A Clear and Present Danger

Judge Luttig’s, a conservative appellate court judge, prepared comments for the House of Representatives hearings on the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol Riots has been described as a clear-and-present danger document. “Written in a language that is reasoned and thoughtful in its analysis, yet still piercing in its attempt to shake Americans to not turn away but to recognize the dangers and respond to them.” Describing America as “adrift” Luttig stated “We Americans no longer agree what is right or wrong, what is to be valued and what is not, and what is tolerable discourse in civilized society.” Luttig continues “Americans cannot agree on how to be governed or by whom or on a set of shared values, beliefs and goals.” Luttig’s position on the Capitol riots is that they were “the product of the most reckless, insidious and calamitous failures in both legal and political judgement in American history.” His harshest criticism was directed at one political party’s attitude toward the Capitol riots. “One of two America’s two political parties cannot even agree on whether that day was good or bad, right or wrong …. needed or not.” He called claims that the attack was either a “legitimate political discourse” or a visitor’s tour of the Capitol that went awry as cynical and embarrassing rationalizations.” Luttig states “The country can begin to move back from the barricades in the way that reconciling all broken relationships begins, by talking to one another and listening to one another as human beings and fellow citizens who share the same destiny and the same belief in America.” (Note: Reference for above information is from the article “A frightening analysis of democracy on the brink” by Dan Balz. Page A2, Washington Post, Sunday, June 19, 2022). As compelling a witness as Judge Luttig was and as seriously meaningful as his warnings are they seem to be having no effect. The telling of untruths like a “stolen election” and “rigged voting machines” continue on a daily basis. Preliminary results from the ongoing primary elections have had mixed results but favoring candidates that support the continuance of these lies. Even as Judge Luttig makes note the lies continue due to the support of one particular political party.

Meanwhile the initial fervor to establish new gun laws in the wake of the most recent mass shootings has seemed to lose its impetus and the likelihood of any new legislation being created decreases each day. What’s more, a recent analysis posted by Glenn Kessler looked at 41 mass shootings that have occurred since 2015 and compared the present proposed legislation to those events to determine what effect the legislation would have in mitigating future similar shootings. Kessler’s conclusion states “The takeaway is nuanced: Only about one third of these mass killings might have been prevented by any major proposals. But some ideas – such as not allowing people under age 21 to buy assault rifles and banning ammunition storage and feeding devices known as magazines that hold more than 10 rounds – might have minimized the bloodshed.” (Note reference article: “Mass killings since 2015: Would laws have helped?” page A4, Washington Post, Sunday, June 19, 2022). The latest news from the Senate team negotiating the new legislation is that those sorts of initiatives are off the table. In other words, the new gun law legislation being discussed would have had some effect on about 10 of the mass shootings analyzed. As of today, the Senate has drafted proposed legislation to set aside millions of dollars for mental health, school safety and crisis intervention. Additionally, it proposes incentives for states to include juvenile records in the national criminal background check system. These proposals are modest in my mind because they address support in coping with the problem indirectly and do not do anything to directly resolve the problem of gun violence. No question that improving mental health and tightening school security will help. Even the sponsors of this legislation are claiming mainly a moral victory and a step in the right direction. With that in mind, it has been noted that nothing has been signed into law yet. There has simply been an approval to bring the legislation to the Senate floor for a vote. There is no guarantee that there are sufficient votes in the Senate to gain final approval for even these modest efforts. It appears there is a good chance, even though the furor continues to grow with regard to the inadequacy of the local police response to the latest school shooting, the Congressional response may be the same as it has been in the past, that is nothing but empty rhetoric. It should be noted that the same political party that continues to spread election lies is blocking any meaningful gun control legislation that would mitigate the flow of mass murdering in our country.

While a Congressional bipartisan gun deal languishes, the Supreme Court soon will issue a ruling that could make it easier for people in at least a half-dozen states to legally carry loaded firearms in public. If the justices strike down New York’s century-old restrictions on carrying concealed firearms, as appeared likely when the case was heard last fall, similar regulations in California, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii and Massachusetts will be vulnerable. (Note referenced article: “In six states, it could soon become easier to carry a gun” by Ann Marimow & Shayna Jacobs, page A1, Washington Post, Sunday, June 19, 2022.) I am not against gun ownership, but I do not believe our nation needs an expansion of gun liberties in the middle of our chronic mass shooting dilemma. It should also be noted that the current Supreme Court structure is the result of the calculated effort to block and control the Supreme Court appointments over the last two administrations by the same political party that is currently blocking any new gun control legislation and the same party that continues to foster lies about previous and current elections.

Pictured above is Rusty Bowers, Arizona House Speaker who testified in Congress that the reason he resisted requests to falsify election results was because he considered his vow to uphold the Constitution of the United States as a sacred tenet of his faith. His testimony clearly indicated his faith governed his resistance to elected officials from the same political party to which he belongs. Elected officials who were trying to convince Mr. Bowers to conduct unconstitutional election activities that were unprecedented in the history of our country. My expectation of every politician who claims to be a man or woman of faith is no less than to refrain from such actions like these. But not all politicians claim to be of faith. So my argument is not with politicians, but I applaud those like Mr. Bowers who conduct their constitutional duties with integrity through their faith.

It is a fact that every elected official is elected and represents those who elect him or her. It is also true, based on all election analysis that I have read in recent years, that the same political party that is sponsoring all the issues discussed above has remained in political control of our country largely because of senior white evangelicals. (Note: 78% in 2016 and 80% in 2020 of white evangelicals supported Trump according to data from the Cooperative Election Study conducted by Harvard University…the largest percentages of 15 faith groups in the study.) This slice of the evangelical voting community has been significant in determining the difference in the outcomes of many recent elections at both the state and national level of politics. I am a senior white evangelical voter and am amazed at this result because I believe many of the political decisions made by this controlling party are contrary to my faith. My faith tells me that our country is in the midst of a clear-and-present danger largely because of the decisions of the leaders of this political party failing to act with integrity and without any concern for the greater good of our country. This neglect of integrity and lack of concern for the greater good has been pervasive from the oval office, to Congress, and down to the state and local levels of government in our nation. Because of that pervasiveness, I believe our nation is at a perilous point in its history, described by Judge Luttig as a point of clear-and-present danger. The clear-and-present danger is that we find our nation at the nexus of a crisis at all three components of our democracy. We have our nation corruptly influenced through the Chief of the Executive Branch (the President), at the highest levels of the Legislative Branch (the Senate and the House of Representatives) and now the highest level of the Judicial Branch (the Supreme Court). I believe our country has never before faced a three-pronged simultaneous attack on all three branches of government. I also believe our country stands in great peril facing the next election cycle which begins this fall. If the nation continues to elect the same congressional and executive officials that support untruths and unconstitutional behaviors, our nation will take a great step away from democracy and towards autocracy. We will follow the course of events that have befallen many other nations on this earth. We are not exempt from such a fate. If you believe we are, I recommend a reading of Barbara F. Walter’s “How Civil Wars Start” by Crown publishers.

I believe the problem facing our nation is a spiritual problem. I also believe the solution must begin with the people of faith. But how can people of faith have such diverse views when it comes to politics? Scripture gives us an indication as to why many people of faith have tuned out when it comes to warnings about future peril. Mathew 13: 14,15 explains why Christ used parables to illustrate the dilemma of unbelief in the people of faith during His time. “And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: Hearing you hear and shall not understand and seeing you will see and not perceive; For the heart of this people has grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their heart and turn, So that I should heal them.” Scripture also talks about “strongholds” and “arguments” as the resistance to belief (2 Corinthians 10:4,5). “Strongholds” create a hardness of heart, “arguments” resist a change of mind or thinking. Once hearts are set and minds are made up people don’t change even when confronted by truth. Gabriel Sterling, Georgia Elections Official, during his testimony at the House hearings stated that once people get a decision in their heart it does not matter what the facts are. I have had that experience with very close members of my family, people of faith. Once a heart and mind are set, facts do not matter.

So, what do we do? People of faith: pray, walk humbly before the God of your understanding, speak the truth with kindness when given the opportunity, and trust God. “If my people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and hear their land.” (2 Chronicles 7:14). Mr. Bowers in his testimony before Congress said he believed our Constitution was Divinely inspired. I agree and believe if God was instrumental in the creation of our nation’s architecture, then, I believe He is interested in the present and future of our country as well. He is just waiting for His people to ask for His help.