News

With all of the innuendo about Charlottesville Police Chief, Al Thomas, and his alleged “stand down” order to officers during Charlottesville’s August 12 riots, another such order has gone largely unnoticed.

During the December 4, 2017 Charlottesville City Council meeting, local activist, Tanesha Hudson, was berating Mayor Michael Signer, for his violation of Charlottesville’s permit regulations, during Signer’s illegal “Capital of the Resistance” rally in January. Ms. Hudson correctly asserted that Signer should apologize for his rally, because Signer’s defiance of the lawled to the City’s inability to enforce its existing permit regulations on August 12.

Hudson was not recognized to speak, and after attempting to placate her, the Mayor called Ms. Hudson “out of order.” Charlottesville City Council meeting procedures clearly bar disorderly conduct, and violators are subject to removal from the chambers:

Any speaker who violates the rules will be called to order by the Mayor. If the remarks or conduct persists, the Mayor shall order the speaker to cease speaking and be seated. If the order is not heeded, the Mayor shall direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the individual from the meeting room.

Previously, Mayor Signer has not hesitated to enforce removal of violators who are not popular with the assembled mob; to these unfortunate victims of political duplicity, the council rules are strictly applied.

In Ms. Hudson’s case, the council horde was solidly aligned. Thus, the Mayor shirked his duties and ignored the rules, allowing Hudson to continue speaking out of turn.

A stationed Charlottesville police officer reacting to the fracas, engaged with Ms. Hudson in an attempt to reestablish order. Immediately, Vice Mayor Wes Bellamy barked a thinly veiled “stand down” order to the police officer from the Council dais, “Officer, she’s fine. She’s fine. She’s fine.” Mayor Signer, sensing a public relations disaster, chimed in with his own chorus of, “she’s fine, she’s fine.”

Following his public reprimand, the hapless officer turned away from his duties and slunk to the back of the room.

There should be no wonder that the climate of chaos continues in Charlottesville City Hall. Longstanding Council practices of chicanery, dishonesty, artifice, and double-dealing in their engagement with the public, have come home to roost. The “rule of man” has supplanted the “rule of law” in Charlottesville, and until that dangerous inequity is rectified, there will be no justice and there will be no peace—for anyone in Charlottesville.

---

Rob Schilling is founder of The Schilling Show Blog and News; host of WINA’s The Schilling Show, heard weekdays from noon to 2 PM; husband; father; and community watchdog.

The Republican Party of Virginia is wasting no time hammering Governor McAuliffe and Governor-elect Northam for the incredulous $40 fees for “Lexus Lanes” along I-66 in Day Two of the now universally despised Terry Tolls.

RPV’s chairman John Whitbeck blasts the governor for the oddly timed opening of the new HOT lanes:

A less cynical person might think it’s a coincidence that these tolls took effect in Northern Virginia after voters had gone to the polls. Having worked around Terry McAuliffe and his team for four years now – and with $40 tolls now a reality – I don’t think I’ve been cynical enough. Governor McAuliffe owes Republicans an apology for his rhetoric in 2015, and Governor-elect Northam needs to immediately tell Northern Virginia how he intends to clean up McAuliffe’s mess.

Of course, when House and Senate Republicans blasted McAuliffe back in 2015 over the potential for $17.00 “Lexus Lane” fees… well, you can listen to his biting response here:

Rep. Barbara Comstock is castigating Virginia Department of Transportation Secretary Aubrey Lane for the wild disparity between what was claimed by McAuliffe and Northam as to the true fees on the “Lexus Lanes” versus what Republicans claimed would be the actual cost… versus what commuters are actively being forced to pay in order to avoid the I-66 parking lot.

Meanwhile, Jim Bacon over at Bacon’s Rebellion sheds nary a tear for those complaining about the sky high rates along I-66, instructing them to “join a friggin’ carpool” and other helpful advice:

I have to say, a $34 toll for a 10-mile trip is extravagantly high. I would never pay it. Here’s a tip to the whiners: Don’t have to pay it either! Just drive on I-66 like you always have! There are no fewer lanes than there were before. Was traffic on I-66 this morning any worse than it was last week? No? Then get over it!

As long as you’re not the person paying them, high toll fares are good news. When the state covers its cost of setting up the HOT lane infrastructure, it will devote surplus revenue to multimodal improvements — buses, Metrorail, bicycle, pedestrian facilities — that take commuters off I-66 and make the highway a little less congested for everyone else.

Of course, there are two rejoinders to this.  First and foremost, vehicular commuters aren’t exactly paying their own way — they are subsidizing the cost of mass transit, as Bacon helpfully admonishes the reader.  Which perhaps, might be a tad bit galling to the commuter paying $40.00 for a one-way ride into Washington (or to those parked on the plebeian lanes to the right).

That drives the second point — this isn’t a “free market” solution to roads at all.  Rather, it is the Obamacare of roads, where commuters are overtaxed to provide for the gaps in a failing and mismanaged transportation system.

The spin from Democrats that somehow commuters are paying full freight is ridiculous on its face.  These commuters are not only paying their own way, but they are subsidizing a host of mass transit — bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, buses, light rail, VRE — all of which in a truly free market, the consumer would pay their own freight without loading the true cost on the backs of highway commuters.

…which isn’t happening at all.

Commuters are merely being punished for being commuters in dirty automobiles, while “green” solutions are being subsidized — hardly a free market, but it sure sounds like some old fashioned avuncular state nudging — all of which comes just three weeks after the Democrats carried the gubernatorial race.

Odd, that.

George Will over at National Review is known to be one of the most compelling minds of the conservative right and has been for many years.  One is loathe to disagree with someone of Will’s pedigree.

…and I am about to do so here.

To wit, Will writes that effectively, Jack Philips — the Colorado baker in question — does not have constitutionally protected speech when he is in a place of business:

Phillips was neither asked nor required to attend, let alone participate in, the wedding. Same-sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado, so Craig and Mullins were to be married in Massachusetts. The cake was for a subsequent reception in Denver. But even if the cake were to have been consumed at a wedding, Phillips’ creation of the cake before the ceremony would not have constituted participation in any meaningful sense.

Very specifically, Will cites the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which stipulates that a place of business would be required to serve everyone equally regardless of racial or religious background:

Six decades ago, the civil rights movement gained momentum through heroic acts of civil disobedience by African-Americans whose sit-ins at lunch counters, and other challenges to segregation in commerce, produced the “public accommodations” section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It established the principle that those who open their doors for business must serve all who enter. That principle would become quite porous were it suspended whenever someone claimed his or her conduct was speech expressing an idea, and therefore created a constitutional exemption from a valid and neutral law of general applicability.

What Will does not mention is that the 1964 Civil Rights act applies the principle for race, ethnicity, and sex among other things — but not for sexual orientation.

A minor quibble, perhaps.  One would be correct to argue that if racial background offended one’s religious sensibilities (for instance), that such a strongly and sincerely held religious belief would probably not hold up to scrutiny.

The argument here hinges on what Alliance Defending Freedom (who has picked up the case defending Phillips) calls “artistic expression” — meaning that Phillips is doing a bit more than working on an engine, making a sandwich, or filing paperwork.  Nor is Phillips making a sheet cake that says “Congration You Done It!” on it (click here to get the joke).

If you want to see precisely the sort of effort that goes into Phillip’s work, see here:

Where Will does get it right is in his condemnation of the excessive and brutal restorative claims the Colorado courts have imposed on Phillips, including the re-education of his staff, reporting to the government for two years, and detailing which cakes he feels morally compelled to decline making.

The line between what is artistic and what is arbitrary is… well, an arbitrary one.  Yet Denver has plenty of bakers, as Will duly notes.  If someone refuses to make a cake, take photos, or so forth?  A willing buyer can go elsewhere.

Yet there is a principle at play here that states effectively that individuals, when they enter the marketplace, surrender their First Amendment rights as a matter of participating in society.  This idea of “public sector services” as promoted by individuals such as EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, argues that the integrity of enshrined rights is ameliorated the moment you throw the doors open for service.  Ergo, declining to serve anyone regardless of one’s personal beliefs (no matter how strongly or religiously held) is a violation of the rights of the customer in a public forum.

The counter to this is quite simple.  Individuals hold rights regardless as to whether or not they exercise them solely, unite with another person to exercise that right, or band together in non-profits, labor unions or corporations.  At no point in time can an individual surrender these rights without due process, and as such, for the government to be able to command the positive response of conscience is a legal and moral impossibility.

In matters of conscience, coercion is as brutal a weapon as “shock and awe” is to foreign policy.  In this instance, neither a hammer nor a scalpel is required — merely the free market.  Will is correct to condemn the latter solution of coercion, but entirely misses the boat when it comes to positive acts of the individual being forced to violate one’s own conscience.