one disagreement triggers hate?

To the 3 Pastors, I ask you to recall the story of Cyrus from the Bible – which reveals to us that  God will even call upon a heathen to do good works. You could have supported Shuttlesworth in his quest to help the poor while disagreeing with him in other areas.

So what can be done?  Someone could file a complaint with the State Department of Community Affairs against the City Council.  This isn’t the first time this has happened in Asbury.  Last September the outrage team held a rally that protested a political party, where only officials from the Democrat Party were allowed to speak.  It turned into a rally against white people, America and the President. Yet two of the sponsors were the Asbury Park School District and The Asbury Park Housing Authority, and they had officials on stage.  Government entities can’t do that! Government entities can’t join political rallies!  Asbury’s constant mixing of Government and activism is out of control.

Maybe if the Publisher of the only daily newspaper around here wasn’t so busy accepting community service awards from the very same people that he should be investigating/reporting about, he might file a complaint with the DCA.

But forget that complaint.  I hate seeing people jammed up. I say to the City Council there is a better way.  Start by issuing a withdrawal of your government statement.  Apologize to Shuttlesworth for how he was treated as a visitor.  You can stay away from his ministry, but like the Pastors, you owe an apology to his humanity.  Unlike the Pastors, I have higher expectations of you and believe that you will.   The other thing that you MUST do is avoid letting activists use the Government as a tool.  It’s illegal.  Stop it.  Tell the outrage team the City Council is going to take a break from the constant protests in town. Leave activism to the activists.

All that’s left is for me to ask Pastor Shuttlesworth to pray for me, because I know what  happens when someone holds a minority view in this City these days.  Instead of inspiring dialogue and healing, I’ll receive hate, public humiliation and excoriation. The gentleness and love Blue Bishops once held for each other is gone, replaced by gentrifying newcomers whose spirit is based not upon compassion, but ill-will and glory-seeking.

I hope instead the outrage team will reflect upon my motto:  Politics is a tiny part of who we are – never let it stop you from enjoying the rest of a person.

Tommy De Seno is an attorney, a journalist and a contributor to the website Ricochet.com