Connect with us

News

On Labor Day Sessions Warns of Effects of Immigration Bill

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

By Brandon Moseley
Alabama Political Reporter

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R) said that the immigration reform bill which is before Congress is not a moral or economically sustainable policy in remarks released on Labor Day.

Senator Sessions said, “As the nation recognizes Labor Day too many Americans remain without work… labor-force participation rate is at a thirty-year low… Yet what is the message from the White House, certain businesses interests, and their allies in Congress? Bring in more workers from overseas to do the jobs they say Americans aren’t cut out for.”

Sen. Sessions continued, “We need to help Americans get off of welfare, off of unemployment, and into good paying jobs that can support a family. Our first loyalty must be to US citizens… A swift amnesty and a permanent surge in low-skill immigration may make sense for some business interests—but it makes no sense for a nation that is currently struggling with exploding welfare rolls, falling wages, and chronic unemployment.”

Sen. Sessions said, “that small improvements in the employment rate have masked the deeper trend of a shrinking labor force with more people retiring early, going on disability, turning to welfare, and giving up looking for work altogether. Another troubling indicator is the record-high teenage unemployment: in 1999, half of teenagers had a summer job; today, it’s a mere third. Wages are also lower today than they were in 1999. Meanwhile, 1 in 3 without a high school diploma remains unable to find a job. This is more than temporary problem but an alarming trend: the workforce is shrinking and the welfare rolls are expanding.”

Sen. Sessions has consistently warned that the immigration bill which passed the U.S. Senate and is being considered by the U.S. House would lead to more competition for low skilled jobs and would hurt low income Americans disproportionally by lowering wages.

ADVERTISEMENT

How to deal with an estimated eleven million undocumented people living in the country has been the focus of the immigration debate; but Sessions has repeatedly pointed out that the bill which passed the Senate increases the numbers of additional legal immigrants that would be allowed in to America and has questioned the economic affects of ramping up immigration levels. Sessions pointed to a CBO report which claims the immigration bill would lead to 46 million more immigrants by 2033.

Sen. Jeff Sessions is a ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.

Brandon Moseley is a senior reporter with eight and a half years at Alabama Political Reporter. You can email him at [email protected] or follow him on Facebook. Brandon is a native of Moody, Alabama, a graduate of Auburn University, and a seventh generation Alabamian.

Advertisement

News

Robbers fire at police, race in I-20 car chase with speeds reaching 115 mph

One suspect is in custody. Another fled on foot into the woods in St. Clair County.

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

(STOCK PHOTO)

Sunday night police responded to a report of a burglary at a Hueytown business. The suspects fled the scene and led police on a high-speed chase down Interstate 20 through Jefferson and St. Clair counties. The suspects were driving a silver or white Cadillac SUV. They have fired multiple rounds at officers and one officer crashed his police vehicle.

The suspect’s speed reportedly reached 115 mph. Shots were fired at the Hueytown police officer responding to the call. The suspects then sped away. Officers from the Hueytown Police Department, Birmingham Police Department, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department, Pell City Police Department, Riverside Police Department and other agencies all participated in the high-speed pursuit. There are reports of multiple shots fired at officers.

As of press time, one suspect has been captured while another is in a foot pursuit in St. Clair County. The second suspect is still reportedly on the loose and should be considered armed and dangerous.

The crime spree began when Hueytown police were called to the Birmingham Auto Auction off of Allison-Bonnett Memorial Drive on a report of a burglary alarm. The suspect fired at the officers when they tried to block his vehicle there. A suspect shot at officers, wounding one officer.

Another Hueytown police car was reportedly hit by gunfire.

The suspect fled eastbound on I-20/59. Birmingham police responded to the call for aid as the suspect approached their jurisdiction. The suspect(s) also fired gunshots at the Birmingham police officers. An urgent request was put out for all possible officers to help in the pursuit.

ADVERTISEMENT

A Birmingham police officer lost control of his vehicle and crashed east of the I-20 and I-459 junction. The officer reports no injuries but is being evaluated at an area hospital. The Birmingham officers lost sight of the suspect’s vehicle at exit 140 in the city limits of Leeds.

Officers caught back up with the suspect, who was traveling at speeds reaching 115 miles per hour, on I-20 in St. Clair County. Officers from the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, Pell City Police Department and Riverside Police Department all took up the pursuit.

St. Clair deputies deployed spike strips on I-20 at mile marker 179. The suspect vehicle did not stop until the 182-mile marker. A gun battle ensued. A Riverside police patrol vehicle was reportedly struck.

One suspect is in custody. Another fled on foot into the woods in St. Clair County. The escaped suspect is reportedly armed and dangerous. Authorities have established a perimeter. The public should try to avoid the area.

Public Service Announcement

Continue Reading

Bill Britt

Opinion | Thinking: I’ll know it when I see it

“Have we accumulated so much knowledge that we know nothing?”

Bill Britt

Published

on

(STOCK PHOTO)

Lately, I’ve been adhering to the old adage, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” So, what have I been doing with all my free time? Thinking — or at least I think I’m thinking.

When I look over the political landscape here at home and across the nation, I see a great surge of self-interest, special-interest, and “us versus them” loathing, but little in the way of what constitutes the common good.

Politics lately have more in common with the campfire scene in Blazing Saddles than a renaissance weekend in Charleston. All hot air and bluster and little fact or reasoning.

American politics have always been loud, factious, full of complexities and uncertainty, but these elements have generally led us to find consensus. Sometimes, it’s an uneasy truce but one that on the whole leaves us better and not irreconcilably divided.

However, today, tribal hatred in the form of political parties, a desire for one side to dominate the other, and the widespread acceptance of “alternative facts” has reduced public policy to the equivalent of a high stakes fight over which color M&M tastes best.

French-born philosopher, mathematician, and scientist René Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am” as proof of his existence. Written originally in French and then Latin, it reads cogito ergo sum because I guess smart people in Descartes’ day wrote scholarly works in Latin.

ADVERTISEMENT

Today we use memes, YouTube videos, and trucker hats to convey our deeply held convictions.

I’ve been thinking about another Latin phrase I’d like to see added to the lexicon of debate “non cogito ergo non sum” roughly translated, I don’t think; therefore, I am not.

Of course, we know that there are a lot of unthinking people; many we call voters.

A trip to a big box store or any retail outlet with the word “dollar” in its name proves that the average citizen shouldn’t be trusted with making big decisions, like who will run the country. But the alternative is worse, so we let everyone have a say on Election Day.

Public Service Announcement

But because The People’s Republic of Walmart is a key voting block, the Constitution and individual states’ laws are there to check devotee’s lack of discernment.  This is not to say that elites exercise greater intellect. Cable pundits and influential internet bloggers tell us that the nation faces multiple existential threats, not the least from people who use the word existential.

Merriam-Webster defines existential as “relating to, or affirming existence.” I defer back to big box shoppers, “ergo ego emo.” I shop, therefore I am.

Thinking is hard work and not for the faint of heart because reflection can reveal unpleasant truths or even cause us to realize that what we thought was true wasn’t.

In the early 1990s, a New York media mogul asked me what I thought the Internet might become in the future. I told him if we were lucky, every human-being would have access to a range of information to rival the Great Library of Alexandria. It could also, I said, be an enabling tool for global democracy. But then I added It would most likely be just a place for people to watch kittens and porn.

I used to think that moral wisdom and national interests depended on logical, coherent, and precisely written words penned by studied minds. I believed this because The Ten Commandments carved in stone gave rise to a set of moral principles that shaped in part the ancient world and western civilization. Our Nation’s Declaration of Independence, written with quill and ink, led to a new democratic republic in the United States and a model for the world over. Now the world’s most enduring democracy is often directed by tweets.

Have we accumulated so much knowledge that we know nothing?

Instead of inspired reason, will 220 characters do? Does writing in all caps make the thought better, or does the author think that readers are just to simple to understand their meaning without added emphasis?

Perhaps here, more Latin is needed; “Cogito ergo non tweet.” You guessed it, I think, therefore, I don’t tweet.

But nowhere is there less thinking than among those who know they are right because they are the chosen ones privy to all things conspiratorial.

In her book, Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism, Anne Applebaum writes, “The emotional appeal of a conspiracy theory is in its simplicity. It explains away complex phenomena, accounts for chance and accidents, offers the believer the satisfying sense of having special, privileged access to the truth.”

Having spent most of my life around powerful women and men, I’ve learned that none are capable of grand schemes as imagined on the internet, and even fewer can keep their mouths shut. If there were a cabal of Catilines, they would not be found on FaceBook or the pages to the John Birch Society’s website.

Politicians will always rage, people will hate, but with a bit of good fortune, our state and nation will endure because a few souls will place the common good above self-interest and factions.

It’s not always easy to tell who is thinking and who is not, but as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said when referring to hard-core pornography, “I know it when I see it.”

While I still don’t have many nice things to say, and I’m not sure my thinking matters at all, I will admit I have hope, that enduring belief that there is a chance that we can do better, and that we will.

I think.

Continue Reading

Corruption

Opinion | Alabama’s public corruption problem might just be hopeless

“Mike Hubbard committed crimes with the solitary intention of illegally enriching himself.”

Josh Moon

Published

on

Mike Hubbard looks toward his family after receiving sentencing on Friday, July 8, 2016, in Opelika, Ala. Todd Van Emst/Opelika-Auburn News/Pool Todd Van Emst/Opelika-Auburn News/Pool

Mike Hubbard stole more than $2 million. Let’s start right there, so we don’t get things twisted, because there’s a tendency in this state, when the criminal is wearing a suit and tie, to believe that the crime wasn’t really a crime and that it was something more complicated and sophisticated than a guy stealing money from you for himself. 

This wasn’t an accident. It wasn’t a wrong place, wrong time deal. He didn’t forget to carry the one and, oops, $2 million landed in his account. 

No. Mike Hubbard committed crimes with the solitary intention of illegally enriching himself. 

Hubbard used his intelligence and charm and ruthlessness to rise to a position of power that allowed him to influence the budget process, and then he used that position and his intelligence to benefit himself at the expense of state businesses, taxpayers and the state itself. 

If Hubbard had his way, one of his clients would have been granted an illegal monopoly, improperly squeezing out other deserving state businesses and possibly costing Alabama citizens their jobs and livelihoods. 

In other instances, Hubbard concocted a means by which wealthy business owners in the state could “gift” their “friend” hundreds of thousands of dollars. Money that we all know would have been returned to the friends many times over in the form of friendly legislation and government contracts — which is the very reason such “gifts” were deemed illegal by a legislature led by Hubbard. 

ADVERTISEMENT

These things were wrong. They were deplorable. And they were, quite blatantly, illegal. 

And yet, for the past four-plus years, this state’s judges and lawmakers — actually, let me be accurate: this state’s REPUBLICAN judges and REPUBLICAN lawmakers — have bent over backwards to bend, alter and change the laws that convicted Hubbard — the laws that Hubbard helped write — in order to reduce or eliminate the sentence handed down to their friend. 

Finally, last week, the day before Thanksgiving — the day historically set aside for information dumps of embarrassing news you’re hoping will get lost in a four-day holiday weekend — Lee County Judge Jacob Walker, leaning on the suspect legal work of the Alabama Supreme Court — the most activist court in all of America — cut nearly half of Hubbard’s sentence. 

Instead of four years, Hubbard will now serve just 28 months. 

Public Service Announcement

That is a travesty. 

Not because 28 months instead of four years necessarily sends a message of leniency to future thieves. But because the sordid and embarrassing manner in which the sentence was reduced has been a case study in systemic public corruption and ruling class privilege. 

It has made clear that there is one set of laws and rules for the working stiffs and poor and a whole other set for the wealthy and powerful.  

When the ethics laws of this state were adopted several years ago, Republicans, including Hubbard, hailed them as true game-changers for Alabama politics. They talked loudly and often about how necessary these ethics laws were to remove the stench of corruption and pay-to-play favoritism from our state government. They promised that these laws would help level the playing field and restore the faith of Alabama citizens in their government. 

All of that was BS. 

Within months, the primary architect of those laws was secretly plotting to circumvent them in the interest of personal gain, his private emails showed us. Not only that, he and top ALGOP officials and donors were conspiring together to subvert those laws and enrich themselves. 

What they were doing was not in the interest of “economic development” or business growth in the state or even innocent mistakes. It was willful, purposeful schemes meant to get around the laws and use their public offices to benefit themselves. 

In one email Hubbard actually writes: “those ethics laws … what were we thinking?” 

Despite this clear intent and despite a solid verdict from a thoughtful Lee County jury, for the last four years, Republican lawmakers have attempted time and again to change the ethics laws — to weaken them and insert loopholes into them. They have succeeded twice. 

At the same time, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court — all elected Republicans — spent an unbelievable and unheard of amount of time to pick apart the Hubbard verdict and cast doubt on the laws that convicted him. 

In both courts, the opinions mentioned the “unintentional consequences” of the laws, implying that lawmakers in the state could unwittingly find themselves as accidental lawbreakers as they innocently conducted the business of the state. 

Oddly, not one lawmaker from either party has committed such a violation, or even almost committed one. 

And no one believes that Hubbard committed such an unwitting violation of the laws. 

Because he didn’t. 

Hubbard knew full well what the law was. He knew full well that what he was doing was illegal — his closest associates testified as much in open court. He worked tirelessly to concoct ways to subvert those laws and enrich himself, and there is a mountain of evidence that proves it. 

And yet, our criminal justice system and our state legislature spent the last four years trying to get him out of it. 

That’s a level of corruption that is so staggering and consuming that I honestly don’t know if there’s any hope to combat it.

Continue Reading

National

Supreme Court rules that churches can meet despite COVID restrictions

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three “liberal” justices in opposing the ruling. New Justice Amy Coney Barret was the deciding vote siding with the four conservative justices.

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

Supreme Court of the United States building in Washington
(STOCK PHOTO)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision Wednesday that the state of New York’s onerous COVID-19 restrictions violated the freedom of religion rights of New Yorkers.

The Court’s decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo just pauses the enforcement of these rules against the litigants who’ve challenged them while the case proceeds, but it still sends a signal that the majority of the Court thinks the restrictions are unconstitutional. The lawsuits filed by the Diocese of Brooklyn and by Orthodox Jewish synagogues in New York will continue; however, the Supreme Court ruling will likely weigh heavily on the ultimate outcome of those cases.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had passed COVID restrictions that limited Church attendance to just 25 people in areas of the state dubbed in the orange zone of COVID-19 cases and to just ten people in areas of the state that were in the red zone. The same rules applied to Churches that can seat 1,000 people and those that seat just one hundred. The size of the building did not matter.

“It is time — past time — to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion.

“In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as ‘essential’ may admit as many people as they wish,” the court majority wrote. “And the list of ‘essential’ businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities.”

“These categorizations lead to troubling results,” the court added. “Not only is there no evidence that the applicants have contributed to the spread of COVID–19 but there are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services. Among other things, the maximum attendance at a religious service could be tied to the size of the church or synagogue.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The ruling would tend one to believe that the state may limit occupancy of churches and synagogues, but blanket restrictions like those in the New York law that do not take into account the size of the building are clearly unconstitutional according to the court majority.

“The Court’s ruling is neither surprising nor alarming. Cuomo’s rules discriminate against religious services and thereby run afoul of the Constitution,” the editors of National Review wrote. “And to fix the problem, Cuomo would not need to exempt houses of worship from the law everyone else follows, but merely ensure that churches aren’t relegated to second-class status. One approach may be to classify churches as essential and to assign all essential activities a capacity limit that takes establishment size into account. Another would be to simply let the hard capacity limits go, since houses of worship in orange and red areas are still required to keep to a low proportion of their total capacity (a third and a quarter respectively) — and because the areas at issue in the lawsuit aren’t classified as orange or red anymore anyway.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that whenever a policy creates a preferred, less regulated category — “essential” businesses, in this case — states must either include religion in that category or carry the burden of justifying churches’ exclusion.

“The question I always had was why was it okay for all the large box stores to be open, salons, dispensaries, casinos and tattoo parlors, but yet houses of worship were limited to much less capacity than all these places,” Rabi Yossi Mintz wrote in a statement. “I completely agree that we must have guidelines but it needs to be across the board and respect the freedom that our fathers granted us through the establishment of our great country.”

Public Service Announcement

“There is no question that church is essential and maybe that is more true today than any other time,” Pastor Greg Laurie of the Harvest Christian Fellowship Church said in a statement. “Harvest is holding services outside because we want to keep people safe, yet give them an opportunity to worship together…. We practice social distancing and strongly encourage the wearing of masks.”

“I am proud to be leading the Diocese of Brooklyn and fighting for our sacred and constitutional right to worship,” said Diocese of Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio. “Our churches have not been the cause of any outbreaks. We have taken our legal battle this far because we should be considered essential, for what could be more essential than safely gathering in prayer in a time of pandemic.”

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three “liberal” justices in opposing the ruling. New Justice Amy Coney Barret was the deciding vote siding with the four conservative justices.

In an earlier 5 to 4 decision, the Court found in favor of a California public health order that prevented churches from operating early in the pandemic. Then Justice Roberts sided with the liberals, but the liberal four has become the liberal three with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Barret replacing Ginsburg appears to have reset the court’s previous position.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement