Source: https://www.reidlawalabama.com/politics
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:22:30+00:00

Document:
With the growing market in the Republican party for Trump’s off-brand conservatism, candidates in races around the country are scrambling to identify themselves in relation to the President. The pressure for candidates to define their platforms less by policy and more by similarity to Trump’s platform has created an interesting political environment—one in which terms like “conservative” and “populism” are thrown together and candidates’ true ideological stances are blurred. It’s no secret that populist rhetoric rose significantly in the GOP in 2016, and that Trump rose with it. The Trump White House and its supporters have put an emphasis on military growth, economic nationalism, and populism. Trump has proposed an increase in military spending, strict immigration policies, and economic policies that benefit America First. Under Trump, the party has shifted to heralding itself as the party of workers, a traditionally populist message.
As a student of history and politics, it is truly amazing how many great leaders fall because they give into the trappings of pride. In Alabama, our governor had to resign in shame & disgrace because he became conceited with his power, and in doing so neglected the love of his wife of 50 years for the temporal pleasure of a younger subordinate. Governor Bentley learned the truth behind the proverb that “Sin will take you farther than you want to go, keep you longer than you want to stay, and cost you more than you want to pay.
As I read the news each day, I realize that one of the major themes is a deep pessimism about America’s future, regardless of where you end up on the political spectrum. I understand why people feel this way, the divisions in this country seem insurmountable, and watching the acrimony in DC it looks like a “united” states isn’t possible. Yet, even though there are many things to be concerned about, I still believe America’s best days are in front of her. Our nation has overcome so many challenges and every generation has had problems that seemed impossible to surmount. Yet the one thing that has united this country is that our people have believed that our best days are yet to come. During WWII, it seemed impossible to combat the advancement at the axis powers. Our military was ranked 17th place in terms of its military might, and the German army seemed unstoppable.
The opioid crisis in America is still very real. In 2016, an astonishing 65,000 Americans died from drug overdoses. In Alabama, combatting the opioid epidemic has proved a difficult task. There were 343 opioid related deaths in Alabama in 2016, and the state has one of the highest opioid prescribing rates in the country. In 2015, there were more opioid prescriptionsissued in Alabama than people in the state—5.8 million.
Two of the state’s Congressional districts rank in the top five nationally for number of opioid prescriptions. Alabama’s 4thCongressional district has the highest prescription rate in the nation; 166 prescriptions per 100 people, more than twice the national average. The 1stCongressional district has the 5thhighest rate.
Opioid abuse is not just an issue for Alabama. Other districts rounding out the top 5 are Kentucky’s 5thCongressional district, and the 1stand 3rddistricts in Tennessee. Experts believe that the areas where opioid use runs rampant correlate with places where people have felt neglected by the government; many of Trump’s blue-collar supporters who have lost their jobs and opportunities.
The problem has not been lost on Congress; last month, the House passed a legislative package meant to combat the nationwide opioid crisis. The plan focuses on treatment and recovery, prevention, protecting communities, and fighting fentanyl. In March, Congress passed a funding bill that delegated $4 billion to directly fighting the opioid epidemic, with $130 million set aside specifically for rural communities.
Federal intervention is helpful, but it’s important that Alabama politicians actively combat the opioid crisis in their own state. As statewide elections loom, candidates’ stances on opioid regulation should be scrutinized. It’s a bipartisan issue; Congress crossed party lines to fight it, and Alabama politicians should work together as well.
Incumbent governor Kay Ivey expressed her intentin January to work with the Alabama Opioid Overdose and Addiction Council to find a solution to the state’s opioid crisis, a team that she herself createdin 2017. However, she has offered very little in terms of a specific plan to keep opioid abuse in check. Ivey is the 3rdmost popular governorin America, with an approval rating of 67%, and will likely prove victorious in November. If Ivey does stay in office, it would be refreshing to see her adopt a clearer strategy to take on the opioid epidemic.
Ivey’s challenger is Democrat Walt Maddox, mayor of Tuscaloosa. In April, Maddox unveiled a clear planto combat the opioid crisis. His plan includes expanding Medicaid to address the crisis, creating a cabinet-level official to oversee substance abuse issues, and increasing the availability of treatment and counseling. Regardless of whether Maddox wins the election, aspects of his plan may prove helpful in fighting the opioid epidemic, and Alabama politicians should take notice.
The Alabama Attorney General is a co-chairman on the Opioid Overdose and Addiction Council, so the outcome of that election could also prove integral to the battle against opioids. Steve Marshall, the current AG, has emphasized fighting the opioid crisisin his campaign. Marshall’s plan of attack includes establishing better data sharing among multiple agencies so that problem areas are clear.
The opioid epidemic is not the only area of drug policy in which Alabama could improve. Drugs like heroin, cocaine and meth also pose a problem. The Sinaloa drug cartel, active in the U.S. in general, uses Alabama ports to bring in shipments of up to 100 pounds of meth and 50 kilos of cocaine that are then transported north. The cartel has been linked to a number of grisly killings in the state; the point being that the drug trade is active in Alabama and illegal drugs are widely available, and availability links directly to addiction.
An obvious elephant in the room for Alabama and other more conservative states is marijuana. Legalizationof the drug is supported by more than 60% of Americans. The medical benefitsof marijuana are proven; not only can it treat pain, but it can be effective in treating mental illnesses like clinical anxiety and depression. Those against marijuana legalization argue that it is a gateway drug, and that legalizing it would increase not only addiction to marijuana but other drugs, including opioids.
However, some speculate that loosening marijuana laws could actually help solve the opioid crisis. Marijuana could provide health benefits for people who would otherwise be prescribed opioids, thus lowering Alabama’s opioid prescription rate. The state could also use money from taxation of recreational marijuana to help fight the opioid crisis and improve public education and awareness about drugs. Additionally, less strict marijuana regulations would lessen strain on the courts and the prison system, which is currently operating at 173% capacity.
At the moment, legalization of recreational marijuana in Alabama is a pipe dream. But, the state has shown some progress in other areas of marijuana law. CBD, a naturally occurring cannabis compound, became legalin Alabama in 2014. Studies show that CBD may help people trying to stay away from prescription medication. The substance has been met with positive feedback so far in Alabama, and medical research shows great promise.
Alabama penalties for marijuana possession may also soon be reduced. A proposal to make possession of an ounce or less of marijuana punishable by a fine instead of jail time cleared its first hurdle in the Alabama legislature in February. Marijuana legislation faces a tough road in Alabama, but it being on the minds of politicians may be a promising sign.
Alabamians will have to keep an eye on the November elections to see if their results affect drug reform in the state. Issues like the opioid crisis and marijuana regulation will be difficult to tackle, but candidates with hardened resolve could make a difference.
This article was written by Chris Reid and Katie Pickle. Katie is Reid Law's clerk and is in her third year at Emory School of Law.
Is Kavanaugh the Next Scalia or Another Souter?
On Monday night, President Trump announced his pick for Anthony Kennedy’s replacement — D.C. Circuit judge, Brett Kavanaugh.
The announcement was highly anticipated, and it’s not surprising that Democratic leaders spoke out immediately against Kavanaugh’s nomination. Sen. Chuck Schumer remarked, “I’m going to fight this nomination with everything I’ve got” while Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) stated that Americans must rise up so they could “win this battle” and derail Kavanaugh’s appointment.
Democrats would have headily opposed any candidate that Trump selected, fueled not only by their disdain for the president but also by their lingering frustration that Senate Republicans blocked President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016. However, Democrats should think again before so fervently attacking Kavanaugh. As compared to Trump’s other potential picks, Kavanaugh’s core beliefs, solid record, and commitment to the Constitution suggest Democrats’ fears are unbased.
Kavanaugh’s background shows his qualifications and outstanding character. He is well-adapted to Beltway culture and politics, having lived in D.C. for the better part of his adult life. A family man first and foremost, Kavanaugh has two daughters, whose basketball teams he coaches, and first met his wife while the two worked together for the George W. Bush White House. In his speech following the president’s announcement, Kavanaugh shared that his mother inspired him to follow in her footsteps and become a judge.
Trump expressed his desire to nominate someone with an Ivy-League background, and Kavanaugh meets this standard, receiving both his undergraduate and law degrees from Yale University. Kavanaugh was a clerk for Kennedy in the early 1990’s, and many believe that he will follow in the path of Kennedy in his judicial reasoning. Following his clerkship, he worked for the independent counsel that investigated President Clinton, and in 1998 co-wrote the report that served as the basis for Clinton’s impeachment.
Kavanaugh went on to work with President George W. Bush for a number of years. In 2003, Bush tapped Kavanaugh for appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Over his 12 years as a D.C. Circuit judge, Kavanaugh has written over 300 opinions, many of them dissents that went on to be considered by the conservative Supreme Court justices in their majority opinions on the same issues. He has run in the same circles as the other justices, participating in speaking engagements with them, and was hired by Justice Kagan to work at Harvard while she was dean there.
Kavanaugh’s record supports this praise. Though he is a devoted Catholic, he is seen as less of a social conservative and more of a pro-business, law-and-order judge. Many Republicans had hoped for a stronger social conservative, but Kavanaugh’s proven ability to restrain his personal beliefs from affecting his interpretation of the Constitution will serve as advantage in the nomination process, because Democrats will be hard-pressed to show that he is a serious threat to abortion precedent. There is no real evidence in anything Kavanaugh has said or written that he would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. He has sided with the government in upholding abortion restrictions, but he has largely taken a middle ground approach. For example, in an ACLU case concerning a minor undocumented immigrant obtaining an abortion, Kavanaugh argued that no decision could be made until the government found the girl an adult sponsor.
Kavanaugh is a champion of small business, and many hope he will continue the deregulatory tone of the Trump administration. The NFIB has come out in support of his nomination. Kavanaugh has ruled consistently against regulatory agencies that exceed their statutory authority, and he will likely keep out overreaching policies that could hinder small businesses.
There is speculation that Kavanaugh could raise tensions on the healthcare front, specifically with regard to Medicaid and Obamacare. Kavanaugh was in line with Justice Robert’s reasoning in Sebelius, and it’s possible that he could go either way on cases addressing other aspects of the ACA. The uncertainty about Kavanaugh’s votes on these types of cases may not wholly please conservatives, but it shows his commitment to analyzing each case thoroughly and reasoning in line with what the text says, unjaded by his political beliefs.
A main concern raised by Democrats is Kavanaugh’s position on sitting presidents and ongoing criminal investigations. The 1998 Starr report on Clinton, which Kavanaugh co-wrote, laid out the grounds for impeaching President Clinton for lying to his staff and the American people. The report reasoned that a president who lied, even if not under oath, could be impeached. In a Minnesota Law Review article in 2009, however, Kavanaugh expressed regrets about the Clinton investigation. He wrote that sitting presidents should be shielded from criminal investigations while they are in office, because such investigations are a distraction to the president in fulfilling his duties to the American people. Democrats argue that this article, along with Kavanaugh’s other scholarship, demonstrates a commitment to strong executive power.
However, Democrats’ fear that Kavanaugh would protect President Trump against potential prosecution is exaggerated. Though Kavanaugh did argue presidents should not be investigated or prosecuted while in office, he said that a president could be investigated and prosecuted after his term. Kavanaugh’s disagreement with investigating a sitting president was based on his belief that impeachment was the proper process for removing a president. Kavanaugh remarked that a judge or judges should not take on the task assigned in the Constitution to Congress.
Democrats worry that because Kavanaugh is Trump’s appointee, he would be bound to support Trump in any case against the White House. But this accusation is not supported by history. In 1997, for example, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the lawsuit against President Clinton should be allowed to proceed while he was still in office. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton, and still ruled against him. The Supreme Court also ruled unanimously against President Nixon in U.S. v. Nixon, though three of the justices, Powell, Blackmun, and Rehnquist were appointed by Nixon.
Like all nominees, Kavanaugh will face a hard road to confirmation, especially considering the breadth of his legal scholarship. However, his background and record show that he is an upstanding advocate of justice, and Democrats should consider the totality of the circumstances before claiming they have a smoking gun.
Special Thanks to Katherine Pickle, my third year law clerk at Emory law school who helped research, write and edit this article.
White House officials are working around the clock to ensure that President Trump is able to fulfill his promise to announce a Supreme Court nominee on Monday.
Last Wednesday, the president expressed his intent to choose a candidate from a list of 25 individuals, and this week Trump interviewed 4 to 6 candidates from that list.
Much drama surrounds the nomination, as Democrats fearfully ruminate on what Trump’s pick will mean for the future of decisions like Obergefell and Roe v. Wade.
Republicans eagerly await the decision, but not without hesitation. GOP faithfuls worry that whoever Trump chooses will not live up to expectations and fail to strictly adhere to the conservative agenda of sticking with the original intent of the Constitution.
In fact, in a recent interview Scott Beason and I conducted with John Malcolm, Director of Heritage's Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies, he stated that many conservatives remember the consequences of famous appointment disasters like William Brennan and Earl Warren.
Though it’s no doubt a momentous occasion when there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, since it happens so infrequently, the country may not change as drastically as some Democrats believe. Based on the list of candidates, the Supreme Court will take a more conservative, originalist turn, but this will not be a departure from the Court’s direction of the past few years.
In reality, it should not be such a dreaded event for liberals.
The appointment is so highly anticipated because of Kennedy’s significance on the Court as the “swing vote.” Though Kennedy did side with the more activist justices in high profile social issue cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Obergefell, it is forgotten that more often than not, Kennedy sided with the conservatives.
He had an expansive view of the First Amendment, as demonstrated in cases like Texas v. Johnson and Citizens United. Kennedy was also a strong advocate for conservative federalism, and leaned conservative on Second Amendment rights cases, like District of Columbia v. Heller and MacDonald v. Chicago.
In fact, in his last term, Kennedy voted with the conservative majority in 15 of 20 cases. He handed the conservatives important victories, including exalting religious freedom in Masterpiece Cakeshop and upholding Trump’s travel ban. The short-term impact of replacing Kennedy should therefore not be exaggerated. For the most part, Kennedy was a conservative justice who voted the same way as his replacement will likely vote.
Don’t forget, Kennedy is not the only swing vote on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts has been known to slink away from the conservative majority, on occasion siding with the more liberal justices in cases like Sebelius (the Obamacare decision). Additionally, Justice Kagan has sometimes joined the opinions of more staunch conservatives, for example in Lucia v. SEC. Kennedy’s absence will not mean no more swing votes.
These swing votes are key in some high-profile cases, but on the whole, most cases decided by the Supreme Court are not 5-4 decisions. Liberal and conservative justices vote together more often than you would think. In a typical term, about 80 percent of votes are in support of the majority opinion, and only 20 percent of decisions are 5-4. The cases publicized by the media are the hot-button issues, but in general the Supreme Court addresses more mundane, legally technical questions. Less exciting issues like which stock tips should be considered insider trading, how credit card fees should be phrased, and patent disputes often garner unanimous decisions.
Democrats are concerned that Trump’s nominee will be a firebrand conservative who will turn legal precedent upside down. But this concern is vastly overblown. What is clear from the list put together by John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation and others is that Trump’s pick will be an originalist. A justice adhering to originalism should not be cause for concern.
Originalism does not mandate that justices strictly follow the GOP platform, nor does it declare that decisions like Roe v. Wade should be overturned. What originalist judges are committed to is interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that Americans’ fundamental rights, as they were expressed by the Founders, are not violated.
Liberals worry that a conservative, originalist appointee would shake up the Court, but that would mean that the new justice would be a judicial activist. This is contrary to the tenets of originalism. An originalist justice would follow the Constitution and the law, not seek to drastically change them. Liberals worry about the future of previous court decisions that they know were not based on the Constitution. They worry that unconstitutional precedents could be overturned.
Take Antonin Scalia — the epitome of a conservative, originalist justice.
Scalia made clear that in being originalists and looking to the text, justices should not be partisan. Sometimes, what the text said would be contrary to what they believed, and they should rule with the text, not their beliefs.
So, what would another conservative, originalist justice like Scalia mean for the future of the Court? It would mean that, for the most part, precedent would be preserved. First Amendment freedoms will be expected to win. “Equal protection” will mean exactly what it says, and the Court will be more color-blind with regard to issues like affirmative action. There will be resistance against the Chevron doctrine, and federal agencies being able to make their own law.
Despite the speculation that the Court would automatically overturn decisions like Roe v. Wade, there doesn’t seem too much of an appetite for this to happen in judicial circles. It has been the most notable abortion case, but there have been countless others; it would take more than a broad anti-abortion decision to erase all that precedent. Similarly, there has been no indication of a desire to approach the Obergefell decision, regardless of how thinly reasoned it may have been. The bottom line is that sweeping change will not happen overnight.
The apparent nominees whom Trump has already met are vastly qualified.
Amy Coney Bennett, a former clerk for Scalia and judge for the 7th Circuit, proved her tough backbone when she was harshly questioned by Sen. Diane Feinstein in her appointment hearing. Other top candidates include two judges who clerked for Kennedy, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Raymond M. Kethledge, and Amul R. Thapar of the 6th Circuit, who has a solid conservative track record.
John Cardillo, host of "America Talks Live" on Newsmax TV, addressed the concerns by some conservatives who were worried about Kavanaugh not being conservative enough and made a great point that if you examine his rulings it is evident that Brett Kavanaugh would be a Scalia conservative not a Sandra Day O'Conner moderate.
These individuals, among others, are staunchly conservative, and would likely bring an originalist, textualist, perspective to the Court. This should not be a cause for concern for Democrats who believe the Constitution is a set of rules that are changed by the people and not the courts. Sticking to the Constitution is not a bad thing. Our rights are defended by that document and are preserved in it, not in the philosophical musings of the judicial activists of the day.
Christopher Reid is an attorney out of Birmingham who owns his own general practice law firm, which handles Business, Family, and Probate Law and high-end litigation throughout the state of Alabama. Reid has held various policy positions, including working for the Alabama Policy Institute and the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C., where he also worked for House Republican Whip Roy Blunt. In law school, he clerked for the Alabama Attorney General Office, and, after graduation, he became Health and Judiciary Policy Analyst for Alabama’s governor. His charitable work includes serving on the board of Sav-A-Life. Chris is a frequent co-host on The Scott Beason Show in Birmingham, writes political and legal commentary for publications including The Hill, The Washington Examiner, and has been quoted in The New Yorker. He regularly provides on-air expertise and political commentary for TV news shows on Fox, NBC, and Newsmax with JD Hayworth. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
Scott Beason is a former senator and currently hosts “The Scott Beason Show” A conservative radio show heard throughout Alabama on 101.1 FM from 10 a.m.–Noon, Monday through Friday.
This article appeared in my Newsmax column on April 18, 2018.
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan announced on Wednesday that he will not seek reelection in 2018, ending a 20-year-long congressional career from the Wisconsin representative.
Ryan’s tenure in the House of Representatives was fraught with challenges, but laced with success. He quickly earned the respect of his Republican colleagues and shepherded the House through major legislative successes such as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts. However, his critics often accused him of spinelessness, especially in his refusal to stand up to President Trump’s often inflammatory and unconventional leadership. Ryan’s departure sends a huge blow to the Republican Party just months before the 2018 midterm elections that threaten to ruin their majority and will likely dust up a storm of candidates vying to fill Ryan’s shoes.
Despite rumors circulating for months that Ryan had soured on his position as Speaker, the Congressman’s announcement was a major shakeup in the ranks of the GOP. Nearly 30 other House Republicans have announced their outright retirement, while Democrats need just 23 seats to regain the majority. Adding Wisconsin’s first district to the list of up-for-grabs seats threatens to invigorate Democrats and force Republicans to invest much more time and money in races once thought to be safe for the GOP.
With Ryan tapping out, Republican candidates for Wisconsin’s first Congressional district include an anti-Semitic white nationalist who has been banned from Twitter, and a politically inexperienced ex-Green Beret with a vendetta for career politicians. On the other side, Democrats’ best shot at flipping the deeply red seat lies in a union ironworker nicknamed “IronStache.” Democrats already average an 8-point advantage in the generic ballot, and the recent shakeup paired with a precarious group of Republican candidates has them feeling good about their chances in 2018.
Ryan’s departure also sends a major blow to Republican fundraising efforts for the midterm elections. Ryan has broken nearly every fundraising record to date and regularly attends a fundraiser a night when he is in Washington. While some have called for the Speaker to step down immediately and initiate a smooth transition for his replacement, Ryan has argued that it would be detrimental to put the GOP’s biggest fundraiser on the sidelines in 2018. With Ryan’s announcement, the battleground for the 2018 midterms shows no sign of quieting down anytime soon.
Whether or not Ryan steps down early or Republicans win the majority in November, they will be faced with the daunting task of appointing a new party leader. While many candidates will likely compete for the position, the new Speaker must have what it takes to balance a continually divided party and work closely with a constantly unpredictable president. While Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) have emerged as the frontrunners for the position, Scalise appears to be the man best suited for the job.
Scalise and Ryan developed a strong relationship over their years working together in the House. When Scalise returned to Congress after recovering from a gunshot wound suffered during the shooting at a Congressional baseball team practice last summer, Ryan tearfully welcomed his colleague back to Capitol Hill. The majority whip also received a standing ovation upon his return to the chamber, revealing the level of respect he has earned from his Congressional colleagues. In fact, the way he has dealt with his recent gun injury has set an example to the country that we can be hopeful and find ways to make the most out of difficult situations we face.
Scalise has been heralded as a hero since his return, but his ability to stare down a bullet is not the only thing that elevates him above the rest for the position of Speaker. As Whip, Scalise has earned the respect of both Republican caucuses, evidenced by his ability to mobilize voters to pass the recent tax bill. A strong conservative, Scalise would work to continue to push much needed conservative legislation through Congress and could easily step into Ryan’s legacy as the preeminent Republican fundraiser.
However, Scalise has maintained that he won’t run against his “good friend” Kevin McCarthy should the Majority Leader choose to run for the position. While equally conservative as Scalise, McCarthy does not seem to have earned the same respect across the Republican ranks. His cozy relationship with the president — perhaps best reflected by his grandiose gift of Starbursts last October — has been questioned, as many inside and outside of Congress believe that the Speaker should serve as some sort of balance to Trump’s unpredictable legislative behavior.
It takes a unique character to assume the position second in line to the presidency, and Republicans’ time is fleeting to find party unity leading into midterms. While many members of the GOP are sure to compete for the role, Steve Scalise may be the best man for the job. A Congressional hero and strong conservative is just what Republicans need to lead the party into the future.
Special thanks to Daniel Bruce, a member of my firm, for his help in writing, editing, and researching this article. Daniel is a Political Science and Economics student at Auburn University and plans to attend law school in 2019.
Chris Reid, a prominent attorney in Birmingham, has endorsed Steve Marshall for Alabama Attorney General ahead of the Tuesday runoff between Marshall and Troy King.
Marshall has served on Governor Ivey’s Alabama Opioid Overdose & Addiction Council and rigorously prosecuted illegal opioid and prescription drug traffickers. Endorsed by the NRA, he has proved a staunch defender of Alabamians’ Second Amendment rights. Marshall has also joined the efforts of President Trump and Republicans to end the massive influx of illegal immigration into our state to ensure the safety of our citizens.
Marshall’s opponent, Troy King, has been caught too many times rubbing elbows with unsavory characters. In 2008, King was investigated for his alleged involvement in a scheme to allow an illegal casino to operate in Dothan – a scheme that likely involved political kickbacks and some convoluted legal maneuvers. He was not convicted, but Alabamians overwhelmingly removed him from office in 2010. That same year, King’s actions lead the state legislature to pass sweeping ethics laws to protect against corrupt politicians.
Chris Reid is a general practice attorney in Birmingham. He is an active member of the state’s Republican party and has worked as a medical policy analyst for the Governor. He also co-hosts the Scott Beason show on 101.1 WYDE throughout the week and is a regular contributor to Newsmax.
Election season is upon us and discussion of party politics has engulfed the public debate, at the local, state, and federal level. When the results come in, the right will inevitably claim that dead people are voting and the left will drone on about big businesses rigging the election.
However, there is one thing that both parties can agree on- libertarians are ruining elections. Both sides will claim that libertarian candidates are stealing votes from their side and handing the election to their opponent.
This tactic is nothing but a tired excuse to cover up the failings of outdated and poor policy proposals. Instead of exiling the Libertarian party, both major parties should try and extend an olive branch. Compared to other very minor third party groups, libertarianism has a substantial and viable following.
While the GOP has not yet been willing to acceptlibertarians as competent candidates, the Republican party voters have done so. New voices like Thomas Massie (R-KY), Justin Amash (R-MI), and Rand Paul (R-KY) rising on the national stage show Republicans’ voters willingness to endorse libertarian views. Additionally, the libertarian party has shown the ability to put aside some differences it has with the Republican party and endorse candidates that run under the GOP name.
Massie, Amash, and Paul arguable lean the most libertarian out of all members of Congress. Unfortunately, they are not popular on Capitol Hill. But the GOP can learn a lesson from their struggle. Though they may not be popular with Congress, their message has resonated with voters- perhaps because they support new ideas and endorse policies different from the norm.
Much of what the GOP has put forth as policy in recent years has been more focused on what people think the Republican party should be and has been historically, rather than actual, concrete substance. New voices and new ideas from ideologies like libertarianism can mix in with classic Republican party ideals to reinvigorate the party platform and help the GOP compromise and build on certain issues.
To show the appeal that Libertarian values could have in the Republican party, look no further than Austin Petersen. Petersen is running for U.S. Senate in Missouri, and was a former libertarian presidential candidate in 2016. He has slowly worked his way into favor with Missouri voters, despite his third party views. Petersen has been able to use the animosity that voters have toward establishment politics and has run as the “anti-establishment candidate.” Who better to be anti-establishment than a man who was the presidential candidate for the party both Dems and Republicans despise?
Petersen was considered a long shot and still has some work to do. He is running against incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). A very active candidate not shy from public criticism, he has openly advocated for Libertarian ideals while running under the Republican banner. For example, he has not hidden that he would like to see the income tax repealed but would settle for a flat tax of 15%. He openly flaunts his strict adherence to the Constitution by arguing for unfettered gun rights, going so far as raffling off an AR-15.
Many Republicans in Missouri are finding Petersen’s libertarian views to be a new, invigorating voice among the monotonous campaign diatribes coming from other candidates. A new pollshows that this voice is being met with open ears among Missouri voters- the incumbent McCaskill is polling behind both other candidates. McCaskill trails Austin Petersen’s competition, Attorney General Josh Hawley, by 7 percent and trails Petersen by a margin of 16 percent.
Petersen, along with Massie, Amash, and Paul, have found ways to connect with Republican voters and really bring a new life to a party that relies of images of the glory days of Ronald Reagan to garner support. These new voices are showing that Republican voters and Libertarian voters are willing to put aside some differences they have and accept a new voice and a new solution to issues. While the Libertarian party is considered as having unrealistic ideals by the GOP, voters in Michigan, Kentucky, and Missouri disagree. American voters know that the GOP needs to move forward to be successful against the Democrats, and embracing new ideals like those of libertarianism may be the road to victory.
Special thanks to Dallas Coleman and Katie Pickle for their help in writing, researching, and editing this article.
Jake Tapper is not an easy man to label. like so many of his colleagues at CNN, he does not wear his politics prominently on his sleeve. Though he has worked for Democrats in the past, and for liberal organizations, he was one of very few members of the mainstream media who maintained a somewhat adversarial relationship with the Obama administration. David Axelrod, a former Obama administration and campaign official, remarked on Tapper’s journalistic tenacity when Tapper joined him on his CNN podcast. Of course, compared to the kid gloves with which the Obama administration was treated by the media, any question tougher than, “what enchants you most about this job?” (A real thing that happened) might be viewed as the pinnacle of journalistic integrity. However, Tapper has made his reputation as one of exceedingly few newsmen who can be trusted to tell the truth regardless of the party in power. He joins Bret Baier as one of the last honest men in news.
Tapper grew up in a Jewish family in Philadelphia. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth University with a B.A. in History. Following his graduation from Dartmouth, he briefly attended the USC School of Cinematic Arts. He began working in politics as the campaign press secretary and later the congressional press secretary for a powerful Philadelphia Democrat. He has also worked for a prominent PR firm and what is now the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. As such, his path to media has been long and winding. He began his full-time journalism career in 1998 at the Washington City Paper, where he wrote a now-famous piece about going on a date with Monica Lewinsky, in which he denounced Washington’s love of scandal at the expense of a sweet girl like Lewinsky. The piece lent some insight into Tapper as a man; honest (some might say brutally so), straightforward, kind-hearted and passionate for the truth. He has since said that he regrets calling her “chubby” in the piece, showing a bit more how he has matured and grown into his role as America’s real alternative to otherwise fake news.
As a conservative, I have always been met with audible groans when I mention my respect for Tapper. The tribalism that we so virulently denounce in the left can affect us in equal measure. Our immediate distrust and dislike for anyone and anything on CNN is, quite simply, no more than partisan trash. Rather than taking individuals and stories on a case by case basis, we too often dismiss an unflattering bit of news or a journalist who is reporting facts that contradict a particular narrative simply because they appear on a network which we (rightfully) distrust as a whole. Distrust is one thing; dismissal is quite another. Conservatives are right to treat CNN and other partisan media outlets with extreme skepticism, but to deny that there are good journalists and even the occasional good story that come from an otherwise detestable source seems imprudent.
No, I have not always agreed with him, and find his looks into the camera while condemning the President a bit melodramatic. But as a man with a full body of work, Tapper remains a fantastic example of what the news should be, and how those who provide the news should behave. Yes, he skewered Stephen Miller, but he also skewered Sheriff Scott Israel for crediting his own “amazing leadership” following the shooting in Parkland, FL. Tapper is a respectable and honorable man, who encompasses many of the best traits of newsmen. Conservatives should be open to, occasionally, giving credit where it is due and recognizing him as one of the prudent leaders of an otherwise dishonorable industry.
Special thanks to Nick Briscoe and Daniel Bruce for their help in writing, researching, and editing this piece. Nick is my law firm manager and a recent graduate of the University of Alabama. Daniel is my chief consultant and a Political Science and Economics student at Auburn University. Both plan to attend law school in 2019.
In an age of feel-good gospels of Christianity that teach cookie cutter salvation, the world is in need of a constant reminder that Christianity is not meant to be easy. Matt Walsh, of the Daily Wire, is just the reminder the doctor ordered. Perhaps less afraid of controversy than anyone else in conservative media today, Walsh is a tireless advocate for the Christian faith. He has shown an utter disregard for the potential fallout of plainly and bluntly stating his beliefs and remains willing to inject himself into any debate or start one himself.
These terribly incendiary opinions actually led to something of a bizarre alliance, as Vox published a piece examining whether yoga was, in fact, cultural appropriation and questioning whether Christians should practice it at all. They take the scenic route, but end up at the same place.
The most telling thing about this “controversy” wasn’t the Tweet itself, nor the predictable reaction from many on the left. What was more telling was what the Tweet revealed about its author—Matt Walsh is a man who is not afraid to think outside the box, nor is he afraid to make enemies in pursuit of his beliefs and in his advancement of God’s message. Personally, I had never stopped to think about the origins of yoga and the implications that it’s practice might have on my Catholic faith. If we are to obey God’s commandment to have no gods before him, surely engaging in an activity designed to worship the pagan Hindu gods conflicts with it in some measure. This thought-prompting examination of an ultimately trivial pursuit is something that is entirely lacking in modern American life. Pastors and religious leaders have led their flocks astray following the “gospel of prosperity” or, perhaps worse, the gospel of Trumpism. Joel Osteen would never be willing to endure flack Walsh puts himself in, in the name of God’s will. Whether or not one believes that doing yoga is de facto taking part in Hindu worship, what cannot be denied is that Walsh is worthy of the respect afforded to anyone who is willing to take an extremely unpopular position and accept the Earthly consequences.
Nick Briscoe is the manager of the Reid Law Firm and a recent graduate of the University of Alabama. Nick is an astute observer of the political spectrum, especially in regards to the Conservative movement. He currently plans to attend law school in the near future.
Photo courtesy of Matt Walsh (Twitter).
There are few men who have lived a life as interesting and, in so many ways, heroic as National Review senior columnist David French. Those familiar with his work can attest to his brilliance and capability with the written word, however those familiar with his personal story can attest to much more—his deep sense of compassion, duty, and honor.
A graduate of Harvard Law, French has spent much of his career in the depths of academia, having served as president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and as a lecturer at Cornell Law School. In 2005, however, French retired as president of FIRE, citing plans to serve in the United States Army Reserve. Though a successful author, academic, and attorney, French sacrificed his career and time with his family in order to serve our country as an Army lawyer in the JAG corps. He was awarded a Bronze Star following his deployment to Iraq in 2007. However, his numerous accomplishments throughout his career as both a civilian and Army officer still do not reveal the full story of a truly one-of-a-kind man.
In 2010, French and his wife, Nancy (an accomplished and talented writer in her own right) adopted an Ethiopian girl named Naomi. In the pro-life movement, we often cite adoption as the no-brainer alternative to abortion, yet how many of us are willing to put our money where our mouth is and take part in such a blessing? My guess is fewer than are willing to glorify it as a perfect solution to a horrifying problem. The Frenches, however, were able to recognize that what many of us might see as a tremendous burden is actually one of the greatest blessings God can bestow. As French argues in a 2016 piece for National Review, an “available” foster child is only available because of a series of dreadful events, and these dreadful events will almost inevitably lead to some form of trauma later in life. Despite the challenges and complexities that arise through the process, the Frenches made the decision to adopt, and their lives have been eternally blessed by the addition of an angelic young girl. However, such a blessing does not come without its trials, and even the best of hearts are not repaid in kind.
In 2013, French wrote a scathing denouncement of the hypocrisy of some who insist that a white, conservative, Christian family cannot raise a black child. He describes the disgusting attacks he and his wife received following Naomi’s adoption, ranging from online comments to in-person confrontations at the hands of angry progressives. French mentions that not only has his family become a beautiful example of interracial bliss, but the congregation at his conservative church (he and his wife are Evangelical Christians) has become an idyllic representation of a group of people who truly do not see color, but only humanity. He remarks that, while the progressives who tout their own virtue by claiming to support ethnic and racial diversity responded to their practicing of such lofty ideals with hatred and contempt, the supposedly bigoted, backwards conservatives responded only with love and acceptance. Though one might assume that the adoption of a child would be a point around which all people could gather and rejoice, French’s experience is yet another example that nobility and virtue rarely avoid controversy.
The hallmark of goodness is doing good even, and especially when, it is the more difficult path down which to embark. David French did not have to give up a cushy career at the top of academia. He did not have to surrender a steady and rewarding legal practice. He did not have to serve our country overseas in significantly greater danger and for significantly less pay than he was making in private practice. He did not have to accept the overwhelming responsibility of adopting a child into his family that already included two children. He did not have to sacrifice so much for his fellow man, yet he did. David French is the kind of man we should all emulate—selfless, courageous, brilliant, and noble. It is my greatest hope, and my absolute expectation, that one day little Naomi grows up to recognize what an incredible blessing her father is to her, and she to him. The world is changed by men and women who see beyond difficulty and recognize duty. Though we all have the potential, David French is one of those men.
Special thanks to Nick Briscoe and Daniel Bruce who assisted in writing, researching, and editing this article. Nick is my law firm manager and a graduate of the University of Alabama. Daniel is a consultant at the firm and a Political Science and Economics student at Auburn University. Both plan to attend law school in 2019.
Few have been as instrumental in the rise of the so-called intellectual dark web of strange alliances than Dave Rubin. This elite group of thinkers, diverse in ideology and ultimately uninterested in political pettiness, have revolutionized the media industry, providing respite from the shallow nonsense offered by cable news. Using long form podcasts and lectures that feature extensive question and answer periods, thinkers such as Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, Bret and Eric Weinstein, Steven Pinker, Joe Rogan, and of course, Rubin, have given their viewers and listeners a deep analysis of topics ranging from politics to culture to philosophy and beyond.
On his show, The Rubin Report, Rubin gives his guests a platform for a civil, rational discussion. There are no ratings-driven shouting matches that accomplish nothing, replaced instead with long, considerate conversations designed to inform and expand upon ideas and philosophies. As a result, Rubin has enjoyed fiercely loyal support among those who have been starved of genuine, productive conservation in the political sphere. He has attracted followers from across the ideological spectrum, but often acknowledges that he receives the warmest welcomes from conservatives, and the vast majority of hate from liberals.
Why is it that an openly gay, self-proclaimed liberal has become the hero of so many conservatives and drawn the ire of his supposed liberal companions? As Rubin himself predicted, strange political times have led to strange political alliances and rivalries. He is good friends with fellow intellectual dark web staple Ben Shapiro. In the past, one might never have expected a friendship to blossom between an Orthodox Jew and an agnostic, gay liberal. However, this is 2018, and the only things that make sense anymore are those that defy all traditional logic and norms. Rubin has recognized the increased radicalism among those who self-identify as “liberal”, and the paternalism they seem to crave. He hasn’t quite abandoned liberalism, rather, it has abandoned him.
This phenomenon is becoming increasingly common as we undergo the most radical political shift of recent history. Conservatives who feel as if the GOP has left them for the more populist pastures of Trumpism, Trump supporters who feel as if the GOP hasn’t sufficiently supported them, liberals who feel that Bernie Sanders’ socialist revolution has led their movement off the rails, socialists who feel that Hillary’s people-pleasing nomination was a slap in the face—they have all remained constant, while the world has spun out of control all around them. Rubin might be the penultimate example of this phenomenon—a classical liberal who has come to recognize perils of progressivism and value the virtues of a laissez faire approach to government intervention. As a gay man, he supported Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop’s right to freedom of association, and he does not subscribe to the identity-driven politics of progressivism, which dictate that he must support strictly the pre-approved leftist talking points.
In order to move beyond the maddening news cycle in which we seem to be trapped like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, the world must recognize and appreciate the rare talent and dignity of people like Dave Rubin. He is not interested in devolving his show into a cage match, despite the ratings that might follow. He is not interested in blindly the following the partisan talking points that the old guard of identity politics prescribe. He is interested only in providing a crucial public service that has otherwise almost completely disappeared—true, thoughtful information on big ideas that are almost entirely removed from the political fray. In the age of the Trump obsession and hostile polarization on both sides, we must insist that more follow in Rubin’s mold. America would be well served to engage in the kinds of thoughtful conversations modeled by the Rubin Report.
Special thanks to Nick Briscoe and Daniel Bruce for their help in writing, editing, and researching this article. Nick is my law firm manager and a graduate of the University of Alabama. Daniel is my chief consultant and a Political Science and Economics student at Auburn University. Both plan to attend law school in 2019.
Early on the morning of March 26th, Pastor Greg Locke took to Twitter to say this, “People are like ‘if you support Trump you can’t be a Christian.’ Do y’all listen when you talk? Jesus hired a demon possessed traitor to handle his money for 3 years. He can use the President if He so desires. Take a seat people.” Walking the line between God’s tendency to use imperfect vessels to advance His ministry and one’s outright support of even a man’s worst vices is where many religious leaders have gone astray.
Though Jesus repeatedly used the morally bereft in order to advance his cause, there was a general theme of repentance that accompanied each case. Saul repented, converted, and became Paul. Mary Magdalene abandoned a life of sin (though the degree to which her life was sinful is a matter of constant biblical debate) in order to follow Christ until the end. Without repentance, the endorsement of anti-Christian behavior by supposed Christian leaders is purely a politically driven exercise. In the midst of such politicization even in the halls of our most sacrosanct religious institutions, Christians are desperately searching for a leader who represents their values, their religion, and their culture without waving like a flag in the wind in order to appease the society at large.
Pastor Harry Reeder has spent a lifetime serving Christ and His followers. Since his arrival at Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, AL, the faithful knew that Pastor Reeder was a kind and loving soul, a true Christian role model in these times of great moral peril. Natives of Charlotte, North Carolina, he and his wife, Cindy, have three children: Jennifer, Harry IV, and Abigail. They are also proud grandparents of eight grandchildren. As a man driven and dedicated so fully to family and to Christ, Pastor Reeder has led Briarwood Presbyterian to its position as a widely-recognized home for droves of Christians seeking solace in Christ’s word.
At a time where nearly every aspect of society has seemingly been co-opted by one faction or another for some political purpose, Pastor Reeder has kept himself and his church defiantly out of the political fray. While many pastors and religious leaders have compromised their most deeply held convictions in support of presidents, policies, and the like, Mr. Reeder’s steadfast refusal to enter the mud to appease his base is a refreshing breath of air. For those of us who wish to keep our politics and our religion as separate as is possible, his refusal to compromise the dignity of his church or its members in order to advance his own political interests or ambitions is a much welcome change. Like all great religious readers, and like Jesus the Shepherd, he has put the needs and concerns of his flock above his own.
We’ve seen recently the nation’s visceral reaction to the passing of Billy Graham. Graham, though a more public figure and more closely tied to the political world, managed to remain, himself, relatively apolitical. He counseled Presidents of both parties and various ideological leanings with equal wisdom and spiritual guidance. Despite his charming personality, strong spiritual character, and apolitical nature, some stooped to demonizing Graham upon his death – they slandered and smeared America’s pastor as a false prophet of God’s word.
Graham’s fate is a reminder to all who serve God’s mission not to expect kindness or acceptance, and never to seek such things if it requires an abandonment of His principles. Mr. Reeder recognizes that his adherence to Godly values will not win him many friends in today’s cultural arena. Those who believe, like Pastor Locke, that the mystery of God’s plan mandates blind, hypocritical support for wicked behavior simply because the person caught in sin agrees with their political views will denounce Reeder for his insufficient support of their cause. Those who believe that Billy Graham was a false prophet will never acknowledge the true holiness of any public figure devoted to the Lord’s work. The only friends Harry Reeder will be making are, ultimately, the only ones he needs; his flock and the Good Lord.
Special thanks to Nick Briscoe and Daniel Bruce for their help in writing, researching, and editing this article. Nick is a graduate of Alabama and manager of the Reid Law Firm, and Daniel is a Political Science and Economics student at Auburn University. Both hope to attend law school in 2018.
Congressman Gary Palmer, of Alabama’s sixth district, is rated the 13th most conservative legislator in Washington, according to Conservative Review’s tried-and-true scorecard. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 2014, riding a wave of small government conservatism all the way through his re-election in 2016. Palmer has served the people of Alabama’s sixth district honorably, voting and speaking every bit as conservatively as he campaigned. While most Republicans campaign like libertarians and govern like big government statists, Representative Palmer has a solid record of conservative governance and is the kind of Republican that gives the party hope going into 2018.
Republicans live much of their electoral lives in the non-existent fantasy land between their electorate’s conservative leanings (especially for midterm elections) and their hopes of appeasing the media and appearing pragmatic. The constant battle between appeasing extreme-right constituents and extreme-left media is too real for many Republican representatives. As a result, Republicans often fear media reprisal for voting for a bill they campaigned on supporting, such as the long-promised Obamacare Repeal. However, this political strategy is ultimately fatally flawed. There is virtually no realistic upside—the media and the Democrats will not suddenly become enamored by Republicans’ attempts at wooing them, as evidenced by all of political history.
There is, however, a tremendous downside—Republican voters will abandon their constituents, especially in off year elections when Republicans are in power. The best hope for Republicans who employ this strategy is to ride into the sunset as a rhetorical hero of the left and the media, and retire once it becomes plain that their voters won’t be turning out to support them – much like Jeff Flake. If seeking reelection, Republicans must abandon this sleight of hand and commit fully to realizing the conservative promises they made to their constituencies. Representative Gary Palmer is one of few Republicans who, combining ideological integrity with political savvy, has remained true to his conservative campaign promises. As a result, he enjoys sky-high approval ratings and is on his way to a relatively easy reelection in 2018.
Palmer has spent his time in the House actively securing his conservative bona fides. Most recently, Palmer cast a courageous “nay” vote on the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, the latest in a long line of egregious omnibus spending packages rammed through congress with little consideration, almost no debate, and virtually zero forethought. The GOP establishment rammed through the spending package, demanding support from it’s constituents. The Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative and libertarian representatives of which Palmer is a part, stood boldly to limit spending, reign in the bloated federal budget, and shed some light on the dark rooms in which these negotiations often take place. Unfortunately, Palmer’s effort and those of the rest of the Freedom Caucus were not enough to slow the runaway train of pork and waste that passed through the halls of congress last week.
Palmer and the Freedom Caucus understand a fundamental truth that too many politicians are happy to ignore—rhetoric and promises only work until people feel the hits in their wallet. While virtually all conservatives agreed that tax breaks were an essential step to drive an economy out of historically low growth, very few advocated for the timeless stance of fiscal conservatism. The problem, as Palmer and others realized, is that one cannot increase spending, lower revenue (however egregious it may be that the word “revenue” references taxation), and expect to speed up a lagging recovery. One might argue that the spending and taxation might reach equilibrium, citing some tortured analysis of the Laffer Curve. The Freedom Caucus is wise enough to recognize that not only are the figures and statistics leading to that conclusion highly questionable, but Americans will never live to see the results of such a balancing even if it were to occur. People—rightfully so— are not patient when their wallets get thinner due to preventable government incompetence.
Gary Palmer is not only a good and honorable conservative, but he is a shrewd politician. He understands the way that GOP voters think and react, while understanding that appealing across the aisle is largely a waste of time and political capital. We need more Republicans like him in Washington—pragmatic, wise, and savvy. I would humbly recommend to Paul Ryan that he hit the recruiting trail like Nick Saban… Get us more Gary Palmers!
Special thanks to Nick Briscoe and Daniel Bruce, members of my staff, for their help in writing, editing, and researching this article. Nick is a recent graduate of the University of Alabama and is the law firm manager. Daniel is a Political Science and Economics student at Auburn University and is my chief consultant. Both plan to attend law school in 2019.
Yet again, the old political order is being disturbed by the pesky grassroots that simply refuse to go away. This time, the culprit is a young, charming Missouri firebrand named Austin Petersen. Petersen burst onto the political scene when he nearly pulled off what would have been considered the biggest electoral upset of 2016—defeating Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination. He is now running for Senate in Missouri as a Republican with hopes of ousting incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill. While his betrayal of the third-party outsiders infuriated some, Peterson hopes the Republican party will afford liberty a greater platform and an opportunity to unseat an establishment Democrat accused of being too cozy with Obama and Clinton.
At the start of his 2016 campaign, Gary Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico, had been criticized for years on his switch to the Libertarian Party. He proceeded to play into every Libertarian stereotype one could think of, whether wagging his tongue like a crazed dog on national television or making any of a series of cringe-worthy gaffes. In addition to his many foibles, Johnson had a fatal flaw that would doom his Libertarian candidacy—he wasn’t terribly Libertarian. He supported carbon taxes, opposed freedom of association, and generally found himself on the wrong side of every Libertarian issue. Petersen, a true champion for liberty, gave him a much-needed challenge.
Petersen did not take the traditional route to political prominence. As it says in big, bold letters at the top of his campaign website, he was “Born in Independence and raised in Peculiar—near a town called Liberty.” He did not attend an ivy league university or enjoy a top tier law school education. He attended Missouri State University, where he graduated with a degree in musical theatre. You will not find think tanks or judicial clerkships on his resume, as he opted instead for modeling and demonstrating at the famed New York toy store FAO Schwartz. While working there, he even appeared in a Late Night with Conan O’Brien sketch.
Later, Peterson delved into politics, working for the Libertarian National Committee and the Atlas Network, in addition to the Ron Paul campaigns for President in 2008 and 2012. He moved from there into television, working as an associate producer for the Fox Business program Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano. He then worked as director of production at the advocacy group, FreedomWorks. In addition to running for Senate, Petersen is the owner and CEO of a photo and video consulting firm called Stonegait LLC, named after the family farm, and is founder of The Libertarian Republic and Liberty Viral—libertarian news and commentary websites. So really, he is just your everyday musical theater buff turned model, turned operative, turned TV producer, turned media consultant, turned Senate candidate.
Peterson has gained a cult following among lovers of liberty, as he is unafraid to challenge conventional political norms or advocate fiercely for his most deeply-held beliefs. Naturally, his fierce engagement in the time-honored Libertarian tradition of sharing memes and trolling absolutely everyone has earned him the respect of liberty lovers everywhere.
But now, Peterson has shed the stench of the Libertarian Party and embraced the once-villainous two party system. He now embraces conservative and classically liberal thought leaders like Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin, while strongly condemning the utter chaos of the Libertarian sideshow. His move to the Republican Party drew the ire of many Libertarians, as doctrinal a group of people as you will find who lack a central doctrine. Some accused him of selling out, others of abandoning his lifelong principles. These same people accuse Rand Paul of being a closet statist, but are happy to cast a vote for interventionist and anti-gun Bill Weld, former governor of Massachusetts. In other words, the dogmatic hardliners who demonize anyone who blindly tows the party line are often willing to sacrifice a great number of their own principles in order to blindly tow the party line.
Austin Petersen has done an extraordinary job of exposing hypocrisy while maintaining his own dignity and integrity. His decision to leave the circus sideshow disguised as a functioning political party in order to give liberty a greater platform was one that he knew would be met with controversy and indignation, but ultimately was the only decision that could be made for the greater good—the advancement and diffusion of liberty.
In a deeply red state like Missouri, Peterson might just have a chance, even against an incumbent Democrat. McCaskill is sure to have the full support of the DNC, which sees 2018 as an opportunity seize Congressional control from stagnant Republicans. However, in today’s political climate – where voters seem to be fed up with the bickering and lackadaisicalness in both parties – former Libertarians like Peterson have their best shot in years to rule the day.
Special thanks to Nick Briscoe and Daniel Bruce for their help in writing, editing, and researching this article. Nick is my Law Firm Manager and a graduate of the University of Alabama. Daniel is a Political Science and Economics student at Auburn University and my Chief Consultant. They both plan to attend law school in 2019.
The strained relationship between President Trump and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions hit another boiling point last week. In a furious tweet, Trump publicly denounced Sessions’ decision not to unleash the power of the Justice Department on the president’s enemies, calling the attorney general "Disgraceful!"
While Sessions has traditionally remained silent on such criticism, he stood his ground in the midst of Trump’s latest tirade responding, "As long as I am the Attorney General, I will continue to discharge my duties with integrity and honor, and this Department will continue to do its work in a fair and impartial manner according to the law and Constitution."
Sessions should be applauded for standing up to his boss, who in this case acts more like a 71-year-old child rather than the leader of the free world. In fact, one must go back to some of the Founders to find a sitting president launching a public attack against members of his own cabinet. Perhaps most notably, John Adams was known for a fuming temper, one often wielding its head against members of his own party — such as his Secretary of War James McHenry and former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton.
Consequently, Adams’ quickness to burn his bridges cost him a second term — a fair warning for any attempt by Trump to start a cabinet war in Washington, D.C.
However, Jeff Sessions’ stand reflects much more than the consequences of childish inter-office bickering; it’s a stand for the sovereignty of American constitutional law. The U.S. Constitution gives the president the sole power to pick the members of his cabinet, and there is a long-standing adage that cabinet members "serve at the pleasure of the president." However, the Framers also ensured that the people had an ability to check the president’s appointment power and instilled Congress with the duty of confirming the president’s appointees. Thus, the president chooses his cabinet, and the people — through their duly elected representatives — approve them.
In the political world, this process is known as the concept of checks and balances. It is an integral aspect of the Framers’ vision of a constitutional republic. It also puts cabinet officials in the sometimes unfortunate position of serving as an extension of the president, while acting on behalf of the people.
In Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ case, Trump has repeatedly given him the choice to follow the law that he has sworn to protect or cave to the political pressures of his hot-tempered boss. If the U.S. attorney general — the chief law enforcer — becomes merely a pawn of the president, we become a nation ruled by the passions of men rather than the timelessness of law. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has its first loyalty to the rule of law and we must never politicize prosecutions. By doing so, we chip away at the things and ideals separating our country from places like Venezuela and Russia.
It is this timelessness that has allowed the U.S. to peacefully transition power to different figures and parties for over 200 years — without conflict.
Sessions has received some support from his colleagues in the legislature but many elected leaders in my state of Alabama have failed to defend the good name of their friend of 20 years!
Some have told me that they can’t defend sessions because if they say anything against Trump it may hurt them in the primary and to them I say you don’t deserve to lead anyone.
If elected leaders aren’t willing to even stand up for their friend of two decades, whom they know personally, then who are they willing to stand up for? These officials not only know Sessions publicly but they know his family as well; their children know one another.
Sessions has reached out to them when their family was dealing with tragedy, and they fought for conservative principles together for years. Everyone in my state who knows Sessions doesn’t question him at all. They realize if he is doing something that Trump doesn’t like its only because Sessions will always try and do the right thing no matter what the cost. I am so proud of him for being a man of character. Sadly, a large portion of the Republican party has aligned with the Always-Trumpers, claiming that the attorney general’s sole duty is to do what the president commands — regardless of legality.
In our polarized culture, it seems that we have forgotten that humans are not infallible. Even ones with whom we agree with the most have their faults.
It's not treason or betrayal to push back when members of our own party do something wrong. There is no need to make excuses when our leaders let their egos blind them to reality. Instead, we should encourage them to do better.
After all, even the president serves at the pleasure of the people.
This is not all to say that Jefferson Sessions does not have his faults. He does, and I have openly disagreed with him. Yet even in disagreement he has always listened to my concerns and made a thoughtful argument for his viewpoint. I love that about the man.
Sessions had to recuse himself from the Russia investigation because there are clear rules which govern this. Sessions even said during confirmation process he would recuse himself. So, Trump knew this, but somehow he blames Sessions? Trump has repeatedly asked his attorney general to defy the law his office is designed to uphold, and Sessions has repeatedly responded with respect — even to the point of submitting his resignation. However, our current attorney general — and the American people — must now show Trump that he is not king; that no one is above the law.
In closing, I don’t advocate we support the Democrats as a way to push-back in 2018, as we shouldn’t vote for people whose vision we fundamentally oppose.
However, if the voters don’t know what we stand for and see us putting any elected member of our party over our principles then we will ensure our defeat in 2018.
Let us praise our president for the things he does well, critiquing him when he goes against our conservative beliefs. We cannot continue to excuse anything he says or does and continue to beleive that we will not be a minority party in 2018. Let’s be fair and reasonable. This way we will win the argument, and the voters will support us in 2018.
Note: Special thanks to Daniel Bruce, a member of my firm, who helped write, research, and edit this piece. Daniel is a political science and economics student at Auburn University and is a regular contributor to Rouser News. He plans to attend law school when he graduates.
Mass shootings like the one in Parkland, Florida, force Americans to reflect on just how broad their Second Amendment right should be.
Though overall instances of gun violence have declined in number, clearly the problem is not completely resolved. Responsible, law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns, but there are individuals out there who forfeit that right by committing felonies or making violent threats. The issue facing Congress is what they can do about these dangerous individuals, while still maintaining Second Amendment liberties.
Across the U.S., anyone who passes a federal background check can purchase firearms. These background checks look into things like criminal history, mental health history, immigration status, etc.
However, the information in federal databases is not always up-to-date or complete — states do not have a good track record of providing information. Additionally, in some states, only licensed gun dealers are required to run background checks. Private sellers and vendors at gun shows are not required to do so. Republicans made a big issue out of not letting anyone vote who couldn’t produce an ID — shouldn’t we apply the same standards to weapons that could harm dozens of people?
Nikolas Cruz, the Parkland shooter, obtained his AR-15 legally after passing a background check. Cruz was able to purchase a gun despite observations by his peers that he would be a likely candidate for a school shooter. Any mental health problems Cruz may have, however, did not surface in his background check.
Obviously, this is not a very good metric for keeping track of every state citizen that might be mentally ill. In Florida, it is even possible to be involuntarily detained for mental illness and still purchase a gun, if the detainment does not last for more than 72 hours.
Though mental health is not the reason behind most gun violence, is it certainly partly to blame in tragedies like Parkland, and lawmakers should work to find a better way to prevent the mentally ill from possessing firearms. The problem is that it is difficult to classify individuals with mental health issues as actually dangerous. The government would run the risk of over-categorization if it attempted to compile a more thorough registry. For example, if a person saw a therapist for minor depression and anxiety, would they be barred from firearm possession? If so, this law might apply to some of the nation’s military and police officers.
One possible solution is for all states to adopt so-called “red flag laws.” Red flag laws allow the temporary seizure of guns from individuals before they can be used for harm. Four states have adopted red flag laws, and 18 other states, including Florida, are considering similar legislation.
The system relies on third parties to report to the government if they believe individuals are a danger to themselves or others. The focus of these laws is to single out dangerous behavior, rather than mental illness in general. Dangerous behavior is categorized as including signs of mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, etc. If an individual is reported as exhibiting dangerous behavior, their firearm is temporarily seized, but may be returned to them after a court proceeding and most of the time the hearing must take place within 2-4 weeks.
The worry of staunch Second Amendment supporters is that under this system, firearms might be taken from individuals without just cause. However, the seizure is only temporary, and people have the opportunity to argue their case and dispute evidence that they exhibited dangerous behavior. These laws exist for citizens’ protection, not to destroy their rights. In fact, it is still up to the state to prove that someone is dangerous, so the burden of proof doesn’t shift to the accessed which is an essential part of protecting due process.
Following the horrific events in Parkland, there has been a promising surge of bipartisan support for new gun control legislation. There is the strong possibility of a bipartisan bill to ban bump stocks, a move which both President Trump and Jeff Sessions have said they support. Trump is also supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system, expressing the desire that federal and state agencies be held accountable if they fail to upload records into the system.
Recent survey data from POLITICO/Morning Consult shows that most Americans are in favor of strengthening gun control laws related to background checks and preventing guns from getting in the hands of the mentally ill. In fact, 88 percent of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchasers. Most interestingly, 55 percent of gun owners back new restrictions, as well as 49 percent of Republican voters. Though recent surveys have shown even higher numbers than this!
History and data has taught us that broad based gun control doesn’t work and ends up wasting the limited resources that police have on harassing people who have never committed a crime. However, targeted gun control which harshly prosecutes felons for gun possession and the implementation of a red flag system could have prevented the last three mass shootings in Florida. The FBI was aware of the three last mass shooters long before they committed any acts of violence, but they didn’t have the tools to act pre-emptively. No one is arguing for putting anyone in jail for free speech, but it is important that there is a temporary process to take weapons from someone until it is clear they are no longer a threat to themselves or others. Making these changes could ensure that mass shootings will decline, but we must stop talking about what needs to be done and simply do it.
Special thanks to Katherine Pickle, a member of my staff, for her help in writing, researching, and editing this article. Katherine is the chief law clerk at the Reid Law Firm and a 2L student at Emory Law School.
This week, the nation continues to mourn the passing of “America’s Pastor,” Billy Graham. For over 60 years, Graham turned the hearts and minds of the world upside down as he spread the love of Jesus Christ around the globe. Graham had an innate ability to bring folks together in mutual affection and hunger for a greater purpose — an ability severely lacking in today’s culture of hatred and partisanship. In order to ever ease the tension that divides our communities, we need a leader to rally behind, a leader who will wake us from our hazy slumber and point us to the truth.
Beginning in 1947, Reverend Graham travelled the nation and eventually the world to preach the Gospel to nearly 215 million people through his famed crusades. At the end of every sermon, he invited each one to “come forward” and commit their lives to Christ. He offered a chance at redemption, hope, and a life free from frustration and bewilderment — a life dedicated to Jesus Christ. His only agenda was Christ’s, and he ministered to people of all backgrounds, beliefs, and status — from North Carolina farmers to United States presidents.
Graham ministered to presidents from Truman to Obama, often becoming their confidante and spiritual guide. However, being friends with the leader of the free world doesn’t always come easy. Graham was often criticized for his close relationship with Nixon, even through the Watergate scandal, but Graham continued to maintain that he and Nixon were equally sinners. Presidents realized they could trust him and often opened up to him about their most personal struggles, from the office to their families. His reach extended even beyond American leaders. In 1992, North Korean leader Kim Il Sung invited Graham to preach in Pyongyang’s officially sanctioned churches. Graham fostered a friendly relationship with the dictator and would even return to the communist regime as an unofficial American envoy. Graham’s reach was truly unprecedented and perhaps a telling result of the universal message that he preached.
In the nation’s darkest hours, Graham was continually called upon to lead. In the midst of the strife and hatred that plagued the nation during the civil rights movement, America’s pastor called on Christians to lead the charge for change. Graham integrated his crusades in 1957, and was praised by Dr. Martin Luther King, who wrote, “You have courageously brought the Christian gospel to bear on the question of race.” In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, Graham was invited to the National Cathedral to unite a grieving country in prayer. No matter the challenge, Billy Graham knew just what the nation needed to come together, and we all looked to him for a sign of comfort and peace.
As our nation again becomes increasingly polarized, who will we look to for that comfort and peace? When our world inevitably comes crashing down, who can we turn to, to lead us into the light? Graham did not speak for a particular church, a particular party, or a particular people, but his familiarity gave us peace, his words gave us hope, and his message brought us life. Today, our leaders are just as polarized as we are, and even our spiritual leaders often find themselves touting a particular agenda. America — and the world — needs another Billy Graham, someone who can strengthen our faith in the Almighty, deepen our love for our fellow man and unite us around a greater purpose.
Special thanks to Daniel Bruce, a member of my staff, for his help in writing, researching, and editing this article. Daniel is studying Political Science and Economics at Auburn University and plans to attend law school after graduating. He also is a regular contributor to Rouser News in D.C.
The Republican tax bill has gotten a lot of flak since being passed by Congress in December. Though the majority of Americans’ taxes will (for the time being) go down, the GOP reform is less popular than tax hikes under Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. The question is why — have Americans misjudged the bill, or are they correctly skeptical?
One criticism of the legislation is that members of Congress were not given enough time to read the 500-page bill. Though they were presented with the full text of the bill at what was arguably the last minute, to claim they had absolutely no time to understand its contents is an exaggeration. The key points of the bill had been up for discussion with the Senate Finance Committee for the past three years. Surely if Senators were passionate about the issue, they could find time over 3 years to investigate the bill for themselves.
Assume for a moment that there actually was adequate time to fully read the bill, would anyone in Congress have done it? This is doubtful. The embarrassing problem of legislators not reading the legislation they vote on has been around for decades. It’s such an issue that Senator Rand Paul has attempted to pass a “Read Bills Act” requiring elected officials to actually read the proposals on their desks. But they’re busy people, and their time is better spent on other pursuits — according to one study, Congressmen and Senators spend 40 percent of their time soliciting votes and raising money for their next campaign.
Another document that most members of Congress have not read, and certainly not most Americans, is the Internal Revenue Code (more simply, the Tax Code). It’s difficult for people to understand what’s changing, when they likely don’t understand what the rules were in the first place. There’s a reason that many Americans hire professionals to do their taxes. The Tax Code is exceedingly complicated, because it contains a vast assortment of detailed rules and specific exceptions inserted over the years as a result of lobbying by different interest groups. Some of the new updates no doubt fall into this category as well.
So, because neither members of Congress nor average Americans have read the Tax Code or the GOP tax bill in their entirety, the focus is on the biggest, most obvious changes. What are they? Lower individual tax rates, a larger standard deduction, and a significantly lower corporate tax rate — each of which has its pros and cons. For example, the cuts to individual tax rates are short term and expire in 2026, and while the standard deduction is larger this change is at the expense of itemized deductions, which have been eliminated.
Most economists suspect that there will initially be an economic boom as a result of the reform, but that it will not last. Wall Street analysts project that companies like Amazon, Google, and Facebook will save $4.5 billion in taxes due to the low corporate rate, and that there will be a big boost for all businesses. Savings for middle income taxpayers will be about $900-$1,600.
Even with these potential benefits, many Americans are not satisfied. One issue, as intimated above, is that people don’t fully understand the bill. Furthermore, people are more likely to focus on the negatives than the small positives they may be experiencing. The fact that all itemized deductions have been slashed makes Americans feel like they’re losing out, even though the vast majority of people will marginally benefit from the larger standardized deduction. It’s true that the individual tax cuts will expire in 2026, but this is a result of budget rules, not Republicans’ will; it’s the GOP’s intent to renew these cuts. Most Americans will thus benefit in the short term, and may very well benefit in the long term as well.
The biggest shadow on the reform doesn’t even have anything to do with what’s in it — Democrats and other Americans are predisposed to disliking the bill because Trump supported it. Though the bill is not perfect, Democrats would not have been happy with anything Republicans had drafted. In 2018, Republicans will preach the success of the bill, and Democrats will tear it apart, but the fact is, no one can be sure.
Economists do predict that the benefits of the bill will fade and that the national debt will grow as a result. But, Republicans are banking on economic growth from, primarily, the lower corporate tax rate to counteract these downfalls. There are so many variables in the economy that could change drastically over the next few years that it is nearly impossible to say what the greater effects of the reform will be. However, the early information we are getting is showing a very good trajectory that could lead to economic growth we haven’t seen since Reagan was president.
In sum, Americans should not be so quick to judge the GOP tax bill. Most of us don’t fully understand it, and it is extremely difficult to accurately predict what will happen to the economy years in the future. The tax reform law is definitely a net positive but only time will tell just how big an impact this bill will have.
Christopher Reid is an attorney out of Birmingham who owns his own general practice law firm, which handles Business, Family, and Probate Law and high-end litigation throughout the state of Alabama. Reid has held various policy positions, including working for the Alabama Policy Institute and the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C., where he also worked for House Republican Whip Roy Blunt. In law school, he clerked for the Alabama Attorney General Office, and, after graduation, he became Health and Judiciary Policy Analyst for Alabama’s governor. His charitable work includes serving on the board of Sav-A-Life. Chris is a frequent co-host on The Scott Beason Show in Birmingham, writes political and legal commentary for publications including The Hill, The Washington Examiner, and has been quoted in The New Yorker. He regularly provides on-air expertise and political commentary for TV news shows on Fox, NBC, and Newsmax with JD Hayworth.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.