5 months ago

Democrat senate candidate’s abortion views are abhorrent to most Alabamans

Photo from DougJonesForSenate.com


Doug Jones, the Democrat nominee to replace Senator Jeff Sessions, appeared on MSNBC recently and was asked whether he’d support banning abortion after 20-weeks, the time at which an unborn child is known to feel the pain of the brutal procedure.

“You wouldn’t be in favor of legislation that said ban abortion after 20 weeks, or something like that?” asked Chuck Todd, the show’s host.

“No, I’m not in favor of anything that is going to infringe on a woman’s right and her freedom to choose,” Jones said. “That’s just the position that I’ve had for many years, it’s the position I continue to have.”

Not … in … favor … of … anything.

Jones then attempted to mask the atrocious opinion by saying that, “once a baby is born, I’m going to be there for that child, that’s where I become a right-to-lifer.”


So we’re to think that in the few months, few weeks, or perhaps even few days or hours before birth, the baby is something else, perhaps the often described “blob of tissue.” But then something magical happens that turns the baby into a person between the moment it’s in the mother’s womb and the moment it’s in the doctor’s hands.

Move over, Fairy Godmother. Your old trick of turning pumpkins into carriages is child’s play compared to this.

And that’s where Doug Jones and his party are on this issue – a land of fiction.

Anyone with eyes to see can tell a 20-week-old unborn baby is a person, and even the hardest of hearts must accept that biological fact as the months proceed.

This is biology, not theology.

Yet it’s the policy of the Democrat Party, and candidates like Jones, that these helpless unborn children cannot, must not, enjoy equal protection under the constitution.

And they think this is the man we should choose to confirm our next slate of U.S. Supreme Court justices?

Whatever concerns one may have about Judge Roy Moore, conservatives in Alabama … and anyone in the state who values life … must vote against Jones and his party’s monstrous pro-abortion policy.

J. Pepper Bryars is the editor of Yellowhammer News and the author of “American Warfighter.” Follow him on Twitter @jpepperbryars.


Airbus is said to see C Series deal closing as early as midyear

Airbus SE’s deal to take a controlling stake in the Bombardier Inc. C Series jetliner program could be finalized by the time of the Farnborough International Airshow this summer, according to people familiar with the matter.

Antitrust approval for the plan, which the planemaker had been seeking by the end of the year, is likely to come earlier than expected, according to the sources, who asked not to be named as the regulatory procedures are private. The process has so far produced no issues, one person said.


Faster signoff on the Bombardier accord could allow Toulouse, France-based Airbus to start marketing the C Series alongside its own A320 narrow-body family at the Farnborough expo, the year’s largest, which starts July 16. It once seemed that Boeing Co. would dominate the show southwest of London with the launch of a new midsize jet dubbed the 797, though the U.S. company has since indicated that it may take longer to build its business case.

Airbus and Bombardier declined comment on the state of the antitrust process, repeating earlier guidance on the timescale.

Montreal-based Bombardier struck the deal with Airbus in October after a U.S. ruling that the C Series had received illegal Canadian aid put the program’s future in doubt. The European company said it would build the jet at a factory in Alabama, avoiding crippling import tariffs imposed as a penalty, though in the event the preliminary American verdict was overturned. French President Emmanuel Macron is due to visit Bombardier’s facilities in Quebec in June.

The future Boeing model, officially known as the New Mid-market Airplane or NMA, is likely to be a major focus of attention at Farnborough whether launched there or not, since it’s the only original passenger aircraft under development at the two dominant planemakers.

Delta Air Lines Inc. and United Continental Holdings Inc. are interested in the jet, which would replace aging Boeing 757 and 767 fleets. Chinese carriers may prefer a bigger cargo hold than can be accommodated with the planned oval cross-section fuselage. That in turn could potentially require a design rethink.

(Courtesy Alabama News Center)

2 hours ago

The economics of a military draft

Fifty years ago, protests and violence in opposition to the Vietnam War and the draft roiled college campuses.  The War appeared hopelessly deadlocked after the Tet Offensive.  Protestors burned draft cards, ransacked draft offices, and fled for Canada.  At the end of March 1968, President Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection.

In January 1973, President Nixon ended the draft, delivering on a campaign promise.  Why did the policy change within just five years?  Dr. David Henderson, an economist and long-time professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, contends that economists played an important role.  The case illustrates how academic research can shape public policy, hopefully for the better.

Let’s first consider the economics of a military draft.  One argument for a draft is that it lowers the cost of the military.  This, however, is based on confusion.  A draft reduces the government’s budgetary cost.  The full cost of the military is the value of the resources used, including personnel.  Uncle Sam paid G.I.’s a monthly salary, but the amount did not have to adequately compensate the soldiers, who faced prison for refusing to serve.

Forcing service does not reduce and can even increase the full cost; persons creating great value in the economy may end up carrying a rifle.  During World War II, draft exemptions were granted for critical jobs in war industries.  And the military made effective use of talented individuals, including future Nobel Prize winners like economist Milton Friedman and physicist Richard Feynman (who was part of the Manhattan Project).  The military understood the full economic cost and sought to use personnel efficiently.

Research by economists in the 1960s speculatively estimated the supply of volunteers.  Individuals’ willingness to volunteer depends on many factors, including pay, the likelihood of war, an individual’s patriotism, and the conditions of service (e.g., the minimum term of enlistment).  This research showed critically that a sufficient number of volunteers could be secured.

Conscription involves concerns beyond economics, like justice.  Even on such questions, though, economics provides insight.  For instance, how should we allocate the burden of defending the nation, including the risk of being killed or wounded in service?  Some believe that a draft lottery distributes this burden more fairly, as all those eligible could be selected.  (The rules for deferments and exemptions certainly matter; the poor and minorities still did a disproportionate share of the fighting in Vietnam.) Economics shows how conscription is equivalent to a tax.  Draftees serve for less pay than they would require to volunteer; if they received $10,000 per year less, it is as if they were taxed this amount.  This “tax” was on top of the risks of combat.  A volunteer military’s higher salaries make taxpayers cover more of the cost, which arguably is fairer.

How did economists influence policy?  While proving the influence of specific ideas on specific changes is nearly impossible, Professor Henderson offers a strong argument.  The aforementioned research documented the costs of conscription and the feasibility of a volunteer military.  A conference at the University of Chicago in 1966 organized by Milton Friedman brought together four hundred professors, opinion leaders, and politicians, including Ted Kennedy and Donald Rumsfeld.  And President Nixon’s Advisory Commission on an All-Volunteer Force, chaired by former Defense Secretary Thomas Gates, included Professor Friedman and other prominent economists.  The Commission held hearings and their report provided the formal basis for ending conscription.

Perhaps most significantly, the participants at the University of Chicago conference and members of the Gates Commission included many supporters of the draft.  The economists’ arguments changed opinions, demonstrating their strength.  The Gates Commission conveyed this message to the public.

Although not widely read, economists’ research affects which policy proposals appear reasonable. Hopefully this leads to better government policies, like the all-volunteer military.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

3 hours ago

Did Putin order the Salisbury hit?

Britain has yet to identify the assassin who tried to murder the double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury, England.

But Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson knows who ordered the hit.

“We think it overwhelmingly likely that it was (Russian President Vladimir Putin’s) decision to direct the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the U.K.”


“Unforgivable,” says Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov of the charge, which also defies “common sense.” On Sunday, Putin echoed Peskov: “It is just sheer nonsense, complete rubbish, to think that anyone in Russia could do anything like that in the run-up to the presidential election and the World Cup. … It’s simply unthinkable.”

Putin repeated Russia’s offer to assist in the investigation.

But Johnson is not backing down; he is doubling down.

“We gave the Russians every opportunity to come up with an alternative hypothesis … and they haven’t,” said Johnson. “We actually have evidence … that Russia has not only been investigating the delivery of nerve agents for the purposes of assassination but has also been creating and stockpiling Novichok,” the poison used in Salisbury.

Why Russia is the prime suspect is understandable. Novichok was created by Russia’s military decades ago, and Skripal, a former Russian intel officer, betrayed Russian spies to MI6.

But what is missing here is the Kremlin’s motive for the crime.

Skripal was convicted of betraying Russian spies in 2006. He spent four years in prison and was exchanged in 2010 for Russian spies in the U.S. If Putin wanted Skripal dead as an example to all potential traitors, why didn’t he execute him while he was in Kremlin custody?

Why wait until eight years after Skripal had been sent to England? And how would this murder on British soil advance any Russian interest?

Putin is no fool. A veteran intelligence agent, he knows that no rival intel agency such as the CIA or MI6 would trade spies with Russia if the Kremlin were to go about killing them after they have been traded.

“Cui bono?” runs the always relevant Ciceronian question. “Who benefits” from this criminal atrocity?

Certainly, in this case, not Russia, not the Kremlin, not Putin.

All have taken a ceaseless beating in world opinion and Western media since the Skripals were found comatose, near death, on that bench outside a mall in Salisbury.

Predictably, Britain’s reaction has been rage, revulsion and retaliation. Twenty-three Russian diplomats, intelligence agents in their London embassy, have been expelled. The Brits have been treating Putin as a pariah and depicting Russia as outside the circle of civilized nations.

Russia is “ripping up the international rulebook,” roared Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson. Asked how Moscow might respond to the expulsions, Williamson retorted: Russia should “go away and shut up.”

Putin sympathizers, including Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, have been silenced or savaged as appeasers for resisting the rush to judgment.

The Americans naturally came down on the side of their oldest ally, with President Donald Trump imposing new sanctions.

We are daily admonished that Putin tried to tip the 2016 election to Trump. But if so, why would Putin order a public assassination that would almost compel Trump to postpone his efforts at a rapprochement?

Who, then, are the beneficiaries of this atrocity?

Is it not the coalition — principally in our own capital city — that bears an endemic hostility to Russia and envisions America’s future role as a continuance of its Cold War role of containing and corralling Russia until we can achieve regime change in Moscow?

What should Trump’s posture be? Stand by our British ally but insist privately on a full investigation and convincing proof before taking any irreversible action.

Was this act really ordered by Putin and the Kremlin, who have not only denied it but condemned it?

Or was it the work of rogue agents who desired the consequences that they knew the murder of Skripal would produce — a deeper and more permanent split between Russia and the West?

Only a moron could not have known what the political ramifications of such an atrocity as this would be on U.S.-British-Russian relations.

And before we act on Boris Johnson’s verdict — that Putin ordered it — let us recall:

The Spanish, we learned, did not actually blow up the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor in 1898, which ignited the Spanish-American War.

The story of North Vietnamese gunboats attacking U.S. destroyers, which led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and 58,000 dead Americans in Vietnam, proved not to be entirely accurate.

We went to war in Iraq in 2003 to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction we later discovered Saddam Hussein did not really have.

Some 4,500 U.S. dead and tens of thousands of wounded paid for that rush to judgment. And some of those clamoring for war then are visible in the vanguard of those clamoring for confronting Russia.

Before we set off on Cold War II with Russia — leading perhaps to the shooting war we avoided in Cold War I — let’s try to get this one right.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”


4 hours ago

Taylor’s Top Four: Legislative review for week 11

The countdown is on! What’s happening as the session winds down? Read below to find out!

1. Gun bills might be finished for this session . . .  

With time quickly winding down in the legislative session, the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee had a meeting scheduled on Tuesday to consider several things: a bill that raises the age to by an AR-15 from 18 to 21, a bill that would allow judges to take firearms away from individuals who might use them for self-harm or harm to others, and a bill that would ban the sale of AR-15s and other similar guns. The meeting was canceled due to lack of participation—only 4 of the 11 representatives on the committee showed up for the meeting. Additionally, the house, on Tuesday, left without debating Representative Will Ainsworth’s (R-Guntersville) bill to arm teachers. With the session expected to end next week and with no action on the bills this week, it appears that time has run out for these bills this session. Speaker Mac McCutcheon (R-Monrovia) has said that Ainsworth’s bill will come up again next session, while Ainsworth has called on Governor Ivey to call a special session to consider school safety proposals.

2. But school safety still looks to be a priority of the legislature.


Just because the legislature isn’t making a decision about arming teachers this session does not mean that they are not concerned with school safety. A bill before the legislature would allow school districts to take money from the Advancement and Technology fund. According to Representative Bill Poole (R-Tuscaloosa), “If [the school systems] have some security needs, whether those are security cameras or improving door lock systems or alert systems or whatever the case may be, the local districts will have the flexibility to point these resources to those specific needs.” The bill previously passed the Senate, passed the house this week, and now heads back to the Senate for a conference committee or concurrence vote.

3. A bill that would bring an ethics law change for economic developers is still moving, but maybe not for long. 

Remember the controversial ethics bill that the House passed by a large margin during week 9 of the legislative session? As a reminder, this bill would allow economic developers to be exempt from the rules that lobbyists are subject to, which includes registration as a lobbyist,  annual training, and reporting of activities. Earlier week, the bill was passed by the Senate Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Development Committee. On Thursday, Senator Dick Brewbaker (R-Montgomery) told reporter Chip Brownlee that there are a handful of senators ready to filibuster the bill in its current form. Brian Lyman reported that there may be a substitute in the works, which would be brought up on Tuesday.

4. BJCC expansion is one step closer to becoming a reality.

You might remember hearing about a proposal to renovate and grow the Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex by adding a stadium. Well, in order to fund that project, there is a bill currently before the legislature that imposes a 3% tax on car rentals and leases in Jefferson County. According to Barnett Wright with The Birmingham Times, “The rental tax is expected to generate about $3.5 million a year to help pay the debt service on the project, which the BJCC Authority estimates will be about $21.5 million a year.” The bill, sponsored by Senator Jabo Waggoner (R-Vestavia Hills) and Representative Jack Williams (R-Vestavia Hills), has passed both chambers and heads to Governor Ivey for a signature.

You also might want to know about…

—  Governor Ivey signed a few things into law this week, including…

—  A bill that would allow death row inmates a third option for execution—nitrogen hypoxia.

—  A contract with Wexford Health to handle the medical and mental health care at Alabama’s prisons. If you remember, the legislature held up the signing of this contract several weeks ago.

—  A tax break for low-income and middle-income individuals and families in Alabama.

—  The Child Care Safety Act, a bill by Representative Pebblin Warren (D-Tuskegee) that allows for more oversight into religious and non-religious day care facilities.

—   Senator Bill Hightower’s (R-Mobile) bill to allow Alabamians to vote on whether or not they want legislators to be term-limited did not pass in the Senate this week.

—   Alabama is one of only two states that does not have a law mandating equal pay for men and women. A bill by Representative Adeline Clark (D-Mobile) would change that, but since it did not get a committee vote this week, it is unlikely to pass.

—   The legislature has approved a bill that will allow UAB to create the Rural Hospital Resource Center, a facility that will be able to provide assistance to Alabama’s rural hospitals.

—   In November, voters will get to decide on a constitutional amendment that will allow the display of the ten commandments on public property, including schools.

—   After the threat of a filibuster, the stand-your-ground-in-church bill, which was up for debate in the Senate this week, has been stalled.

—   The Alabama Rural Broadband Act, a proposal that would offer grants to companies that will bring broadband internet to Alabama’s rural areas, has passed the legislature and is waiting for the governor’s signature.

7 hours ago

LISTEN: Yellowhammer’s Jeff Poor discusses Trump firing Mueller possibilities, Early stages of gubernatorial race

Wednesday on Birmingham’s Superstation 101 WYDE’s “The Line,” Breitbart.tv editor and Yellowhammer News contributing writer Jeff Poor discussed the day’s news with host Andrew McLain.

During the segment, Poor talked about reports President Donald Trump was considering firing special counsel Robert Mueller and how those could have been trial balloons meant to gauge public opinion and to get a reaction from members of Congress.

He also discussed the gubernatorial election and how we are seeing the initial stages of the campaign.

(Sign-up for our daily newsletter here and never miss another article from Yellowhammer News.)