- The Washington Times - Friday, November 4, 2011

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 President 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.

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

Mr. Forbes explained that the reminder was needed in light of Mr. 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.’ “

The idea of affirming In God We Trust was too much for Jerrold Nadler, the New York liberal 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,” Mr. Nadler said, explaining his vote against the resolution.

Mr. Nadler’s comments mirror those of Mr. 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, Mr. Obama’s spokes-theologian, further mangled things by asserting, “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 Mr. Nadler, others voting against the resolution included Reps. Gary L. Ackerman, New York Democrat; Justin Amash, Michigan Republican; Judy Chu, California Democrat; Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri Democrat; Michael M. Honda, California Democrat; Henry C. “Hank” Johnson Jr., Georgia Democrat; Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, Virginia Democrat; and Fortney Pete Stark, California Democrat.

Reps. Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat, and Melvin L. Watt, North Carolina Democrat, voted “present.”

It’s not that Mr. 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 Mr. 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,’ ” Mr. 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, OK. How about unemployment? Mr. 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.

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? Mr. 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.

Story Continues →