Trump Defeated ISIS by Letting Our Military Do What It Does Best

This article originally appeared on my Newsmax column. 

Despite such a major legislative victory for the Trump administration, tax reform is not Trump’s greatest success. His real victory lies in the administration’s comprehensive approach to fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and around the globe, by relaxing the military’s rules of engagement.

Early firings, resignations, and investigations have called into question many of Trump’s cabinet members and staff. However, one appointment that Trump unequivocally got right is his Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis. Mattis spent over a decade embroiled in the Iraq War and earned a reputation as a cunning fighter who instills his men with a sense of integrity and hope. Many have compared his leadership style to that of General George Patton, and his nickname — Mad Dog — resembles nothing less. However, what is often lost behind that nickname is the scholar and thinker in Mattis. After he retired, Mattis became a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think-tank based out of Stanford, where he wrote extensive pieces on American national security, the fight against terrorism, and the interplay between warriors and citizens. These two aspects of his personality have led some to refer to him as the “warrior monk.” Regardless, his leadership in both the cabinet and pentagon has been impeccable.

On the campaign trail, President Trump promised to “lift restrictions and expand authorities” for U.S. military units fighting against terrorism in Afghanistan and around the globe. Almost immediately upon taking office, Mattis began to develop plans to lift those restrictions. In October, Mattis announced that the administration would be rolling back several Obama-era restrictions on military engagement. Approved by a committee of the top officials in national security, these changes most notably remove proximity requirements put in place by the cautious Obama administration.

“We are no longer bound by the need for proximity to our forces. It used to be we have to basically be in contact with that enemy,” Mattis said at a congressional hearing, as reported by the Military Times. The loosening of these rules could allow the U.S. military to move more quickly when engaging members of the Taliban or ISIS and expand military operations outside of designated “war zones,” laying the groundwork for counterterrorism operations in countries where the U.S. has not been previously engaged. The changes would also expand kill missions by the military and CIA — limited by the Obama administration to include only those targets who pose “a continuing and imminent threat to Americans” — to include any foot-soldier jihadist, as well as roll back vetting procedures for certain drone strikes and raids.

Many have argued that an expansion of military operations would place an increasing number of civilian lives in danger. However, administration officials agreed to keep in place an Obama-era requirement of “near certainty” that no civilian bystanders will be harmed in order to carry out these attacks.

The Trump administration is also committing to placing U.S. and allied advisors in lower-level Afghan units, in order to streamline communication with those units closer to enemy forces. The proximity to these units will allow U.S. and NATO forces to quickly supply much-needed air support to Afghan militaries fighting against the Taliban.

President Trump has placed the fight against terrorism once again in the competent hands of our military leaders, and nowhere is that more evident than in the leadership of Secretary of Defense Mattis.

By rolling back the bureaucratic red tape that has hampered military operations for years, the U.S. will now be able to implement a comprehensive approach to fighting terrorism across the globe and defending our nation from those who wish us harm. While Trump may deserve much of the criticism he receives, his support and respect for our military is a refreshing shift from the previous eight years, and deserves recognition as one of his finest victories.

Special thanks to Daniel Bruce, a member of my firm, who helped write, research, and edit this piece. Daniel has previously written for Yellowhammer News, the largest conservative news source in Alabama, and is studying political science and economics at Auburn University. You can follow him on Twitter @d_bruce96.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Gage Skidmore

Can Lee Busby Run a Successful Write-In Campaign in Alabama?

This article originally appeared on my Newsmax column.

Retired Marine Colonel Lee Busby has announced that he will attempt to mount a write-in campaign to be Alabama’s next senator.

Once thought to be an easy win for Republicans, the nomination of the controversial Judge Roy Moore and subsequent allegations of sexual misconduct have opened the possibility for Democrats to flip the seat and send a detrimental blow to the Republicans' slim majority in the senate. However, some have realized that the situation opens up an opportunity for voters to write-in their own candidate — an idea many, including Busby, have decided to run with.

Busby, 60, is a lifelong Alabamian and a native of Tuscaloosa. He graduated from the University of Alabama and served 31 years as a Marine Infantry Officer. Busby spent time in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and served as Vice Chief of Staff to Lt. General John Kelly, the current White House Chief of Staff. Since retiring from the military, Busby has made a successful career at sculpting and was even featured in Southern Living Magazine.

Busby has said that he decided to run because he does not think that either candidate is fit to serve in the Senate. Republicans leaders in Washington and Alabama have all but ruled out running a write-in candidate against Moore for fear it would surely elect Jones. However, Busby believes that his centrist platform could attract voters from both sides of the aisle.

Busby has said that he voted for Ohio Governor John Kasich in the 2016 Republican Primary and President Trump in the general election. He supports the Republican effort to lower taxes, wants to repeal Obamacare, and believes that life begins at conception. In reference to Jones, he told The Washington Post, “The people of Alabama are not going to be represented by someone who supports a liberal abortion policy. I’m extremely concerned about the Democratic Party in Alabama. I don’t think they reflect Alabama’s views.”

While Busby seems to push the conservative agenda that many Alabama voters would look for in a senator, he simply is not a viable option for a successful write-in candidate.

His biggest downfall is that he has almost no name recognition within the state. If anyone is going to mount a successful campaign against Moore and Jones, it would have to be someone well-known and respected among Alabama’s voters and political elites. That is not Busby. Moreover, while he claims to be running on a centrist platform, his beliefs seem to staunchly line up with the current Republican agenda and would hardly sway any Democrats away from the Jones camp.

The truth is that with the current makeup of candidates, no write-in campaign would be successful. Any candidate would almost certainly pull votes away from Moore and guarantee a Republican defeat. However, there are a few well-known Alabamians who could unite the party on such short notice, especially if Moore were to drop out of the race: Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Congressman Gary Palmer.

Obviously, a triumphant return to reclaim his Senate seat by the current Attorney General is highly unlikely. However, some Republicans have urged Sessions to consider winning back his seat. He is loved throughout the state and would easily defeat Jones and Moore. A more plausible option would be Congressman Gary Palmer. Palmer currently Represents Alabama’s 6th District and is well known throughout the state. He is a staunch conservative and free from the scandal and controversy that surrounds Moore. If Moore dropped out of the race, Palmer could easily defeat Doug Jones by 10-15 points and Palmer can unite all wings of the party!

With the election just two weeks away, something must be done if Republicans want to keep the seat. Voters are desperately searching for another option, but bottom line: Busby is not an option.

Special Thanks to Daniel Bruce, a member of my law firm and former writer for yellowhammer news, who helped write, research and edit this article.

Cruz, Sessions, Shelby, and Lee Not on Roy Moore's Side

This article originally appeared on my Newsmax column. 

Many have asked why so many conservative republicans who do not want Doug Jones to be Alabama’s senator would take the extraordinary step of asking the GOP nominee Roy Moore to step aside in an election just two weeks away.

The truth is that, despite the timing of the release of the allegations and the fact that these were released through The Washington Post, the overwhelming majority of conservative Republican leaders believe the victims. Senator Richard Shelby, Senator Mike Lee, Senator Ted Cruz, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions are all skilled attorneys who have looked at the evidence objectively and reached the same conclusions. The victims in this case are in fact credible. In this article, I examine the evidence and explain why skilled non-establishment attorneys who are on the far right do not believe Moore.

For many in our state, the argument remains that no one can be sure what happened 40 years ago. Some stand behind Moore because he has been a staple of Alabama politics for so long that they believe he must be trustworthy. However, Moore’s response to the accusations has been highly questionable, and in comparison to the thorough and consistent stories of his accusers, it seems clear who we should believe.

In her interviews with The Washington Post, Leigh Corfman told the same story to reporters in 6 different interviews. She didn’t deviate much except on a few minor points, her facts remained consistent, and she remained stalwart that she was sexually assaulted by Moore at the age of 14. The stories the other women told the Post were also consistent. More notably, Corfman and the women did not reach out to the Post, the Post discovered their stories on its own accord and reached out to the women for comment.

In contrast, Moore’s responses to the stories have been wavering. Though he denies the accusations, his denials have not been all that concrete. For example, in reference to Gloria Deason, Moore stated, “As I recall she was 19 or older. I never provided intoxicating liquor to a minor. I seem to remember her as a good girl.” However, he later said of Deason that he didn’t remember going out on dates. How does Moore remember specifically that she was 19 but doesn’t remember taking her out on dates?

Additionally, in his interview with Sean Hannity, Moore did not answer with a straight “no” to the question of whether or not he sought encounters with young girls. Moore’s response was not an unequivocal no, but a shaky, “It would have been out of my customary behavior.” So, it wasn’t the norm for him to date underage girls, but it may have happened? That’s what this answer seems to imply.

It’s an awful precedent that Moore can respond to the accusations by insulting the media and refusing to answer questions. Some outlets have noted that they have approached Moore for comment or with the opportunity to debate Jones, but he has declined to respond.

Though Moore has provided evidence that he was not banned from the Gadsden mall (the prior manager vouched for Moore, as well as other mall employees) this is but one minor aspect of the accusations against Moore, especially considering the other allegations involve sexual misconduct with a minor. This is by no means the end of the investigation. Additionally, some local police officers, who were in the force at the time the conduct allegedly took place, told certain news outlets that rumors swirled around the department that Moore should be kept away from young girls.

Mixed stories like this are why we need be extremely cautious in believing Moore’s denial, more proof needs to be offered. And the proof that has been offered by the Moore camp is hardly compelling. If it was, Senator Cruz, Senator Lee, and Senator Shelby — who all endorsed Moore before the accusations — would no doubt publicly defend him.

Republicans are rightly concerned with losing a key Senate seat to a Democrat, but politics cannot be our only consideration. Supporting a likely child molester would harm the party beyond belief. If Moore would do the right thing and withdraw, there are Republicans with enough statewide name recognition that they could easily defeat Jones. But, time is running out.

As Republicans, we need to band together and ask Roy Moore to withdraw so we can keep the seat in Republican hands — it’s what’s best for our state, and it’s what’s best for our party.

Special Thanks to my Law Clerk Katherine Pickle who is a 2nd year law student at Emory Law School who helped me research, write and fact check this article.

Moore Must Step Aside for Better Republican Candidate

This article originally appeared on my Newsmax column.

It’s been just over a week since The Washington Post broke the story of Roy Moore’s alleged sexual misconduct — and the situation has worsened. Though the news was at first met with some speculation and uncertainty, it is now clear, without a doubt, that Moore should step down from his candidacy. His alleged actions have not only tainted the Republican Party, but have irreparably harmed the lives of innocent young women.

As an Alabama attorney, and a media correspondent, I have thoroughly examined the evidence against Moore and have spoken to people with inside information about the scandal. Though I gave Moore the benefit of the doubt when the story first broke, there is now overwhelming evidence implicating him in sexual misconduct. Moore has gone from controversial to a man so consumed with pride he thinks he is the victim not the woman he allegedly molested, and as Republicans we need to take action to stop him from representing our party, the great state of Alabama, and the nation.

It’s true that no one can say for sure what happened 40 years ago, but the stories of the women who have come forward are far too terrible to ignore. I’m a die-hard Republican and I want to maintain the party’s majority in the Senate — but there’s no way that I could support an accused child molester when evidence is overwhelming of his guilt. And that’s what Moore is, let’s not beat around the bush. Yesterday on the radio, when I asked many of the callers who had defended Moore very few had even read the accusations. I despise The Washington Post and they have been unfair to conservatives so many times it’s hard to count. I understand why Moore voters don’t trust it and the timing seems political.

In my law practice, I have been in the position of giving legal counsel to families whose young daughters were raped, assaulted, and molested. These girls suffered harm at the hands of teachers, church officials, and other authority figures who took advantage of their positions to commit unspeakable acts. I cannot express enough how awful it is to have had to look in these girls’ eyes and see the devastation, hurt, and most of all loss caused by selfish, despicable grown men. Young girls who are assaulted lose a piece of themselves, and what has been taken from them they can never get back.

This is what Moore allegedly did to the victims. He took something from them, and by speaking out these women are doing what they can to take that piece of themselves back. We cannot let this effort go in vain. We must do something to avenge these victims, and take something from Moore in return.

Moore’s response to the accusations has been shameful. He has done nothing but blame others, and dodge questions. Moore said that he never dated any young girls without their mother’s permission — last time I checked, a mother can’t and wouldn’t give permission to allow her 14-year-old child to be molested by a 32-year old man. Though some of the women coming forward were of legal age when Moore had romantic relationships with them, at the very least his behavior is incredibly creepy.

Morality aside, from a political perspective Moore’s continued candidacy is political suicide, not only for Moore himself, but for the entire Republican Party. Even if Moore were completely innocent, he cannot recover in the race. A recent poll shows Moore a full 8 points behind opponent Doug Jones. Though this is near the margin of error, it shows a clear trend — Republican defeat in Alabama, a bright red state.

I have been Republican for as long as I can remember. I worked at the Heritage Foundation in D.C. I worked for the Alabama Policy Institute, was a health policy advisor to the governor, and clerked for the Alabama AG in the family protection unit where we went after men who molested children! So my conservative credentials are beyond question. But the Republican Party I believe in supports family values. It’s the party that passed legislation against sex trafficking, not the party that’s on the side of someone who may have violated young girls. How some Republicans can say they care about sexual assault victims but continue to support a man like Moore, I can’t fathom.

We need to stand up as Republicans, and figure out a solution. We absolutely need a Republican to win the Alabama seat, in order for there to be any successful policy passed through Congress. And if leaders in my state will listen to me, I guarantee we will keep the seat and avoid being branded the party that supports accused child molesters. The governor must delay the special election. I realize she said she wouldn’t but she must change her mind. Gary Palmer from the 6th district of Alabama could step up and easily unite the party and he would beat Doug Jones by 20 points. If Kay Ivey doesn’t move the election she will never lose the primary and go down as the Republican governor who gave former Senator Sessions' seat to the Democrats.

Finally, as someone who is a Christian, I am so ashamed of the pastors in my state who went out and attacked victims who made allegations. The church is supposed to be a place where hurting people can go to be loved not a place where the leaders will call victims liars without even listening to them. I am confident God is just but I hope that those ministers do repent and find forgiveness from the Lord. Please pray for my state and ask that God would reveal the truth quickly.

GOP Shaken by Possible Moore Exit, Dem Election Wins

This article originally appeared on my Newsmax column.

Last week's statewide elections resulted in huge victories for Democrats and have left the Republican Party rattled. Democrats swept the top offices in Virginia, where Ralph Northam was elected governor, and in New Jersey, where the election of Phil Murphy has put an end to the Chris Christie era. With Democrats (including one socialist) picking up a plethora of state legislature seats, this time it’s Republicans who are left thinking, “What happened?”

The election results are a testament to the consequences of party disunity. Ed Gillespie, whom Republicans viewed as a career politician willing to say anything to win, rode the fence between embracing and distancing himself from Trump. Voters can forgive a lot, but they will not forgive perceived insincerity and indecisiveness. While Trump was able to unite the conservative sect of the party and mount a surprising victory last year, he has yet to unite the disparate factions of the GOP to pass major legislation.

Many establishment Republicans blame these recent defeats solely on the White House, but the GOP’s problem is bigger than the actions of any one Republican. The party continues to fracture, and what used to be a fairly broad base of conservatives has now split into two polarizing factions. On one side, there are the populist types like Donald Trump, who are generally more suspicious of international trade agreements and do not subscribe to conventional norms. On the other are the more moderate, establishment Republicans who feel progressively alienated by the current leadership. Moderate Republican voters have become increasingly important in elections because, while they may not vote for Democrats, they might simply choose to stay home on Election Day. This indifference could cause a nightmare scenario for Republicans in 2018.

As analysts continue to mull over the meaning of last week’s elections, one thing is clear — the Republican Party is in trouble unless it can find a way to unify the disparate factions. Desperate to hold onto their slim 52-46 majority in the Senate, Republicans cannot afford to see Democrats flip any seats in 2018. The party’s first test is quickly approaching, with Roy Moore facing Doug Jones in the Alabama senate election in December. The race has recently become controversial, following a Washington Post article detailing alleged sexual misconduct by Moore.

High ranking GOP officials in Alabama are already considering potential options in the event Roy Moore withdraws from the race. The special election has already been moved once, and moving it again would not be ideal. However, Alabama Republicans have supermajorities in the legislature, and every statewide elected official is a Republican, so it is unlikely that they will simply sit back and do nothing.

Ironically, if the GOP base had listened to President Trump and supported Luther Strange in the primary, the ballot would not be in contention. During the run-off, President Trump accurately predicted that Roy Moore could easily lose to the Democratic candidate, and recent events have shown that to be the case. Sadly, it appears that President Trump, along with those of us in conservative media who sent out multiple warnings about Roy Moore’s potential toxicity to the party and the state, have been proven correct.

I hope that the Moore scandal teaches primary voters an important lesson: just because someone is anti-establishment and yells the loudest doesn’t mean that they are the best candidate to govern. If it does turn out that Moore is guilty of these charges, then he will be forced to step down, and Alabama elected officials will find an acceptable Republican alternative. I know the leadership in my state; they are innovative thinkers and realize that losing a deep red Senate seat would be devastating for the GOP agenda.

The leadership has no other option. Either a Democratic Senator will be elected, or Judge Moore will be elected and potentially expelled from office. Unless news breaks in the next 48 hours to significantly discredit the allegations, it is almost certain Moore will be forced to resign by Friday. Hopefully, whoever is put forth as the substitute will be someone who can properly represent the people of Alabama on the national stage and someone the voters can and will support.

Special Thanks to Katherine Pickle and Daniel Bruce, members of my firm, who helped write, research, and edit this piece.

Roy Moore Allegations Not Proven Nor Debunked So Far

This article originally appeared on my Newsmax column.

Recently, allegations came to light that Roy Moore, the Republican candidate in the Alabama senate race, may have molested a 14-year-old back in the 70s. With his strong social conservative views and controversial record of being kicked off the Alabama Supreme Court twice, Moore is already a candidate surrounded by conflict. This new development could, and might, result in the former State Supreme Court justice having to step down as the Republican Nominee.

The allegations come from Leigh Corfman, who claims that when she was 14 and the Republican candidate was 32, Moore allegedly made sexual advances upon her. In addition to Corfman, three other women told The Washington Post that they had been romantically pursued by Moore when they were between the ages of 16 and 18, however they did not report that Moore forced them into a relationship or sexual conduct.

Though the stories have yet to be confirmed, the Post was thorough in its interviews with Corfman and others, and did comprehensive research before releasing the story, that doesn’t prove that the allegations are true. However, The Post did conduct 30 interviews with people who knew Moore between 1977 and 1982, when the alleged conduct took place. Additionally, none of the women initially contacted the Post — Post journalists reportedly found out about the allegations independently and sought out the potential victims. Though, there is much more vetting that must be done in the coming days before anyone should make a negative assumption about Roy Moore or his accusers.

In a written statement, the Moore campaign denied the allegations. He accused the Democratic party of attempting to defame him and destroy his candidacy. However, Moore has yet to officially give much in specifics at the time of the writing of this article. His campaign responded that if these allegations were true, they would have come to light many years earlier in his prior campaigns. This, however, though a relevant point, doesn’t conclusively prove Moore’s innocence. It is an invalid argument to simply say because no one found out in other political races then it must not have occurred. Though I will say my state is notoriously nasty when it comes to political campaigns.

However, it’s important to remember that reports like this must be confirmed before jumping to conclusions and condemning someone of deplorable acts. Roy Moore has a reputation for being an impulsive speaker but even his most ardent critics don’t describe his personal ethics in a negative manner. The evidence in this case looks serious enough to explore it further but wisdom would dictate that we should let all the facts come out before we destroy a man’s reputation. I have spoken to many high-ranking officials in the GOP in my state and they unanimously stated that if the allegations involving the 14-year-old prove true, then Mr. Moore cannot represent the state of Alabama in the U.S. Senate.

The reports about Moore come at a time when sexual misconduct allegations have been making many headlines, following the recent Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey scandals. Stories like these are horrible, but they shed light on an important historical problem — entitled wealthy men in a position to take advantage of those less powerful and often get away unscathed. If the allegations about Moore are true, it’s fortunate that these women spoke out before Moore won the Senate race. Not only would he then be a national face, but his election would be a disgrace to the Senate, the state of Alabama and the Republican Party.

Time will reveal the truth to all those involved and we will soon know the answers we are looking for… but let’s all just take a step back and not assume Moore’s guilt until further evidence is brought to light in coming days. Scripture teaches in Proverbs 18:17 that, “In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines.” As someone who is very good at cross examining witnesses, I can attest to this and simply say that we should not cast judgment or Moore nor his accusers until the facts come out. But if the accusations are true then Judge Moore will join Governor Bentley in the ranks of embarrassing and unethical Alabama politicians.

Will the Courts Eventually Strike Down Civil Forfeiture?

This article originally appeared in my column on Newsmax.

Since the country’s founding, the right to property has been a cornerstone of American democracy. U.S. citizens should feel secure that the government cannot take their hard-earned property without just cause — a notion that is immortalized in the Due Process Clauses of the Constitution.

This long tradition of protecting private property is what makes civil forfeiture laws so appalling.

Civil forfeiture is the controversial legal process through which law enforcement officers can seize the assets of persons suspected of illegal activity, under the pretense that the property may be related to a crime. Officers have no need to prove that the person is actually guilty of any wrongdoing before taking the property. If the person cannot prove that the property is not connected to a crime, the government can sell the property and retain the profits. Civil forfeiture turns the idea “innocent until proven guilty” on its head — people are deemed guilty, and forced to prove themselves innocent.

The justification for this policy is that it gives law enforcement officials leverage over powerful criminal organizations, and that the proceeds from sold assets provide important funds for law enforcement agencies. Civil forfeiture first became prominent in the 1980s, during the height of the war on organized crime.

Though these laws may have once served a legitimate purpose, they have been heavily abused over time. Critics of the policy argue that law enforcement agencies are incentivized to take property without good reason, because they can make a profit from the sale of wrongfully seized assets.

In some cases, this money is reportedly used improperly. The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, for example, recently spent $110,000 of forfeiture money on catering and banquet tickets. By opening the door to misconduct like this, civil forfeiture laws make it possible to police for profit.

The injustice of civil forfeiture has not gone without notice. Since 2014, more than 20 states have passed laws reforming civil forfeiture, with some of them eliminating the process altogether. Unfortunately, these efforts could all be for naught. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently announced that he plans to resurrect the federal civil forfeiture program. This move would undermine state reforms, because state law enforcement officials would have civil forfeiture power under federal law.

Sessions purports he is supporting Trump’s hard-on-crime agenda; though, both liberals and conservatives despise civil forfeiture as an attack on the rule of law. Sessions’ reforms would allow “federal adoption” of civil forfeiture assets. This means that state officials can work with federal authorities to circumvent state law, and “adopt” assets for federal prosecution. After sale, the federal government will return 80 percent of the proceeds to the states.

What civil forfeiture laws are really hard on are the innocent people whose assets are seized. Because civil forfeiture cases are technically civil actions, people do not have the same protections as criminal defendants. This usually means hiring an expensive lawyer, and high court costs; the drawn-out process sometimes forces people to return to court up to 12 times in a year.

And it’s not just a rare oddity that innocent people are affected by civil forfeiture laws. In one study, almost half of the DEA’s seizures in a random sample weren’t related to any broader law enforcement purpose. The government is essentially robbing the American people — in 2015, civil forfeiture seizures nationwide surpassed the collective losses from burglaries that same year.

Though Sessions’ announcement suggests a rebirth of civil forfeiture laws, both the courts and Congress are showing signs of eventually rejecting the policy. Recently, a federal judge in Indiana ruled that cars cannot be seized by civil forfeiture, and that the lack of notice and opportunity to be heard makes the process unconstitutional. Additionally, Congress passed a bill to stop the IRS from raiding the bank accounts of small business owners under civil forfeiture law.

The Supreme Court has yet to take up the issue of the constitutionality of civil forfeiture, but there have been indications that a ruling might be on the horizon. In Nelson v. Colorado, the court laid the groundwork for future cases on civil forfeiture by ruling that the Due Process Clause prohibits states from making defendants go through “anything more than minimal procedures” to get exacted money back. In another similar case, Justice Thomas noted that the civil forfeiture system has “led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses” and that it “frequently target[s] the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests.”

Thomas’ comments suggest that the issue is brewing, and that the Court is just waiting for an appropriate case. A Supreme Court ruling would finally call civil forfeiture what it is — a grievous violation of one of America’s most fundamental rights.

Special thanks to Katherine Pickle, a member of Reid Law Firm, who helped write, research, and edit this article.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Gage Skidmore

Why Comparing Steve Bannon to Satan is Libelous and Unfair... To Satan

Steve Bannon, former White House advisor and CEO of Breitbart News, descended on Alabama once again on Tuesday to stump for Roy Moore. Appearing at a rally in Fairhope, Bannon  Romney for his lack of military service saying, "You hid behind your religion. You went to France to be a missionary while men were dying in Vietnam. Do not talk about honor and integrity." He then had some choice words for Romney’s family. "You ran for commander in chief and had five sons — not one day of service in Afghanistan or Iraq. We have 7,000 dead and 52,000 casualties, and where were the Romneys during those wars?" The remarks elicited cheers from the crowd, despite the fact that President Trump received five draft deferments from Vietnam and that not one of his sons has ever served in the military.

Bannon is an economic nationalist and populist. He has a bizarre background: he served in the military, has an MBA from Harvard, produced films in Hollywood, was a partner at Goldman Sachs, and Chairman of Breitbart News. He served as CEO for the Trump campaign and then then briefly as Chief White House Strategist. He deserves much of the credit for connecting Trump with marginalized voters in the Republican party.  Bannon is disillusioned with the Republican establishment, and is recruiting candidates to challenge incumbent Republicans in the House and Senate that he deems insufficiently supportive of the Trump Agenda. But ironically, his first success came where he backed Roy Moore over Luther Strange, the establishment candidate who was supported by President Trump

Another Bannon target is Mitch McConnell, the leader of the establishment wing that Bannon intends to destroy. McConnell is hated among many Trumpians for his weak leadership and inability to unite the party.  McConnell recently launching an all-out offensive against Bannon. Not shying away from a fight, the battered majority leader has accused Bannon of anti-Semitism and posing a significant threat to the party, while his Super-PAC has spent millions of dollars fighting against Bannon-backed candidates.

Bannon has succeeded in exacerbating underlying tensions in our polity: there is little civility, cordiality, or meaningful debates over substance.  In Love in the Ruins (1971), Walker Percy's futuristic novel about the failure of the American Experiment, the author prophesied: “The center did not hold. However, the Gross National Product continues to rise. There are Left states and Knothead [Right] states, Left towns and Knothead towns but no center towns … Left networks and Knothead networks, Left movies and Knothead movies.”  This seems an apt description of our current, unfortunate predicament. 

This article was co-written by Daniel Bruce, Chris Reid, and Professor Jack Nelson.

Scott Beason: The Voice of Alabama Conservatives

Whether on the floors of the Alabama House and Senate or over the Alabama airwaves, Scott Beason continually proves to be one of the top conservative voices in the state.

Hailing from his beloved city Gardendale and a University of Alabama graduate, Beason was first elected to the Alabama House of Representatives at the age of 28. He served there until 2006, when he was elected to represent the state’s 17th district in the Alabama Senate. In the legislature, Beason proved to be a staunch supporter of the state’s conservative values. He repeatedly advocated for Alabamians’ second amendment rights, firmly stood against reckless spending, and sometimes singlehandedly killed tax increases, saving Alabamians millions of dollars.

In 2011, Beason was one of the leading sponsors of Alabama’s anti-illegal immigration bill, HB56.  Frustrated by the Obama administration’s lack of action on national immigration law enforcement, Beason drafted one of the only comprehensive immigration reform measures to pass any state legislature. The bill sought to protect critical manufacturing and agricultural jobs for Alabamians.  Despite a rocky road with opposition from groups supporting illegal immigration, the bill succeeded in providing much needed change to the state’s immigration system and prompted other states to attempt similar action.

That same year, Beason again proved to be a courageous proponent of conservative values in his home state. As a years-long FBI investigation into a vote-buying scheme related to the state’s gambling industry came to a close, it was revealed that Beason, on his own volition, had agreed to wear a wire to assist in the investigation. Evidence obtained with Beason’s help lead to prison terms for multiple players in the corrupt gambling industry. It was revealed during the investigation that Beason himself was offered $1 million a year in exchange for his support of pro-gambling legislation. However, Beason stuck to his principles and weathered the storm that ensued from the lawyers of those indicted and the media outlets who had been the recipients of gambling advertising dollars.

Beason returned to private life in 2014, but continues to be a strong voice for conservatives across the state. He has continually insisted on going back to the basics – the fundamental issues of freedom – and has travelled the state informing Alabamians of these freedoms and the future of the state. 

Beason now hosts his own radio show, “The Scott Beason Show,” weekdays from 10 a.m. to Noon on north and central Alabama’s 101.1 WYDE, Birmingham’s AM 1260 and FM 95.3, or on the internet at www.101wyde.com.  Anchored by music that will remind you of a simpler time, Beason’s show tackles the top issues of the day and provides the very best in conservative political commentary. The show routinely features some of the biggest names in politics and news, and consistently challenges and defends the essential ideals of conservatives everywhere. Recently, Beason was able to get an exclusive one-on-one interview with Alabama senate candidate Roy Moore, following the infamous allegations of sexual assault against the judge. No matter the topic or guest, each segment of the Beason Show is guaranteed to highlight the biggest pillars of conservatism: God and Country.

With a long future ahead of him, Beason’s insightful conservative commentary doesn’t appear to be going anywhere soon. Alabama could not be more proud of their senator turned radio host, and the nation deserves to take a look into the voice of Alabama conservatives: Scott Beason.

This article was written by Daniel Bruce, a media consultant at the Reid Law Firm. Daniel is a regular contributor to the Rouser, the leading conservative news source for millennial in the country. He is currently studying Political Science and Economics at Auburn University, and plans to attend law school upon graduation. Previously, he has written for the Yellowhammer News, the largest conservative news source in Alabama. You can follow him on Twitter @d_bruce96

This article originally appeared on the Rouser.

Discerning the Truth in Alabama Senate Election: What Should We Do as Republicans and Christians?

The allegations surrounding Roy Moore has caused many thoughtful Christians and Republicans to ask what should we do? I am a conservative Republican, so I cannot vote for Doug Jones because he supports thinks I fundamentally can’t support. However, as a Christian, If I even suspect the allegations are true about Moore then I would also be unable to put my name next to someone who I even had a question in my mind as to whether they sexually assaulted an 8th grader for obvious reasons. Although I understand why so many in my state are skeptical of the allegations because it was so close to an election. It came from the Washington post, Mitch McConnell and Senate Leadership Fund falsely attacked Moore regarding his non-profit as well as implying he was “soft” on guns. So for those of us who want to elect a conservative republican its hard to find the answer As someone who works hard to communicate well with people, I realize I failed to communicate in a way that was completely gracious and helpful, and I apologize. All of us have different backgrounds and experiences that make us who we are, and therefore, we each respond differently to similar situations. 

As an attorney, I have dealt with victims of sexual assault, and honestly it is hard to stay objective when you have seen people so deeply hurt by these atrocious and evil acts. I have seen girls who suffered harm at the hands of teachers, church officials, and other authority figures who took advantage of their positions to commit unspeakable acts. I cannot express enough how awful it is to have had to look in these girls’ eyes and see the devastation, hurt, and most of all loss caused by selfish, despicable grown men. Young girls who are assaulted lose a piece of themselves, and what has been taken from them they can never get back. My mom is also a counselor who has helped sexually abused women for over 35 years. I realize that makes me biased to believe people who say they have been raped, but we probably all know someone who was victimized and not listened to, and now the men who abused them may have gotten away. 

On the other hand, I have also known people who were falsely accused of crimes they didn’t commit, and have seen how a false allegation can ruin a good man. Even if the case is dismissed, that person is often emotionally and financially destroyed.
In every interaction I have had with Roy Moore he has never been anything but kind, generous, and thoughtful. I freely admit that I have had issues with Roy Moore as an attorney and a conservative not because he took stands, but for how he took them. I am a conservative Republican and supported Mo Brooks in the primary, because he was the 6th most conservative GOP congressman according to the Heritage Foundation. The truth is I don’t know Moore’s heart, and I have been wrong, but I have some concern that he seems insincere. My opponents, however, have rightly pointed out that I do not know, and only God can be the judge. 

I acknowledge that the Washington Post has seemingly ran fake stories for political purposes and the timing of this on first glance looks convenient. Additionally, I do not respect Mitch McConnell for getting involved in the race, and the accusations he made against Roy Moore were indeed false. The allegations that Moore mishandled funds with his non-profit and is soft on guns were blatant lies, and I spent 10 hours on radio defending him. The Senate Leadership Fund said and did things to Moore which were simply unjust and untrue. Finally, I acknowledge that there have been people destroyed by false accusations and admit that two of the accusers seem less credible than the others. 

However, after admitting every bias I have and approaching this with utmost skepticism (not to mention my intense dislike of Mitch McConnell)…. I think its hard not to believe that the victims are credible and these stories really do hold up well to critique. But even if the Moore supporters were right and it’s the most perfect political hit job then its too late for Moore to redeem himself before December 12th . Moore has to step aside and if he is innocent then he could clear his name in time for him to run for another office. But right now perception is already what it is and maintaining the Senate for the GOP is to Important.

I realize it is such an extraordinary step to ask someone to step down, and Moore has been falsely attacked by many in the establishment and others. However, even when I read the accounts in the most skeptical light, they overwhelmingly convince me that Roy Moore is not fit to hold office. Given that Attorney General Sessions, Senator Cruz, Senator Lee, and Senator Shelby – all people who I admire and respect – believe them as well, I can’t see a way around Roy Moore resigning. 
Even if Moore has never done anything since then the crime of assaulting a child is too serious to ignore even if he never did it again. I wasn’t there and I don’t know with perfect understanding what happened and no one will know but God, Moore and the woman who were there. However, the right thing to do here is for Moore to step down for good of party and make sure we get a clean unifying candidate. I know that I can’t vote for any candidate who I suspect sexually assaulted a child and I would rather just elect another GOP candidate. Moore has the power to ensure the GOP wins this race and that the Democrats don’t use him to hurt us in 2018. 

About the Author: 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. He is a contributor at Newsmax and 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. Contact him by E-mail at  reidfirm@gmail.com

Photo used under fair use doctrine: Link is http://religiondispatches.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/moore-690x460.jpg
 

Pelosi & Schumer work to keep Moore in Race! Will Moore Voters listen to AG Sessions or do the bidding Liberal Democrats

It’s been just over a week since the Washington Post broke the story of Roy Moore’s alleged sexual misconduct—and the situation has worsened. Though the news was at first met with some speculation and uncertainty, it is now clear, without a doubt, that Moore should step down from his candidacy. His alleged actions have not only tainted the Republican party, but have irreparably harmed the lives of innocent young women.

          As an Alabama attorney, and a media correspondent, I have thoroughly examined the evidence against Moore and have spoken to people with inside information about the scandal. Though I gave Moore the benefit of the doubt when the story first broke, there is now overwhelming evidence implicating him in sexual misconduct. Moore has gone from controversial to a man so consumed with pride he thinks he is the victim not the woman he allegedly molested, and as Republicans we need to take action to stop him from representing our party, the great state of Alabama, and the nation.

          It’s true that no one can say for sure what happened 40 years ago, but the stories of the women who have come forward are far too terrible to ignore. I’m a die-hard Republican and I want to maintain the party’s majority in the Senate—but there’s no way that I could support a accused child molester when evidence is overwhelming of his guilt. And that’s what Moore is, let’s not beat around the bush. Yesterday on the radio, when I asked many of the callers who had defended Moore very few had even read the accusations. I despise the Washington Post and they have committed libel against conservatives so many times it’s hard to count. I understand why Moore voters don’t trust it and the timing seems political. As a Republican I came to this with skepticism but examined the evidence, spoke with people off the record who could independently confirm what these women had said and the truth was it was far worse and that will come out soon. Also the media is holding more damning evidence and by election day Moore shall not be victorious and the Alabama State Party will have gone on record to support an accused child molester.

          In my law practice, I have been in the position of giving legal counsel to families whose young daughters were raped, assaulted, and molested. These girls suffered harm at the hands of teachers, church officials, and other authority figures who took advantage of their positions to commit unspeakable acts. I cannot express enough how awful it is to have had to look in these girls’ eyes and see the devastation, hurt, and most of all loss caused by selfish, despicable grown men. Young girls who are assaulted lose a piece of themselves, and what has been taken from them they can never get back.

          This is what Moore allegedly did to the victims that he sexually assaulted. He took something from them, and by speaking out these women are doing what they can to take that piece of themselves back. We cannot let this effort go in vain. We must do something to avenge these victims, and take something from Moore in return.

          Moore’s response to the accusations has been shameful. He has done nothing but blame others, and dodge questions. Moore said that he never dated any young girls without their mother’s permission—last time I checked, a mother can’t and wouldn’t give permission to allow her 14-year old child to be molested by a 32-year old man. Though some of the women coming forward were of legal age when Moore had romantic relationships with them, at the very least his behavior is incredibly creepy.

          Morality aside, from a political perspective Moore’s continued candidacy is political suicide, not only for Moore himself, but for the entire Republican party. Even if Moore were completely innocent, he cannot recover in the race. A recent poll shows Moore a full 8 points behind opponent Doug Jones. Though this is near the margin of error, it shows a clear trend—Republican defeat in Alabama, a bright red state.

          I have been Republican for as long as I can remember. I worked at the Heritage Foundation in DC and they are even paying for me to fly up for an alumni reception. I worked for the Alabama Policy Institute, was a Health policy advisor to the Governor, and clerked for the Alabama AG in the family protection unit where we went after men who molested children! So my conservative credentials are beyond question. But the Republican party I believe in supports family values. It’s the party that passed legislation against sex trafficking, not the party that’s on the side of someone who may have violated young girls. How some Republicans can say they care about sexual assault victims but continue to support a man like Moore, I can’t fathom.

          We need to stand up as Republicans, and figure out a solution. We absolutely need a Republican to win the Alabama seat, in order for there to be any successful policy passed through Congress. And if leaders in my state will listen to me, I guarantee we will keep the seat and avoid being branded the party that supports accused child molesters. The governor must delay the special election. I realize she said she wouldn’t but she must change her mind. Gary Palmer from the 6th district of Alabama could step up and easily unit the party and he would beat Doug Jones by 20 points. If Kay Ivey doesn’t move the election she will never lose the primary and go down as the Republican governor who gave Senator Sessions seat to the Democrats.

Finally, as someone who is a Christian, I am so ashamed of the pastors in my state who went out and attacked victims who made allegations of sexual assault. The church is supposed to a place where hurting people can go to be loved not a place where the leaders will call victims liars without even listening to them. I am confident God is just but I hope that those ministers do repent and find forgiveness from the Lord. Please pray for my state and ask that God would reveal the truth quickly and all victims of sexual assault will be exposed and face justice

About the Author: 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. Contact him by E-mail at  reidfirm@gmail.com . Photo used under fair use doctrine here is link https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/gettyimages-2425921-e1502850075776.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=782

A Brief History of Liberals and Conservatives: Who We Are, Where We Came From, and Where We're Going

The words “liberal” and “conservative” have a long, complicated history. They haven’t always denoted the sharp political divide that we assign them today. Surprisingly, liberals were once pretty conservative by today’s standards, and conservatives have typically been fairly liberal. So no matter what side of the isle you find yourself on, here is a quick history of our political ideologies.

In the 18th century, a “liberal” person would typically be defined as “someone capable of freedom,” while a “conservative” would have simply described someone cautious toward risk and change. These terms carried little to no political meaning, and these liberals had a pretty limited conception of freedom that really only applied to the aristocracy. However, the belief that human beings could be their own free persons quickly lead to revolution, an overthrow of the old system, and the first political definitions for our two terms.

The end of the century (does July 4, 1776 ring a bell?) brought about a robust change to the political structures and social orders of the day. By the 19th century, “liberals” sought to bring freedom to all – well, all white male landowners, but hey, it’s a start. These “Classical Liberals” wanted to rid themselves of the reign of the aristocracy and establish a rule for the people, by the people. They believed that there were three fundamental ways to do this: protection of natural individual rights, a free market economy, and a democratic government. Thus, conservatives became those who sought to maintain the old aristocratic system and rule by the select few.

The birth of the modern industrial society in the 20th century brought about world war, revolution, and economic depression. It seemed that the Classical Liberal free market system was collapsing and needed saving. Insert Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a new faction of liberalism, “Reform Liberalism.” Whereas government was once seen as the biggest threat to individual freedom, liberals began to see government as the only protection against powerful corporations and the failures of the free market. With the birth of the New Deal, Roosevelt and his reform liberals sought to bring freedom through regulation and redistribution of income within the free market system. It was during this time that conservatives adopted the Classical Liberal belief of a free market system that is unregulated by the government.

At first glance, it seems like Conservatives have drawn the short straw throughout history. However, by the end of the 1970’s, the policies of Reform Liberalism were quickly failing. The election of Ronald Reagan brought new life to conservatives who sought to bring back the free market policies of Classical Liberalism. But, the conservative movements of the 1980’s were not a simple resurgence of Classical Liberalism. While they sought a return to an unrestricted free market system, the development of a consumerist culture sought to break free from the protestant influences of Classical Liberalism. In fact, since the 1980’s, economic policies in the United States have become increasingly more conservative while social policies have trended more liberal. A good example of this is the decline of tax rates over the past few decades. In 1969, under the Republican administration of Richard Nixon, the highest tax rate on regular income was 77 percent compared to just 39.6 percent in 2015 under President Obama.

The resurgence of these conservative principles has been labeled as Neo-Classical Liberalism. Neo-Classical Liberals tend to champion a society of self-expression as opposed to the strict protestant work ethic of Classical Liberals. While Reform Liberals sought to assuage the inequality produced by the free market through government intervention, Neo-Classical Liberals acknowledge this inequality, but accept it as an inevitable result of the free market. Government intervention in the economy, and therefore the restriction of one person for the benefit of the other, is detrimental to their expressive way of life.

With a brief history of our nation’s most important political ideologies behind us, the question is where are we going from here? The danger of Neo-Classical Liberalism is the severely nihilistic state of the world it envisions. Truth, whether moral, religious, or even scientific, becomes completely subjective in a culture fixated on individual expression. Recent elections have seen a rebirth of traditional conservative social policies and the rise of populist candidates like Donald Trump and Roy Moore in backlash against these relativistic dogmas. However, it is yet to be seen if this trend will continue.

Apart from some moral awakening or revival, it seems inevitable that social issues across the spectrum of American politics will continue to converge. Therefore, American political parties will become defined by their economic policies. The future of American politics appears to be defined by distributive justice (who gets what) rather than what is right or wrong. However, nothing is inevitable.

This article was co-written by Daniel Bruce and Madie Tidwell

What Jackie Robinson Teaches Us About the Unifying Power of Faith

           In his new book 42 Faith: The Rest of the Jackie Robinson Story, Fox News Chief National Correspondent, Ed Henry takes a fresh angle on the life of the baseball icon. Jackie Robinson is remembered for breaking down the racial barriers of America’s pastime, and Henry highlights the ways Robinson’s Christian faith helped him become a legendary symbol of overcoming and perseverance. Faith gave Robinson confidence in facing the severe intolerance he encountered throughout his life and career, and was one of the key pillars of his success.[1]

            Robinson grew up surrounded by messages of God’s grace, largely thanks to his mother, who instilled in him strong Christian values. Before becoming a national idol, Robinson had a rough childhood. He was mixed up with the wrong people, which resulted in a criminal record. To cope with the troublesome nature of his formative years, Robinson’s mother encouraged him to pray every night. Robinson took this practice to heart, and continued to pray every night of his professional baseball career.[2]

Branch Rickey, the owner of the Dodgers who signed Robinson, was a strong Christian as well. This commonality helped strengthen the relationship between Rickey and Robinson, and gave both men the power to make history. Rickey told Robinson that it was in large part his faith that compelled him to desegregate the team.[3]

            What’s most inspiring about Robinson’s faith is how it allowed him to see the positives in his life and the people around him. In his book, Henry focuses on how Robinson managed to remain happy and hopeful even in the face of hate and adversity. Receiving a barrage of racist criticism and death threats throughout his career, Robinson still remarked “This country and its people, black and white, have been good to me.”

            You might ask, why did a Fox News political analyst choose to write about Jackie Robinson? To Henry, Robinson’s story extends beyond the bounds of sports, and far beyond its time. Henry wrote that Robinson’s life “reminds me why I am proud to be an American.”[4] Ed Henry is very open about his own faith and how it informs him every day. Henry felt that it was God’s providence which led him to write this book on Robinson and in reading the book it becomes very clear that Ed Henry is passionate about the unifying power of faith. He is well known in field for his generosity and kindness he shows the people he works with and that speaks volumes to his character.

            The book describes comparisons that Robinson drew between sports and religion, including his belief that faith helped athletes come together and achieve a common goal. Robinson’s story, however, goes beyond faith’s role in sports- it works as an analogy for how faith can help bring Americans together in times of political and social conflict.

            Robinson lived in a flawed America, and though the country has grown and evolved since that time, it still has its flaws. There still exist controversies and tragedies that make enemies out of friends, and sometimes it seems as though Americans are too different to share a nation. It’s tempting to focus on these problems, because they strike us as so glaring and are highlighted by the media.

            But it’s important to remember that America is much more than just its problems. It’s a nation that exists today because Americans have always found solutions.

            Jackie Robinson faced an America that was confused, disjunct, and toxic with racial tension. But instead of letting everything that was wrong with the country tear him down, he listened to what his faith told him—that there is hope, and that America could be saved. Robinson continued to believe in unity and preached a solution: “I think we all ought to join hands and hearts and effort and whatever else is necessary to enlighten the world about us.”

            For Americans, faith could be freedom, or democracy, or any other pillar of liberty that makes this country the most influential in the world. Like Robinson remembered and leaned on his faith, Americans can lean on these values to unite them. Values like these can remind Americans that though our politics may differ and we might face injustices, we all stand on the foundations of a country that was born out of crisis, and has continued to endure.

            The story of Jackie Robinson as told by Ed Henry is one of struggle and strength, and it may inspire us to always stay positive and never stop believing that something better is possible. America might be facing political and social conflict, but we need to have faith and remember that like baseball players, we are better as a team.

About the Authors: This article was co-written by Katherine Pickle and Chris Reid. Katherine is in her second year of Law School at Emory University, and Chris is a general practice attorney in Birmingham. This article originally appeared in Chris's column on Newsmax.

[1]http://www.militarypress.com/42-faith-tells-the-rest-of-the-story/

[2]http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/04/ed-henry-42-faith-rest-jackie-robinson-story.html

[3] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/9/book-review-42-faith-the-rest-of-the-jackie-robins/

[4] http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/02/ed-henry-42-faith-how-jackie-robinson-reminds-me-to-be-proud-american.html

The Opioid Crisis: Are Trump's Actions Enough?

Last week, in what was advertised as a landmark speech, President Trump announced his plans to declare the national opioid epidemic a national public health emergency. He declared that “it is time to liberate our communities from the scourge of addiction.” However, is the Trump administration doing enough to fight this epidemic?

The statistics present an overwhelmingly grim picture of our nation’s dependence on opioids. According to the White House[i], in 2016, more than two million Americans had an addiction to prescription or illicit opioids. Since 2000, 300,000 Americans have died from opioid overdoses, and 52,404 died in 2015 alone. It is estimated that overdose deaths in 2016 exceeded 64,000 - a rate of 175 deaths a day This startling statistic is more than the number of Americans killed during the Vietnam War. Needless to say, we have a problem and something needs to be done.

Don’t get me wrong, the actions of the Trump administration are a good start. The public health emergency designation will mobilize each department within the administration to use its available resources to fight the epidemic. As a result, this action will expand access to telemedicine services, and allow the Department of Health and Human Services to easily appoint specialists needed to respond to the public health emergency. The action also allows the Department of Labor to issue dislocated worker grants to workers who have been affected by the opioid crisis, as well as shifts resources within the HIV/AIDS programs to help those eligible for those programs receive substance abuse treatment.

Many have praised the President for officially bringing attention to the opioid crisis and placing the full force of the federal government behind fighting this epidemic. However, the epidemic needs more than just a good start. In order to fight the opioid crisis, we need a full on attack, and that is where the President’s plans fall short.

President Trump could have declared the crisis a full-on national emergency, which would have immediately freed up billions of dollars for emergency response, addiction treatment, and efforts to curtail the illegal distribution of opioids across the U.S. This more comprehensive approach (recommended by the President’s own opioids commission) would mimic the response efforts during natural disasters, and put more money where the President’s mouth is[ii]. Currently, the public health emergency designation does little to provide funding to adequately respond to the crisis. In fact, Forbes recently reported that the declaration sets aside a mere $57,000 for response efforts[iii].

Trump also announced that the administration would produce “really big, really great advertising” aimed at promoting awareness of the epidemic and the harmful effects of opioids to the younger generations, reminiscent of the Reagan-era “Just Say No” programs. The President is on to something – the fact that it will take a culture change to truly fight this epidemic. Advertising is an effective way to bring about this change (think the ban on cigarette commercials), but it must be done right. Today, such a campaign would need to be conducted with empathy and care, and not the harsh “doom and gloom” we typically prescribe for addicts.

It is unclear who in President Trump’s administration would lead the response to the epidemic. The President was forced to withdraw his nominee for head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Representative Tom Marino, after it broke that Marino had helped drug wholesalers collude against the DEA. In addition,Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price was forced to step down because of his use of private jets.

The most success so far in the fight against the opioid epidemic seems to be coming at the state level. In Alabama, state leaders such as Attorney General Steve Marshall and Governor Kay Ivey have done an excellent job in curtailing the effects of the crisis in a state that has one of the highest opioid prescription rates in the nation. Marshall has joined several other state attorneys general to investigate the sale and marketing of opioids by wholesalers, while Ivey’s opioid council is expected to present solutions to the epidemic in the forms of legislation, policy, and community action

America’s opioid epidemic must be stopped before it spins hopelessly out of control – if it hasn’t already. While President Trump’s public health emergency declaration was a good start, it falls short of the increased funding, strong leadership, and a change in culture that are truly needed to combat this crisis. Governor Chris Christie, chairman of the President’s opioids commission recently said, “I still have not seen the passion for this epidemic that I saw in the AIDS epidemic.” Until that passion is evident from the President down to the smallest community leaders, this epidemic will continue to wreak havoc on America.

This article was co-written by Daniel Bruce and Chris Reid. Daniel is studying Political Science and Economics at Auburn University. Chris is a general practice attorney in Birmingham, and is a regular guest host on the Scott Beason Show, a conservative radio show in Alabama. He also contributes to his own column on Newsmax.

Photo Courtesy of Flickr user Gage Skidmore

[i] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/26/president-donald-j-trump-taking-action-drug-addiction-and-opioid-crisis

[ii] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/opinion/opioids-trump-emergency.html

[iii] https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2017/10/30/trump-declaring-opioid-crisis-an-emergency-makes-57000-available/#fce16fe7f33a

Senator Corker vs. President Trump

Ed Henry & David Mercer