Connect with us

Bill Britt

New ethics law: A brief analysis

Bill Britt

Published

on

An initial analysis of Senate Bill 230, which repeals and replaces sections of the Alabama Ethics Act as adopted in the 2010 special legislative session, finds that it makes two radical changes.

First, it removes the section of code that governs using a public office for personal gain, and secondly, it essentially turns the Alabama Ethics Commission into a repository for records.

It also allows for unlimited gifts from lobbyists or principals to public officials, changes the rules governing lobbyists and principals and more.

This analysis was prepared after consulting former lawmakers, prosecutors and ethics experts who spoke on background to preserve their independence should this matter require adjudication.

A commission to reform and clarify the ethics law was formed a year ago to make recommendations to the Legislature. The commission’s suggestions were largely ignored in SB230. Attorney General Steve Marshall and Director of the Ethics Commission Tom Albritton, who were co-chairs of the Ethics Reform and Clarification Commission, have both come out against the bill as presented to the state Senate.

The bill is sponsored by Republican Sens. Greg Albritton, Jimmy Holley, Tom Whatley, Del Marsh, Clyde Chambliss, Tim Melson, Tom Butler, Will Barfoot, Chris Elliott, Shay Shelnutt and Donnie Chesteen. No Democratic senators are party to the legislation at this time.

In 2010, Republican lawmakers added strict laws to prohibit activities by public officials, lobbyists, principals and others under Section 36-25-1.

Public Service Announcement


The new ethics statute removes Section 36-25-1, placing prohibited felony acts under the state’s criminal code.

Why is this move fraught with problems?

Under current law, it is a felony ethics violation for a public official or a public employee to use their office or position for material or personal gain.

It is also illegal for a public official or public employee to use office equipment or facilities for personal use.

Advertisement

Soliciting a thing of value from a person that the public official or public employee regulates or inspects is also a felony ethics offense under existing law.

The law also prohibits a member of a legislative body from voting on legislation with which the member has a conflict of interest and prevents a member of the Legislature from acting as a lobbyist before an executive department or agency.

SB230 moves all of the above offenses from under the ethics statute and places them in the criminal code, which means local district attorneys would be responsible for investigating and prosecuting these crimes.

How is this a problem?

Anyone with even a modest understanding of a district attorney’s office knows that they are generally understaffed and lack the resources to execute wide-ranging investigations into public corruption. District attorneys — being elected officials — are reluctant to seek an indictment of a local public official given the political nature of the office.

Example: Then-Speaker of the House Republican Mike Hubbard was investigated by a special unit of the attorney general’s office. The investigation, trial and conviction took nearly three years to reach a guilty verdict. It required thousands of staff hours and over a million dollars to prosecute. Even now, almost three years since his conviction, Hubbard’s case remains under appeal.

Imagine if the charges against Hubbard had to be presented by his county district attorney. Is there a rational belief that a Lee County district attorney would have had the workforce, financial resources or political will to prosecute someone as powerful and as locally popular as Hubbard?

SB230 places the burden on local district attorneys, which means, in essence, no influential political figure will ever be prosecuted. Even if a district attorney wanted to mount such a case, SB230 prohibits the district attorney from soliciting help from the Ethics Commission or the attorney general.

Removing the attorney general from the process

Since 1973, the state ethics code allowed for the Ethics Commission to refer cases to a district attorney or the attorney general’s office. Under the new law, they are not allowed to refer cases to the attorney general. But this is a moot point since the Ethics Commission will no longer have purview over such public corruption violations.

The attorney general is only mentioned three times in SB230. In SB230, the attorney general must approve any outside legal counsel hires for the commission, any material sent to the attorney general by the commission is subject to the Grand Jury Secrecy Act and district attorneys may request any previous opinions or material related to a case the district attorney is prosecuting. Again, it doesn’t allow a local district attorney to seek help from the AG in a public corruption case.

All felony violations of the state’s current ethics laws will now be placed in the criminal code outside the reach of the Ethics Commission and the attorney general with a few exceptions. Any violations are to be prosecuted by local district attorneys. The attorney general could, under his or her constitutional authority, take a case from a district attorney, but this would be extraordinary.

What happens to the Ethics Commission?

If SB230 is signed into law, the Ethics Commission will primarily be a repository of records. It will have jurisdiction over some misdemeanor offenses and some campaign violations, but mainly, it will determine civil penalties and keep filings of statements of economic interests, lobbyist registration and reported gifts, loans and other things of value from lobbyists and principals to public officials.

Unlimited giving to public officials.

Current law bans any gifts from lobbyists and principals to public officials over $25. Under SB230, that ban is lifted, allowing a lobbyist or a principal to give unlimited gifts, loans or other things of value to a public official or their family.

The only requirement is that a lobbyist or principal must report in writing the gift, loan or other things of value to the Ethics Commission.

There is a $5,000 fine for a failure to report things given.

SB230 does not require a public official to report any gift, loan or other things of value to the Ethics Commission.

Example: The new law would allow a lobbyist to open an account at a high-end clothing store or cafe and list the public official as someone who could use their account. A public official could then buy suits and shoes, enjoy lavish dinners and more at the lobbyist’s expense. The only requirement would be that the lobbyist submits a report to the Ethics Commission.

Oversight? 

Would the commission review every report? How could the public become aware of such gifts? And if a lobbyist failed to report, how would anyone know?

There is a section in SB230 that makes certain gift-giving illegal. The catch is that law enforcement would need to prove criminal intent.

SB230 makes a bribe under $6,000 a misdemeanor. The same is true of theft of government funds or property less than $6,000. So even if law enforcement proves intent, the punishment is minor.

Who is a principal?

After Hubbard’s conviction, a full-throttle effort was made to say that the law that determined a principal was vague. Republican leadership in both the House and Senate said a primary need for a new ethics bill was to define who was and who was not a principal more clearly.

SB230 doesn’t really change the definition of a principal, but it does shift the burden of a principal. Again, it is a moot argument because other sections allow broad latitude for a principal to interact with public officials, offering gifts and promises of future gains such as employment.

The new ethics law would allow a company to designate any member of the organization as the principal. Even if the principal in this case, say a secretary, was found guilty of committing a crime. The individual cannot be held criminally liable. The burden of the offense is placed on the corporation.

Example: In Hubbard’s case, he was convicted for asking for and receiving a thing of value from a principal. The current law states that a principal can’t give a thing of value to a public official. Because the principals were subject to being charged under the same felony ethics statute, they cooperated with prosecutors in Hubbard’s case. Under the new law, these individuals could not be persuaded to testify against Hubbard because they would not be personally liable.

So the dire need to define a principal resulted in a principal being anyone the company says it is, and even if the principal commits a crime, only the company is held accountable. A company cannot be sent to prison or forced to testify.

Lobbyists

Among the many changes in SB230, any lobbying efforts before the executive branch no longer require an individual to register as a lobbyist.

A lawmaker or any individual can ask the governor for things and not be restricted in those requests.

Example: Hubbard lobbied then-Gov. Robert Bentley for $20 million in workforce training and support for one of his clients. Bentley wasn’t aware Hubbard was being paid for his efforts and agreed to the arrangement. Hubbard was convicted for soliciting things on his client’s behalf. SB230 would remove such restrictions.

Lobbying now only applies to those asking for things from the Legislature, meaning requesting anything from the governor or state agencies doesn’t demand an individual register as a lobbyist.

Conclusion

During the 2010 special session where Republican lawmakers passed sweeping, hard-nosed ethics reform, a substitute bill was offered that would have allowed many of the things now proposed under SB230. Fresh off their election, promising a crackdown on 136 years of Democrat corruption, the measure was quickly voted down.

The experts APR interviewed for this brief analysis agree that SB230 guts the current ethics laws and plunges the state into a more precarious situation where it will be perceived as a place where businesses must engage in pay-to-play.

Alabama has a history rife with public corruption and is routinely labeled one of the most lawless states in the nation.

SB230 places fewer restrictions on public officials than the law that proceeded the 2010 reforms.

Al.com’s Kyle Whitmire and APR‘s Josh Moon have both offered compelling reporting on SB230 and are recommended for further reading.

Opinion | New bill would gut ethics laws — just like voters wanted

Over the last several legislative sessions, ethics clarification bills were offered by the state’s attorney general. Former prosecutor Matt Hart oversaw the 2017 proposed measure.

Those bills were rejected because they kept the strict language championed by Republicans in 2010.

APR‘s analysis based on hours of conversation with respected experts concludes that SB230 must be rejected by the state Legislature.

Bill Britt is editor-in-chief at the Alabama Political Reporter and host of The Voice of Alabama Politics. You can email him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter.

Advertisement

Bill Britt

Opinion | A search for the American conscience

Our response to the immediate crisis will surely determine our long-term destiny, and the collective conscience of “we the people” can be the moral force that brings about needed change.

Bill Britt

Published

on

U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights with a quill pen. (Stock photo)

A seemingly unstoppable virus, a sputtering economy and a cry for equal justice for Black citizens are trying the very soul of our nation. We stand at a time when the very conscience of our county and state is being tested in ways perhaps unimaginable just a few months ago.

Is there an American conscience?

Our government, our institutions and even who we are as a people are in question, and as with life in general, there are no easy answers.

Nearly 130,000 in the U.S. have lost their lives to COVID-19. In Alabama, almost 1,000 souls, and yet some of our citizens don’t even believe the virus exists, and if it does, some think it is not as bad as health professionals say.

Hospitals are being pushed to the brink, both physically and financially. While unemployment numbers are improving, there is a yet a steep hill to climb before fiscal solvency is restored to all Alabamians.

There are arguments over masks, fights over monuments and some are corrosively dismissive of the social injustice that disproportionately targets Black citizens.

The winds of change are blowing seeds of renewal; will they find a fallow ground or fall among the weeds and rocks?

Public Service Announcement


Many of our citizens want the nation to remain in the past, a past that, for the most part, never existed. Others desire that the country move forward and fulfill its greatest promises.

Can a house divided stand?

This national crisis of moral conscience is where the dividing line is drawn.

Advertisement

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.”

In this rendering, it is as if an unseen umpire sits somewhere in our minds and judges our actions.

But if the conscience is formed from birth and as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy suggests, “is like an empty box that can be filled with any type of moral content,” then our learning and understanding is the umpire and not some innate righteous force.

Is this why seemingly reasonable people see things so differently?

Take, for example, the Black Lives Matter movement. According to a recent CBS/YouGov poll, a majority of the American public, including more than half of white Americans, say they agree with the Black Lives Matter movement’s ideas.

The June CBS/YouGov survey also found a partisan divide exists on the issue with most Democrats and Independents supportive while a “large majority of Republicans say they disagree with the ideas expressed by the Black Lives Matter” and most Republicans also oppose the protests—though “one-quarter of Republicans join that majority of Democrats in supporting them.”

The poll is neither startling nor unimaginable and only confirms a divided nation.

The same schism can be found when individuals are polled about the new coronavirus and monuments.

Since individuals see things through entirely different apertures, is it possible to turn to a national conscience for resolution?

On December 23, 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

Paine was rallying the people of the American colonies to a revolution that would form a new nation with an aspirational promise of equality and unalienable rights, “that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

America just celebrated its 244th year of independence and the principles of the new nation were well-defined — even if not universally applied.

For Black Americans, the promise of the founding principles is yet unfulfilled.

Yes, the laws changed in the 60s, but there is still a long way to go in practice. Laws in themselves do not alter hearts and minds.

Alabama’s 1901 Constitution was written to deny equal access to justice for Black and poor Alabamians by keeping Montgomery as the power center from which all money and rights would flow. There have been changes but none so great as to amend the wrongs written into the state’s founding document.

A few short years ago, the state government passed a law that protected Confederate monuments that state lawmakers thought should be preserved as part of Southern heritage.

What monuments are revered speaks to national and local character. Is our character one that says we should honor those who sought to ensure the continuance of human bondage?

Should we honor those who preached and enforced segregation for political gain?

There is another way to look at statues and that is to realize that they are more reflective of the thinking at the time than the shrine itself.

If monuments are artifacts of the moment and not truthfully to honor history, then what they mean today is an open subject for debate.

Is the statue of Jefferson Davis on the Capitol grounds in Montgomery a symbol of who we are now or a reminder of who Alabama citizens were at the time it was erected?

This is not about erasing history but about recognizing monuments for what they are and acknowledging their meaning to all citizens.

The fact that most world religions warn against idols shouldn’t be lost in the moment either. Statues are tricky because heroes are almost always redefined by present events.

While nations should be built on laws alone, they are also made on myths and legends. But history has a way of exposing myths and bringing legends low.

Washington could tell a lie, Honest Abe was not always truthful, and under our current law application, some people are more equal than others. Should their memorials be removed because they were flawed? No

In his work “Adam Smith on the nature and authority of conscience,” Albert Shin argues, “there is a need to cultivate our conscience. We do so; I will argue, primarily through encountering diversity, which leads to disagreements, which prompt us to reevaluate how we judge others.”

Again the Catholic Church finds, “Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.”

Are we more divided than ever? Probably not.

Is there a way out of the present threefold dilemma? Yes.

Returning to our founding principles while understanding that they are for everyone is a start. But principles shouldn’t change with every election or be sacrificed to win one.

Indeed, King George III thought those who staged the Boston Tea Party were thugs and looters, set to overthrow the government.

No, they were ordinary citizens who saw injustice and launched a revolution.

Today, we do not see so much a call for revolution but a demand for evolution across a broad front of problems.

There is now a need for better respect for health and science, for our neighbors of all skin colors and a rethinking of the inequities of poverty.

Our response to the immediate crisis will surely determine our long-term destiny, and the collective conscience of “we the people” can be the moral force that brings about needed change.

Continue Reading

Bill Britt

Opinion | Who will stand and lead?

Bill Britt

Published

on

Alabama is beset by a worldwide pandemic, economic collapse and a growing cry for social justice for its black citizens.

Anyone of these crises alone would require superior leadership of conscience, fortitude and political skill. But at this moment, who is leading?

The silence of the state’s top leaders is troubling but speaks to the paralyzing effects of polarizing politics.

As the number of sick, hospitalized and dying from COVID-19 continues to rise in Alabama, the voices of those in charge are painfully silent.

Has the state abdicated its responsibility for the health and safety of its citizens in favor of hoping for a quick economic rebound?

In the wale of the protest that began with the killing of George Floyd and continues today, on the Republican side, only a few have offered constructive comments.

In a recent column Congressman Bradley Byrne wrote, “These last few weeks have riveted the country’s attention on police brutality. The murder of George Floyd was an atrocity, and unfortunately, it’s not the first one. As we have so often in our history, it’s time for America to respond with appropriate and reasonable reform. It’s not time to lose our heads, however.”

Public Service Announcement


He also said, “Let’s say it plainly. Black people are of equal moral value as white people. It’s Biblical; it’s American. And to treat people differently based on their race is morally and legally repugnant. To injure or kill them for the same reason goes against everything we stand for.”

Byrne argues that it is mostly a local issue and singles out only rouge cops, but it’s a starting point for dialogue.

Gov. Kay Ivey, in a June 1 statement said, “Like so many others throughout the country and around the world, I, too, was shocked and angered by the tragic actions that led to the senseless death of George Floyd last week in Minneapolis,” Ivey said. “It is a death that should have never happened, and it is a tragedy for which that too many people, especially African Americans, are all too familiar.”

Advertisement

While Ivey condemned violent protests, she recalled that Alabama citizens have a rich history of using “peaceful protests to lead the country – and the world – to positive change.”

While peaceful protest did, in fact, over time bring about change, it would require willful ignorance to forget Alabama’s Bloody Sunday where civil protesters were beaten by law enforcement or the Birmingham Campaign where Bull Connor’s police and fire department clubbed, fire hosed and sicced attack dogs on the activists.

Alabama’s peaceful protests were marked repeatedly by brutal acts against black citizens who were only asking for the promises made at the nation’s founding.

The state’s history of racism is legend, and even the State’s 1901 Constitution was and still is used as a segregationist weapon to oppress blacks Alabamians.

In a campaign to drum up voter support for the 1901 Constitution, an advertisement read, “White Supremacy! Honest Elections! and the New Constitution! One and Inseparable!”

So, where is the state’s white Republican supermajority? Certainly they all don’t believe the novel coronavirus is a hoax to ruin the economy and defeat President Donald Trump.

How many must die before the human cost demands they stop lying?

Surely not all of them think protesters are thugs and anarchists.

How many more years must black citizens face injustice before they say “enough?”

There comes a time when a leader must stand for those who are being wronged and those who are sick and dying.

When will the state’s elected leaders stand for more than the next election?

Perhaps it’s time to turn away from Montgomery and to the big city mayors as an example of how to get things accomplished. The big five city mayors have done remarkable work guiding their cities during the COVID-19 outbreak.

And except for Huntsville, these five mayors — three Democrats and two Republicans — have managed to keep Black Lives Matter protests mostly peaceful.

Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin has faced the most challenges and has shown courageous and wise leadership. Likewise, Montgomery’s Steven Reed, Tuscaloosa’s Walt Maddox, and Mobile’s Sandy Stimpson have displayed calm, decisive guidance through both the COVID-19 panic and the protest. Only Huntsville Mayor Tommy Battle has stumbled, allowing law-enforcement to teargas and fire rubber bullets at the mostly peaceful protesters. In all other respects, he has done well, but he should renounce the police actions that took place in his city.

In a state where leaders often cite scripture, it is perhaps time to remember Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 14:8 where he said, “Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?”

It’s not surprising, but it is disappointing that so many of the state’s leaders remain voiceless when a call to action is needed.

Where is the leader who says, “The pandemic is at its worst right now. Stay home when you can, wear a mask when you go out, avoid large gatherings, and care for your neighbor.”

Where is the one who stands up and says that black citizens are being repressed, underrepresented and abused?

Who dares say “Black Lives Matter” without a caveat.

Our state once again is being tried and failing is always an option, but let’s pray we don’t fail again.

People are jobless, sick and dying, and our black citizens are being mistreated in so many ways.

If, as Dr. King said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” let it bend now in our state’s time of need.

And let leaders stand up for justice for all.

Continue Reading

Bill Britt

Opinion | Echoes of George Wallace heard as tear gas and rubber bullets fly in Huntsville

Bill Britt

Published

on

A small group of mostly peaceful protesters were shot with rubber bullets and tear-gassed by Huntsville Police and Madison County sheriff’s deputies after an NAACP rally last Wednesday.

The city’s mayor, police chief and the state’s attorney general want the public to believe that anarchists and outsiders provoked law-enforcement to use paramilitary tactics to disperse protesters on the courthouse square.

A video obtained by APR shows peaceful protesters being sprayed, gassed and shot with rubber bullets, as law-enforcement in black-clad riot gear pushed them from the city center.

After the police began their assault, some protesters did hurl insults and a few firecrackers at the approaching officers.

Huntsville Mayor Tommy Battle, police chief Mark McMurray and attorney general Steve Marshall would later assert, without proof, that it was the presence of outside anarchists that led to a violent show of force by law enforcement.

It is a bizarre irony that those protesting police violence against black citizens were met with more police violence.

Public Service Announcement


But what took place in the supposedly progressive Madison County is just a continuation of the type of repressive brutality that has plagued the South for generations.

And the reasons given for the police action is older than “Dixie” and as false as the myth of “The Lost Cause.”

McMurray claimed in a press conference that sheriff’s deputies and police officers fired tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters because anarchists had infiltrated their ranks.

Advertisement

“It’s an unauthorized protest against the government. That’s what it is. That’s what anarchists do. This was not NAACP. This was a separate splinter group that took advantage of a peaceful protest and hijacked it to cause anarchy against our government. Their way is to cause damage, set fires, loot, pillage.”

The idea of professionally trained anarchists whipping up crowds during protest marches is the latest justification for deploying military-style aggression against U.S. citizens.

Battle, in a statement the next day, said he supported law enforcement’s tactics and that outsiders were to blame for the police action.

“What occurred after the NAACP event was disheartening. A second event occurred, structured by people who were not part of our community,” Battle said.

While Battle didn’t use the word anarchists to describe the protesters, he accused “people who were not part of our community” for inciting police violence.

Marshall agreed with McMurray and Battle’s assessment that outsiders and anarchists were the reason law-enforcement fired on protesters. In a press statement, he said he was “satisfied” that the officers had acted appropriately.

According to McMurray, at least 24 people were arrested that evening, all of them from Madison County.

McMurray said that only Madison County residents were detained because professional anarchists know how to avoid arrest.

“The anarchists who came prepared and armed, they’re now going to another city to do the exact same thing,” the chief said. “They know how not to get arrested.”

But directly after the incident, Lt. Michael Johnson of HPD, said the reason for the police action was because they weren’t “going to roll the dice” and take a chance that the crowd could become hostile.

Johnson, speaking soon after the police action, seems to have not yet received the memo about anarchists.

But these false narratives used by Battle, McMurray and Marshall are not new and can be seen in an April 1964, letter from Gov. George Wallace.

“[W]e have never had a problem in the South except in a few very isolated instances and these have been the result of outside agitators,” Wallace wrote to a Ms. Martin. 

“White and colored have lived together in the South for generations in peace and equanimity,” Wallace continued. “They each prefer their own pattern of society, their own churches and their own schools—which history and experience have proven are best for both races. (As stated before, outside agitators have created any major friction occurring between the races.)”

Wallace also claims that the news media and propagandists are the real problems and not segregationist policies.

“Contrary to reports of many of the national news media and the propaganda distributed by various organizations, our efforts here in the South are not against the Negro citizen. We fight for the betterment of all citizens in our State.”

He further claims to have done more for black citizens than anyone in the history of the State.

“I personally have done more for the Negroes of the State of Alabama than any other individual.”

If this all sounds familiar, it’s because even today, politicians hope the public is ignorant or so moved by calls for law and order as to miss the point of the protests.

The idea of a tranquil and even docile black population whipped into a frenzy by anarchists and outsiders is as repugnant today as Wallace’s.

Battle, McMurray, and Marshall’s coded racism is as repulsive today as Wallace’s was then.

The false notion that anarchists and outsiders are the reason for aggressive police actions should be condemned.

There should be an independent panel commissioned to investigate the Huntsville police and Madison County Sheriff’s office.

The specter of George Wallace now hangs over Huntsville’s Courthouse Square, and only the bright light of justice can remove it.

Continue Reading

Bill Britt

Opinion | With liberty and justice for all

Bill Britt

Published

on

Photo: Rosa Pineda

As peaceful protests over the last week have been marred by violence and looting, the nation should be asking what kind of country we are and what we are to become?

Are we to be the shining city on a hill or a lord of the flies kingdom of warring factions?

Most of the protesters who have taken to the streets across the nation are only asking for those things promised in The Declaration of Independence and quoted in the nation’s Pledge of Allegiance.

They want the promise of “all men are created equal,” with “liberty and justice for all,” to be fulfilled.

Amidst the chaos, we hear calls for “law and order” and chants of “No justice, no peace.”

A nation can have law and order without justice, but when justice is denied or meted out unequally, people will only remain silent or peaceful for so long.

Law, justice, and peace should flow from the same fountain but rarely ever do in equal measure.

Public Service Announcement


Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Gandhi before him, showed the world the power of nonviolent resistance. From the Salt March, which took place from March to April 1930, in India, to the Selma-to-Montgomery March in 1965, a small band of individuals has shown that peaceful protests can overcome even institutional wrongs.

But laws passed in the 1960s, while changing what was legal, didn’t answer inequities or alter everyone’s hearts and minds.

Even today, the dog whistles of racism and bullhorns of hate compete against calls for change.

Advertisement

Only when bigotry is shown in bright relief against the suffering of a nation’s citizens, do the powerful lose their stranglehold.

The murder of George Floyd is further evidence of a long-festering problem, and the ensuing rage is simply the manifestation of years of systematic mistreatment of black citizens. The laws may have changed in the 1960s, but the mindset of those who fought against that progress has been reborn.

As a nation, we cannot stand with a Bible in one hand and a club in the other and claim equal protection under the law.

Perhaps opening the Scriptures and letting the voice of Jesus speak, rather than holding his words as a prop, would be a good first step. Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Are these not the values we should hold dear?

I do not condone violence or property destruction, but I do understand the grievances that lead to both. We, as a state, and nation, can’t address the one without offering to answer the other.

President Trump’s failed attorney general Jeff Sessions has appointed himself as the spokesman for law and order. In a recent press release, Sessions said, “All over the country we have seen the results of ‘politically correct’ and completely ineffective leadership.”

Sessions blames, “Antifa, far-left radicals, and criminal thugs,” and many agree with him.

During George Wallace’s political rally at Madison Square Garden in 1968, he blamed anarchists, activists, militants, revolutionaries and communists for the nation’s ills.

Wallace also said, “The Supreme Court of our country has hand-cuffed the police, and tonight if you walk out of this building and are knocked in the head, the person who knocks you in the head is out of jail before you get in the hospital, and on Monday morning, they’ll try a policeman about it.”

Today, Wallace, like Sessions, would say that political correctness was the problem, not a culture that targets certain citizens.

Wallace expressed his disdain for demonstrators who tried to block President Lyndon B. Johnson’s limousine saying, “I tell you when November comes, the first time they lie down in front of my limousine, it’ll be the last one they ever lay down in front of; their day is over.”

On Facebook, some Alabamians have suggested protesters be shot in the head if they resist arrest. And so it goes that the ugliness of human nature stands ready to repeat the sins of the past over and over again.

In an Op-Ed, Alabama State University President Quinton T. Ross, Jr., invoked the past in a very different way.

“Our nonviolent stand proved successful in the past, and I believe it could be the catalyst for real and impactful change. Let peace be at the core of all of our actions,” wrote Ross.

“While it seems as though remaining calm in the midst of a racist storm is a signal to be disrespected, disregarded and endangered, remember the lives that were lost to get us to this day. Remember the examples of those who were brutally beaten and rose up from that brutality to walk the halls of Congress, to become mayors, governors, state legislators and community leaders.”

Our nation was born out of public defiance in the face of political oppression. Our nation was to be a port for those seeking hope and justice in a world of tyrants.

President Ronald Reagan called the United States “the shining city upon a hill.”

“In my mind, it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace,” said Reagan in his 1989 Farewell Address to the Nation. He further said he saw the nation as, “A city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”

Reagan saw a nation where everyone was allowed to live with peace and prosperity. A place where all were equal, deserved freedom and justice. Is that not what we all want, including the protesters?

America has always been a land of promise, and many times, promises are not kept.

But today, our nation may very well be at a turning point.

Will the moral imperative of fairness break over the dam’s edge, or will some just add more sandbags to the top?

Will we decide liberty and justice for all are more than words we repeat by rote, and that everyone deserves the promise of America?

That is the question before us, and now what we choose will show who we are and what we will become.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Authors

Advertisement

The V Podcast