'Red Flag' Gun Control Might Have Prevented Parkland Shooting

This article originally appeared on my Newsmax column. 

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.

This is because in many states, including Florida, mental illness is only available in the federal databases under limited circumstances. Mental illness shows up on a background check only if 1) a person has been involuntarily admitted to a mental hospital or 2) a court or government body officially declares a person mentally incompetent. This is also assuming that states actually submit this information to the federal government. In fact, some people estimate that we are not even placing half of these records in the database

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.

America and the World Desperately Need Another Billy Graham

This article originally appeared on my Newsmax column.

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 New Tax Reform Law Could Save the GOP in the Midterms

This article originally appeared on my Newsmax column.

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. 

 

Policy Minute: Gun Control

Policy Minute: Conservatism Today

Scott Dawson, Minister turned Gubernatorial Candidate

Gubernatorial candidate Scott Dawson is shaking up politics in Alabama by bringing his ministerial background to the campaign trail on his way to the 2018 gubernatorial election. Dawson is looking at politics from the perspective of a minister rather than that of a typical career politician. I had the opportunity of listening to Dawson address some of his major viewpoints when he came to Samford this past week and was able to better understand how a minister could go straight to politician and be able to make the transformation seamless. By looking at the world as a citizen and a minister, Dawson saw problems that were facing his own family and facing the thousands of people to which has preached. He has spoken to 8,000-12,000 students a year at his conferences and has spoken in every Alabama county, which made him jokingly mention, “the only one who knows more backroads than me is probably James Spann.” He is firm on having consistent principles and consequences in our judicial system and points to early signs of this forming in the Bible itself. An example of this would be when Adam and Eve faced a consequence after disobeying God and eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden. Throughout his speech, he included his positions on the economy, education, healthcare, immigration, and education. 

The first major position Scott referenced were his views on the education systems in Alabama. Currently we are spending $6.4 billion on education in Alabama, so we are investing the money but don’t have the correct leadership. We need to fix this, because education is critical for our future and the next generation. He instructed that we need a three-step approach to the education systems in order to prepare our children to have a successful future. These three steps include leadership, attitude, and economics. You must believe in yourself and your capabilities in order to lead anyone else, you must have an appropriate attitude, and you must utilize your money properly. A policy Scott believes should be implemented in the education systems is requiring drug tests for those involved in extracurricular activities beginning in 9th grade. This would help us to find those struggling with addiction and allow us to offer them help before the drug addiction becomes an unsolvable lifelong problem. Fixing this in the early stages of one’s life will prevent them from ending up in the judicial system or being hindered further down the line. He proposed that we bring ROTC training to every high school to implement discipline and structure in the student’s life if they have behavioral issues. Misbehavior in class distracts all students from learning, so bringing back the ROTC to schools with benefit every student. This will also contribute to the student’s entrance into society after graduating high school. If this kind of ROTC training and drug monitoring is brought to the schools of Alabama, it will allow for high school graduates to come out of school with necessary life skills and be able to succeed in society regardless if they choose to go to college or not. 

Economy was the next thing Scott turned his focus on. He not only wants to bring more jobs to Alabama, but he wants to have more jobs and businesses to originate in this great state. If you are staying in Alabama after you receive your education and having success, forming a family, or even creating a business of your own, that means you are bringing more success and revenue to the state of Alabama. He wants to make Alabama business friendly so that entrepreneurs and businesses don’t feel the need to leave the state to benefit their business. Current business regulations aren’t easy to follow, there are many unnecessary fees and regulations that are put on businesses. Taxes on businesses isn’t the problem, because Alabama has a low tax rate for businesses. He suggests having an independent council. This council would make the department issuing the regulation or fee justify their actions, if they cant do this its called “cut the tape.” Doing this would not only allow for new businesses to come into Alabama, but it would also provide a reason for Alabamians to create new business here. This would in turn create more revenue for the state and would boost Alabama’s economy. 

Immigration is another point Scott spoke about. He says he is supportive of Trump’s policies and the idea of a wall. He feels immigration is a federal issue, so something that we need should instead focus on is preventing the spread of the MS-13 gang. Alabama is sitting is a critical area for this gang and it is already in certain parts of our state right now. This gang posing a large threat to our citizens and they have committed gruesome acts in the past, so they must be stopped. We must take a stand against them. 

Scott acknowledged healthcare as a very important issue in Alabama. Some counties are having hospitals close down, making the drives to the nearest hospitals in Alabama for some residents be up to 45 minutes away. While residents of Birmingham have many options within a 20 minute drive. We must serve the public and create more healthcare opportunities by opening up more clinics around the state. 

An opportunity we need to offer is medical resources in the poor neighborhoods. Churches often offer medical resources to meet the need because government wasn’t designed to meet all of our needs. Church is something very important to Scott, but he understands the separation of church and state is needed. However, government shouldn’t be expected to show compassion but should empower the church to do that. The government is designed to do some things like keep us safe but not designed to meet its citizen’s needs. We have to have people in these four areas to fulfil the needs of the people, those four areas being teachers, the medical field, first responders, and pastors. The church has a place in our state but that must be streamlined. 

It was evident throughout Scott Dawson’s speech that he was focusing on the future of the state and not just what needs to happen in this exact moment. He is a minister running for governor of Alabama, not a politician that has people guiding his direction and his policies. He wants what is best for the state of Alabama. He has studied ministry for 30 years of his life and wants to apply that knowledge, but does not want to create a theocracy. We need to find the right balance of laws and government intrusion so we don’t have a system of anarchy or communism. He makes it clear that he is not perfect, he is going to make mistakes; but he has his eyes set on Montgomery and his focus isn’t moving from it. He believes the children are our future and we must start their path to success early. When you elect a governor, you are saying you trust that governor to lead your children to a better future and he believes he can be that governor.

Photo retrieved from https://www.scottdawson.com/about Used under fair use doctrine of the United States.

Shapiro, Stuckey Show How the GOP Can Reach Millennials

As the 2018 midterm elections approach, Republicans need to cleanly separate themselves from the fringe movement of the alt-right.

Radical individuals whose views do not align with true conservative values have been harming the GOP’s image, and if not addressed could be detrimental to the party. Republicans cannot allow the incredibly small number of nationalists and racists to hurt the brand of the party which is the same party that fought for civil rights, pushed for woman’s suffrage on the party’s platform in 1856, and had a higher percentage of its members vote for woman’s suffrage in 1920. In fact the Republicans voted for both the Civil Rights of Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 at a higher percentage than the Democrats.

To be successful in 2018 and beyond, the GOP must attract millennial voters. However, Republicans have struggled to connect with the now-largest voting block that has shown little interest in the conservative platform. Republicans can best do this by reinventing and energizing the positive and promising aspects of the party, but they cannot allow the negativity of the young and growing alt-right to dominate social media and garner the wrong type of millennial support — no matter how desperately it is needed.

Many millennials are bright and brilliant leaders who will surely make this nation proud. However, some have become severely misguided by troubled minds who preach hatred and bigotry from the comfort of their keyboards and webcams. Many young Americans, who feel largely neglected by the current political landscape, are attracted to their promise of change.

The bottom line: these are the millennials that need to be utterly rebuffed by the Republican Party. While they may seem like a quick vote now, they ultimately intend to twist the party’s conservative values to promote their own populist and nationalist ideology. Thankfully, there are not many millennials with backwards views, and there are many more who continually stand up for conservative ideals and values.

Ben Shapiro and Allie Stuckey are two of these millennials who stand for conservatism.

Stuckey, known as The Conservative Millennial, has attracted a large social media following for her videos that support and defend conservative values. She fiercely reveals the errors in the ideology of the left and has brought an energized and much needed female voice to conservatism. I have interviewed her multiple times on the radio and have not only been impressed with her ability to articulate complex policy ideas in ways that my generation could understand, but was most impressed with her depth of character and insight, which she attributes to her faith in Christ. She will be a true leader of the Republican Party and there is no doubt that her media status will only continue to rise.

Shapiro rose to fame at 17, when he became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the country. He founded The Daily Wire and hosts his own daily political podcast, "The Ben Shapiro Show," two accomplishments that have brought Shapiro over one million followers on Twitter. A fierce defender of conservative values, Shapiro has even been restricted when speaking at universities, who say his views can be “concerning and even hurtful.” However, Shapiro simply preaches and defends the conservative values of limited government, individual freedom, and the importance of strong families.

The GOP needs young voters who will support them in the future and help the party grow, but it cannot allow itself to be a vehicle of hate. Therefore, the party should continue to align itself with true conservative millennials like Stuckey and Shapiro, rather than the prejudice spouted by the alt-right.

Contrary to what many might believe, the Republican Party has always been the party where innovative ideas have been welcomed. There is room in the GOP for young ideas and support, and a surge of principled, conservative millennial participation could be the shot in the arm Republicans need in 2018.

Special thanks to Katherine Pickle and Daniel Bruce, members of my firm, who helped write, research, and edit this article. Katie is a 2L at Emory law school and Daniel Bruce is a contributor at Rouser in D.C.

This article originally appeared in my column on Newsmax.

Photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore.

Analyst Dowd a Model of Reasoned Political Discourse

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, has a message for politicians and the American people. It’s time to come together and figure out what we want this country to be. With an unpredictable future on the horizon, Dowd believes people need to stop focusing on who is wrong on each side and start figuring out what is right for both sides.

Dowd speaks from a breadth of political experience. Over the years, he has worked for both Republican and Democratic politicians around the country; most notably for President George W. Bush on the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

It’s no surprise that much of Dowd’s rhetoric encompasses reaching across the aisle, eliminating blind partisanship. Before being approached by Bush and becoming a strong advocate for the past president, Dowd spent 20 years working for Democrats.

His experience with Bush throws a spotlight on much of Dowd’s political philosophy. Dowd was initially attracted to Bush’s message because he believed that the Texan could unite the American people, bringing together the opposing sides in Washington, D.C.

However, over the years, Dowd became frustrated by the president’s actions. He came to believe that Bush was ignoring the will of the American people with regard to the war in Iraq, and that he failed to pull Americans together in a time of conflict. Subsequently, Dowd left the Bush administration. .

What’s more, Dowd’s life story shows that anyone can become heavily involved in politics, fighting to make a difference. Dowd comes from humble beginnings; he was one of 11 children raised in a Catholic, Detroit household. The political turmoil of Watergate inspired Dowd to delve into the political arena. He was enthralled by the unraveling of an administration and seeing the strength of a Constitution being tested. He wanted to be a part of it. All it takes is one spark, something that people are passionate about, to inspire them to affect change.

Inspiring people to rise up, to be leaders themselves is a major theme in Dowd’s book, "A New Way: Embracing the Paradox as We Lead and Serve." In it, Dowd lets Americans know that even if their candidates let them down, they can find ways to lead — without them.

Dowd argues that the greatest power is local power, and that leaders in Washington right now are not leading. This means the American people need to engage and lead their politicians to the right choices.

Dowd openly worries about the state of democracy in this country. He is concerned that people are isolating themselves within their own parties, with their own ideas, while refusing to listen to opposing views. Dowd thinks what’s important is not connecting as Republicans or Democrats, but connecting as people. People are more than their politics. If they dig deep down, they'll find fundamental similarities to one another.

For Dowd, this meaningful connection is what's missing between Republican and Democratic politicians. There is no empathy between them. The left doesn’t bother to try and understand why the right would support policies it does, and vice versa.

Matthew Dowd argues that what’s most important is that politicians and the American people expose themselves to ideas they don’t agree with; that they concurrently avail themselves of regional and local struggles nationwide, especially those with which they are most unfamiliar. Ideas are the needs and desires of real people all across the country.

All Americans need to understand that what we’re talking about when we discuss differing politcal platforms, and that ideas are the needs and desires of real people nationwide, not just check-boxes on a ballot or buzzwords in a debate.

Dowd recognizes that the U.S. is divided and that people are worried about the future, but he sees this as a positive in an exciting time, an era in which real change is possible.

During the special election in Alabama between Judge Roy Moore and Doug Jones, Matt Dowd called into the radio show I co-host giving some very insightful analysis on how Moore’s nomination showed the level of tribalism in politics had risen to new heights.

The thing I admire most about this political analyst is that he's always able to identify the deeper issues at play — in any political debate. Though I don’t always see eye to eye with his political views I can honestly say that he is truly of the wisest men I know. His book, "A New Way" is powerful because Matt doesn’t talk about his successes but discusses his failures in a manner revealing a humble heart, a rare trait for those who work in media.

In sum, Dowd’s perspective is a powerful one. Though America no doubt faces challenging times, they would be made easier if people and politicians work to understand each other, fighting together for what the country needs.

Special thanks to Katherine Pickle, my law clerk who attends Emory School of Law, and Daniel Bruce, my chief consultant and contributor to Rouser News, for their help writing, researching, and editing this article.

This article first appeared in my column on Newsmax.

Trump Should Retain, Electorate Should Value Jeff Sessions

Of all the officials in the Trump cabinet, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has arguably garnered the most attention. From the drama of his confirmation hearings to several Sessions parodies on "Saturday Night Live" (SNL), the attorney general has certainly been in the public eye since his nomination. Most recently, attention turned back once again to his recusal from the Russia investigation.

Though it’s been months since Sessions recused himself from the probe, two weeks ago The New York Times published an article alleging that last March, President Trump ordered White House counsel to convince Sessions to remain as part of the investigation.

Some pundits have speculated that this action suggests Trump wanted Sessions to protect him, and wanted to ensure that a close cohort maintained control over the probe.

The current relationship between Sessions and Trump is lukewarm. Some report it has only slightly improved. At a recent press conference, Trump told reporters that he did stand with Sessions. But, in the past, Trump referred to Sessions as "beleaguered," and Newsweek reported that Trump was more frustrated with Sessions than with Mueller and the leaders of the Russia investigation. It appears that the president has not gotten over what he seemed to perceive as the disloyalty of Sessions’ recusal.

Despite Trump stating that The New York Times story is off base, and that anything he may have told White House counsel was "proper," it’s clear that he has retained a dislike for Sessions since the recusal incident.

This dislike is not warranted — by recusing himself. Sessions did the right and judicial thing. Jeff Sessions is a capable attorney general and a valuable member of the Cabinet, and a loyal friend to Trump.

Democrats called loudly for Sessions’ recusal, premeditatively accusing him of unethical behavior. What they didn’t know is that Sessions had already recused himself — completely on his own.

Commentators would say that Sessions did this because he knew Trump had something to hide, and that this speculation is perhaps why Trump feels that Sessions betrayed him. But the real reason Sessions recused himself was because it’s the law and he respects the rule of law.

In response to media questions about his recusal, Sessions cited a statute that states a Justice Department employee shall not participate in a "criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with . . . an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization." Sessions was a top official in the Trump campaign. His recusal was not betrayal, it was being a loyal servant to the law, as the bar and his oath of office require.

Rather than revealing guilt, Sessions recusing himself shows that he is a man of integrity. Sessions continues to try and prove himself to a president that hasn’t shown him the same loyalty he has been shown.

The Washington Post reported that Sessions has been attempting to win back Trump’s approval, asking White House aides to sing his praises to the President. Sessions is no doubt one of the most active attorney generals. He has made significant strides in advancing President Trump's agenda. For conservatives on the right, Sessions is a strong member of the administration. Sessions is willing to take a lot of abuse from the president, while remaining committed to serving him. This is a trait that Trump should not take for granted.

So far, any attempt to get back in Trump’s good graces have been minimal. Trump rarely calls in Sessions for meetings, and speculation continues that this attorney general may soon lose his job. Though these rumors may have no basis in fact, it’s worth thinking about what Trump would lose if he did fire Sessions.

Asking for Sessions’ resignation would only make the situation worse for the Trump. It could make him look guilty, much like when he fired James B. Comey in May. Beyond the Russia investigation, however, it would be a loss of a humble and graceful servant. Sessions is extremely valuable to the Trump administration, as both a conduit of Trump’s policies and an example of strong conservative leadership.

Sessions has shown himself to choose the right thing over something politically expedient. He has refrained from exchanging harsh words with Trump or getting wrapped up in their feud. In addition, he has remained committed to tangible administrative change.

The president should try to emulate Sessions’ values rather than ignore them. He should see that staying focused on policy is actually a path he should follow. Avoiding drama and admitting his own mistakes is also something he should consider. I have known the attorney general for years now. In every conversation I have had with him he has blessed my life. Several times we were at political events with much more important people than me, but he cared enough about a young conservative to speak to me --- as is true with all young conservatives.

Even if I had a difference of opinion, he thoughtfully and graciously expressed his views. Beyond having strong character, he has one of the best legal minds of our generation. his entire family is also wonderful. I am thankful that a man of Sessions’ character is serving our country.

Special thanks to Katherine Pickle, my law clerk who attends Emory School of Law, and Daniel Bruce, my chief consultant and contributor to Rouser News, for their help researching, editing, and writing this article.

This article first appeared in my column on Newsmax.

Photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore.

True Conservative Leaders Look More Like Blunt Than Bannon

At a time when internal conflict in the Republican Party is all too common, it can be difficult to find a guiding light of leadership in the scrum. More often than not, it’s the loudest Republican voices that get the most attention. Controversial figures like Steve Bannon and Roy Moore dominated media coverage of the GOP in 2017, but the focus of their diatribes is not concrete Republican policy. Individuals like Bannon and Moore spewed meaningless political fluff meant to enflame voters and fuel the media circus; they thrive on popularity and attention. Thankfully, recent events have put Steve Bannon and Roy Moore out of the spotlight and it is likely their political influence will be minimal going forward.

Because these types of outspoken figures have become well-known through the widespread publicity of their antics, some might come to believe that it’s the Bannons and Moores who are the GOP’s most prominent leaders. But leadership is much more than how many dramatic headlines are written about you. The measure of a great leader is not how loudly you can shout and how many people can hear you, it’s how many people will actually listen.

Roy Blunt is one of these great leaders. Though he is one of the most powerful and influential members of the senate, he doesn’t feel the need to hear himself talk. He is one of the few leaders in congress who believes that the measure of a leader isn’t who makes the most promises but who delivers on promises made.

Blunt is not your typical example of a politician — in fact, before entering politics Blunt was a high school teacher. He was elected to represent Missouri in the Senate in 2010, and successfully ran for reelection in 2016. From 1997-2011, Blunt served as Congressman to the 7th district of Missouri, the state’s most conservative district. This is no surprise, as Blunt has a strong conservative record. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce gave Blunt a 97 percent rating for his pro-business voting record, and he received an “A” rating from the NRA for his commitment to the Second Amendment. Blunt manages to maintain this solid conservative record without subscribing to the firebrand style of individuals like Roy Moore.

I’ve chosen to focus on Blunt as a prime example of Republican leadership because I know the strength of his character from personal experience. I had the pleasure of working for Blunt’s office in 2007 as an intern while he was serving as House Republican Whip. What struck me most about Blunt was his commitment to supporting policies that he truly believed would help people and make the country better, not just taking stances that would help him get reelected.

Blunt’s desire to truly help his fellow Americans is illustrated by his little-known involvement with his local prison ministry in Missouri which is how I came to hear about Roy Blunt from my Aunt who lives in Missouri. Blunt has never felt the need to publicize this about himself; Jesus said whatever you do for the least of these you do it for me and the thing that struck me the most about this is that this isn’t something that politically would win him a lot of points. Many of these people weren’t violent criminals, but had simply made bad choices because they were addicted to drugs and had been arrested multiple times. Attitudes towards those who struggle with addiction has changed but Senator Blunt cared about these people and did something about it long before it was political advantageous. When I worked there I never heard the staff say one negative thing about the congressman and when I told other Capitol Hill staffers I worked for Roy Blunt I only ever heard how lucky I was to work for someone like Roy Blunt. The older I get the more I realize how valuable a good reputation is and how quickly it can be lost. Senator Blunt may not be the first person you see on Twitter, but he has been instrumental in enacting policy changes which has benefited every single person reading this article now. He has a tremendous amount of power but he doesn’t use it simply to advance his own interest but to make the lives of the people of Missouri and the United States Better.

Though no doubt a solid conservative, Blunt has consistently shown that he is more committed to enacting actual change than choosing sides in inter-party disputes. Blunt has no need to prove himself as a loyal and determined conservative; his record does that for him. When interviewed about his stance on the Trump-Corker feud, Blunt remarked, “I think both these men have really big jobs to do and I think they both should focus on them instead of talking about each other.”

This comment hones in on a central issue in the Republican Party today — conflicts that distract Republican leaders from the task at hand. Blunt sees that choosing a side and further dividing the party is not the answer. Firebrands like Bannon, on the other hand, choose disloyalty and pot-stirring as tools of furthering their own agendas. The Bannons and Moores of the GOP are not leaders; leaders exhibit level-headedness, and serve the people, not themselves. Leaders like Roy Blunt are proof that we still have an amazing group of leaders in the Republican Party, and he is an example both for voters, and his fellow politicians, of what a true leader ought to be.

Special thanks to Katherine Pickle, my law clerk who attends Emory School of Law in Atlanta, Georgia and to Daniel Bruce, a member my chief consultant and contributor to Rouser News, for their help researching, writing, and editing this article.

This article first appeared in my column on Newsmax.

Photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore.

Support for Roy Moore Comes with High Costs for 2018

This article originally appeared on my Newsmax column.

It’s been a month since The Washington Post brought to light allegations of sexual misconduct against Roy Moore, and while much has happened in the time since, it seems as though nothing has really changed. Although the RNC pulled its support from the Republican candidate days after the story broke, it has reversed course and now fully supports Moore in Tuesday’s election. And while Moore saw his poll numbers drop significantly in November, recent polls now show him neck and neck with Democrat Doug Jones, and the likely winner.

What happened to inspire this turnaround? More importantly, does Moore deserve it?

When the RNC initially pulled its funding from the Moore campaign, it was stated that Republicans cared more about principles than politics. Our leaders called on Moore to withdraw and allow another candidate to represent the GOP. Withdrawing support from Moore appeared to show that Republican leadership would not stand for the type of behavior of which Moore was accused, and that upholding the morality of the party was more important than any individual candidate.

However, by renewing its funding of Moore, the RNC may have traded its integrity for power and in the end they may lose both. The decision to cease backing Moore came when the polls indicated a likely Republican defeat if Roy Moore remained as the candidate. Now that the chances of a GOP win in Alabama have improved significantly, it seems the RNC would rather ensure the victory of Roy Moore than consider the long term effect of promoting such a candidate.

Another key factor in the RNC’s change of heart is the White House. When the allegations against Moore were first uncovered, the president was out of the country, and the administration did not immediately announce any official position. In recent weeks, however, Trump came out in support of Moore, and just days ago announced his official endorsement of the former judge.

The strong influence of these outside forces on the RNC are clear from the lack of comment from RNC officials, and the apparent reluctance of the RNC to support the decision publicly. One former RNC official said on the matter that it makes the RNC “look foolish and indecisive” and that flip flopping on Moore is “a bad move” and “bad for credibility.” Some have accused the RNC of hypocrisy — our leaders pushed Democrats to return donations from Harvey Weinstein, asked Senator Franken and Congressman Conyers to resign and yet we don’t collectively condemn Moore?

The same former RNC official noted, “The fact is, nothing has changed. If there had been a development that exonerates Moore, that’d be one thing, but there hasn’t been.” This assessment of the scandal is spot on — not only has no information come out to exonerate Moore, but the information that has come out points more directly to his probable guilt.

Moore’s first responses to the scandal were a mixture of innocent forgetfulness and tentative denial. Recently, however, Moore has come out vehemently denying his accuser’s allegations and bitten back by accusing the victims of deceptive political motives. This harder line is more appealing to his core base, because it leaves no room for questions about Moore’s stance, but to those outside that base, it raises further concerns about his trustworthiness.

With regard to at least one of the women, Debbie Gibson, Moore has completely changed his story. Moore initially stated that he knew Gibson but did not remember dating her, but in two campaign stops last week, Moore told crowds that he didn’t know any of the women. Knowing Gibson but not dating her and not knowing any of his accusers are mutually exclusive statements — one of them must be a lie.

Whether Moore is guilty or innocent of sexual misconduct, he has lied to the American people, He contradicted the statements he made on Sean Hannity’s show and said something completely different from the pulpit of a church. When the scandal first broke, Moore could have done the right thing and withdrawn from the race so that another candidate could lead our state in the Senate. Sadly, it seems that Roy Moore is more concerned with obtaining political power than anything else.

Jesus said in Mark 8:36-37 that “what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul?”

I am writing because I care about the soul of my party and I think standing with Roy Moore is going to lead to massive Republican losses in 2018. If the allegations against Moore prove to be true then the Republican Party will no longer be able to be the party of “family values.” The ends don’t justify the means; ultimately, good character is what matters: “A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches.” (Proverbs 22:1, KJV).

On Tuesday, I will be following Senator Richard Shelby’s admirable lead and exercising my right to vote by writing in the name of a conservative Republican of good character. As a Christian, one thing I am sure of is that God is sovereign, he is good, and he loves his children. No matter what happens on Tuesday, I would encourage my readers to find their rest in Christ and put their trust in him. God Bless.

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.