This week, for the first time in months, a generic ballot poll showed Republicans beating Democrats in the midterm elections.

According to Reuters, Republicans are now leading by six points. And while that poll is obviously an outlier, the movement of the generic ballot in the direction of Republicans isn’t: The average lead for Democrats has been dropping steadily since late February, from a nine-point lead to a four-point lead.

Why?

Certainly, the economy has something to do with it: The job market continues to boom; the stock market continues to hover around 25,000; and GDP continues to grow steadily. And, certainly, foreign policy has something to do with it: There are no catastrophic foreign wars on the horizon, and President Trump’s gutsy calls to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal and move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem resulted in zero serious backlash.

Two-thirds (65%) of white Democrats do not believe in a God or higher spiritual power that is “all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving,” Pew Research Center reported Wednesday.

Pew released results of a  new survey of more than 4,700 U.S. adults regarding their views on the existence and nature of “God, higher power or spiritual force” showing that 95% of Republicans and 95% of nonwhite Democrats believe in God/higher power. But, only 78% of white Democrats believe in the existence of God/higher power.

More American voters want the Republican party to remain in charge of the economy and tax policy, according to an NBC News/WSJ poll released Monday evening.

The two media outlets found that 35 percent of Americans believe the Republican party is better suited to handle the economy, compared with 28 percent who think Democrats have the better economic policies.

Roughly three months ago, Democrats had the upper hand. Thirty-five percent of American voters thought Democrats were the better choice in December — the same month Republicans passed the 2017 tax reform bill.

A recent Morning Consult poll showing Democratic U.S. Sen. Doug Jones’s approval rating at 47 percent – four points under Shelby’s 51 percent – gives me reason to revisit my thoughts on Sen. Jones’s politics.

A few days after Doug Jones was elected as a U.S. senator, I offered four reasons why he looks like a moderate Democrat.

My reasoning was based primarily upon some of Jones’s statements and actions during his campaign, which I found peculiar and non-descriptive of a thoroughbred progressive: He used a Confederate colonel, even calling him brave, to make a point about finding common ground in politics; he rejected the idea – at least at the time – that President Trump should resign because of how badly he governs, as his party colleagues embraced it; he was genuine in his remarks about compromise and demonstrated a real desire to work with his Republican counterpart, Sen. Richard Shelby.

Now that he’s had a few months in Congress, what kind of Democrat has Doug Jones — so far — proved himself to be?

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution of the United States, they feared the possibility of partisanship overtaking rights-based government. To that end, they crafted a system of checks and balances designed to pit interest against interest, promoting gridlock over radical change. The founders saw legislators, presidents and judges as ambitious in their pursuit of power.

They could not have foreseen our politicians.

Our politicians aren’t so much ambitious for power as they are afraid of accountability. And so, we have a new sort of gridlock on Capitol Hill: Politicians campaign in cuttingly partisan fashion and then proceed to avoid solving just the sorts of issues on which they campaigned.

Hillary Clinton’s abhorrent remarks in Mumbai, India, last week warrant our attention because, like it or not, they represent the thinking of a large swath of the modern Democratic Party.

But my aim is not to highlight Clinton’s never-ending catalog of excuses for losing the presidential election, except to note that rather than blame everyone and everything but herself, she should apologize for stealing the nomination. If she hadn’t done that, she wouldn’t have to blame anyone.

Last weekend, Hillary Clinton spoke in India. There, she continued to struggle publicly with the most humiliating experience of her life, not her husband’s continual sexual misconduct or her State Department’s mishandling of Benghazi but her loss of the presidency to a reality television show host. Hillary’s not over it. And she never will be.

That much was obvious from her incredible, palpable anger at the American public. She first explained that Trump voters are stupid poor people: “what the map doesn’t show you is that I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward.”

Two weeks ago, it seemed that former President Bill Clinton was finished as a public figure. A variety of public intellectuals on the left had consigned him to the ashtray of history; they’d attested to their newfound faith in his rape accuser Juanita Broaddrick or torn him to shreds for having taken advantage of a young intern, Monica Lewinsky.

The moral goal was obvious: Set up a new intolerance for the sexual abuse of women. The political goal was even more obvious: Show that Democrats are morally superior to Republicans, and in doing so, shame Republicans into staying home rather than voting for Alabama Republican senatorial candidate Roy Moore, who has been credibly accused of sexual assault of minors.

Then it all fell apart.

On Sunday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. — the first female speaker of the House — brushed off Clinton’s scandals with a simple one-liner: “Well, I think it’s, obviously it is a generational change. But let me say the concern that we had then was that they were impeaching the president of the United States, and for something that had nothing to do with the performance of his duties.”

Why would Pelosi defend Clinton? Because she also has to defend Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., both of whom have been accused of sexual harassment or sexual assault. And why would she have to defend either of them?

That’s the $64,000 question. She really doesn’t — just as the Democrats never had to defend Clinton. If they’d kept their mouths shut and let Clinton resign, then-Vice President Al Gore would have been president. There’s a high likelihood he would have been re-elected in 2000. If the Democrats were to let Franken fall today, his replacement would be appointed by a Democratic governor of Minnesota. If they were to let Conyers go down, he’d be replaced in a special election in what The Cook Political Report deems a D+32 district, meaning it performed an average of 32 points more Democratic than the nation did as a whole in 2016. Democrats wouldn’t miss a beat, and they’d have a shot at taking out Moore to boot. By defending Franken and Conyers, Democrats give Republicans ample opportunity to back Moore and point at Democratic hypocrisy all the while. While Republicans can at least point at the potential loss of a Senate seat to justify backing Moore, Democrats wouldn’t suffer any loss by dumping Franken and Conyers.

There’s only one real reason Pelosi would stand by accused Democrats: She doesn’t care. Her logic with regard to Clinton is the only one that matters. He was a Democrat, and his sexual improprieties had nothing to do with his capacity for voting for her agenda. This was the national argument we had in 1998, and it was settled in Clinton’s favor. Character doesn’t matter. Only agenda does.

Republicans bucked that agenda. They don’t anymore.

In order to shame Republicans, Democrats seemed to buck that agenda this time around. But that was all bluster.
Bill Clinton didn’t just escape impeachment in 1998. He won the argument. He taught Americans that no matter how scummy our politicians might be, so long as they side with us on matters great or small, we ought to back them. We ought to back them not because our principles are important but because there might be some point in the future when our principles are at stake, and we don’t want our feet held to the fire then, do we?

In the famous play “A Man for All Seasons,” Sir Thomas More, betrayed by his former colleague Richard Rich in exchange for the post of attorney general in Wales, says: “Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. … But for Wales?” We’re willing to give our souls for nothing. Or perhaps they’re already gone.

Ben Shapiro, 33, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

As Republicans struggle to agree on a tax plan, Democrats and much of the media label each attempt at reform a “gift” to rich people.

In one sense, they are right. Any tax cut disproportionately favors rich people since the rich pay much more tax.

But the media and Democrats (is there a difference?) are wrong because they routinely portray rich people as parasites who take from other people.

Flying Dog Brewery owner Jim Caruso objects to that kind of thinking. He took over a bankrupt brewery and made it successful by inventing new craft beers. I won’t buy his beers — with varieties like blood orange ale — but enough people like them that Caruso has become relatively rich.

He’s the kind of person Sen. Bernie Sanders rails about. “The top 1 percent,” complains Sanders, “earned 85 percent of all new income.”

That sounds unfair. But Caruso doesn’t see it that way.

“My goal in life is to be the best part of your day,” he told me. “You will have unequal outcomes (but) we all benefit from that.”

He’s right. Caruso provided consumers new choices and created more than 100 jobs.

But for my YouTube video this week, I pushed back: “The top fraction of earners has half the assets in this country. This ticks people off. They view it as evil.”

“Think about it this way,” responded Caruso. “Apple was the first company to be worth $800 billion dollars. I was curious, how much was (Apple founder) Steve Jobs worth in 2011 when he passed away? … Ten billion dollars! I did some quick calculations…”

His calculations revealed that because about 2 billion Apple devices were sold, Jobs collected about $5 for each device.

Isn’t your cellphone worth much more to you than $5? Mine is. It must be, since I just paid $800 for a new one. I got a machine worth hundreds of dollars to me, but the inventor got only $5.

“Steve might have been underpaid,” said Caruso. “The feeling tends to be that somebody like Steve Jobs took something away from everybody else … (but) what did Jobs take? … (H)e had this idea: Wouldn’t it be great to have a thousand songs in your pocket? (He created) one of the most massively important tools for productivity and communication in life!”

Generally, Jobs got a pass when the media attacked rich people, maybe because reporters liked Apple’s products. But other rich Americans are routinely labeled “parasites.” Sanders suggests that if some people have billions, the rest of us must have billions less.

But that’s not true, Caruso points out. “It’s that zero-sum game mentality: that somehow people who create stuff are taking it from other people. That’s simply inaccurate. It’s not a zero-sum game. They’re creating stuff that didn’t exist before.”

He’s right. It’s not as if there’s one pie and when rich people take a big piece, less is left for the rest of us. Billionaires like Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, the Koch brothers, etc. got rich only by baking thousands of new pies.
Entrepreneurs create things; they don’t take from others.

Well, they do take if they conspire with government to get special deals — subsidies, bailouts, regulations that protect them from competition. But without government force, businesspeople get rich only by selling us things we willingly purchase.

We get to decide if we’d be better off with the products that creators offer to sell. Producers get to decide whether they can make enough money from those sales to make their efforts worth their while.

This mutually beneficial exchange is the heart of a market economy.

Government, on the other hand, only knows how to do two things: make you engage in exchanges you don’t want, and prevent you from engaging in exchanges you do want. With every order it issues, government makes the pie a little smaller.

As long as rich people don’t collude with government, they make our lives better.

John Stossel is author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.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.”

Seriously?

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.

Yesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden held a rally in Birmingham in support of Democratic Senate candidate Doug Jones. The media attention surrounding that event, along with early polls, has given the Jones campaign and its supporters a glowing sense of optimism.

Republicans in the Yellowhammer State are equally eager to help Doug Jones get his message out, showing voters which organizations stand behind him and what he believes—especially state GOP Chairman Terry Lathan.

In a recent interview with Breitbart News, Lathan said she believes that voters will reject Jones because of those views and associations. In fact, she invited all such organizations to let Alabama know that they stand with Doug Jones.

“I would encourage outside groups to come to Alabama that support the Democrat nominee — Planned Parenthood, MoveOn.org, who has already endorsed him, Hollywood elites and any Clinton available would be more than welcome to remind our voters who the Democrats are.”

The last time a Democrat won a statewide election in Alabama was in 2006. Since then, the state has bled red throughout every statewide election and shows no sign of switching loyalty anytime soon.

As Lathan added:

“What I do see is Alabama voters not tipping the balance of power toward the Democrats in the Senate to help [Elizabeth] Warren, [Chuck] Schumer, [Bernie] Sanders and the liberals. Since 2008, our nation has clearly moved away from their big government and socialist policies. The Democrats have lost 1,000 seats. America has spoken very clearly, and this Alabama senate race will mirror the Trump versus Clinton election in Alabama.

Donald Trump won Alabama by a vote of 62% to 34% last November, making it pretty clear that a large majority of Alabama voters reject the Democrat party’s platforms, especially over moral issues like abortion.

As noted in another recent Breitbart article, Doug Jones made his stand on abortion pretty clear to an MSNBC reporter. Here are his exact words, as reported by Breitbart:

Well, look, I am a firm believer that a woman should have the freedom to choose what happens to her own body. And I’m going to stand up for that and I’m going to make sure that that continues to happen.

I want to make sure that as we go forward, people have access to contraception, they have access to the abortion that they might need, if that’s what they choose to do. I think that that’s going to be an issue that we can work with and talk to people about from both sides of the aisle.

In fact, the Breitbart article even reported that Jones supports late-term abortions, leaving readers to conclude that the only child’s life he will defend is a child that has already been born. Here’s the excerpt from that article:

When Todd asked him if he would not support legislation that banned late-term abortions, Jones replied:

I’m not in favor of anything that is going to infringe on a woman’s right and her freedom to choose. That’s just the position that I’ve had for many years. It’s a position I continue to have.

But when those people — I want to make sure that people understand that once a baby is born, I’m going to be there for that child. That’s where I become a right to lifer.

This is an interesting stance for a candidate in a strongly pro-life state because the New England Journal of Medicine reported over two years ago that infants have a strong chance of survival outside the womb after only 22 weeks of gestation (less than six months into the pregnancy).

At 34 weeks, the baby can see, blink its eyes, turn its head from side to side, feel pain, and tell the difference between day and night. This child has fingernails, toenails, and in many cases, a full head of hair. This baby’s brain has already formed trillions of connections, making it possible to learn in the womb, and it can unquestionably live outside the womb.

According to what Doug Jones told MSNBC, however, protecting the life of this child is an act of infringing on the woman’s right to choose. Therefore, if she decides this baby must die to suit her wishes, he says, “I’m going to stand up for that, and I’m going to make sure that that continues to happen.”

The U.S. House of Representatives doesn’t see it that way. Yesterday, the House passed a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, and Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) expressed the view of most Republicans when she said, “We must care for these unborn children, not cruelly inflict pain…by treating them as objects.”

According to AbortionProcedures.com, the kind of late-term abortions Jones apparently supports are complicated, “Since the baby is removed in pieces, sharp pieces of broken fetal bones can puncture the woman’s uterus or cause a large tear (laceration)” and the most difficult part “is usually finding, grasping and crushing the baby’s head.”

Back in 1998, the New England Journal of Medicine described another form of abortion used when mothers pregnant with twins or triplets babies only want one of the babies.  They described this procedure (creatively labeled “selective reduction”) like this:

Using ultrasound to locate each fetus, the doctors would insert a needle into the chest cavity of the most accessible fetus and place the needle tip directly into the heart of the baby. Potassium chloride was then injected into the heart and the heart was viewed on the ultrasound screen until it stopped beating.

When voters understand that Doug Jones apparently supports a woman killing her unborn child no matter how late she decides to do so, and that he describes this as a health choice—despite the fact that medical science has provided incontrovertible evidence that such babies are living, learning, and feeling human beings—he will likely have a tall mountain to climb winning the majority of votes in Alabama.

During a Tuesday morning press conference in Birmingham, Senator Luther Strange announced that he has decided to take his name off of a letter he signed in April expressing his support for keeping the filibuster rule. Strange announced that upon returning to Washington, he will submit a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer withdrawing his support for the filibuster rule.

The filibuster rule has been used in the senate for years as a stalling tactic. If invoked, the rule requires a 60 vote majority to stop. This serves as a major barrier to Republicans, who only hold 52 seats in the senate – just shy of enough votes to be able to stop a Democratic filibuster. The implications of the filibuster rule were felt severely by Republicans during the health care vote this summer. That is one reason why Strange has decided to withdraw his support.

The letter to McConnell and Schumer states in part:

“I respectfully withdraw my signature from the aforementioned letter and instead make a declaration that it is necessary for Republican Senate Leadership to work to change the filibuster rule, as President Trump has requested, and give the American people’s Senators the opportunity to debate on any legislation that can receive a simple majority vote.”

Strange believes this is a step toward being able to get things done in Washington, especially given the obstructionism seen from both Democrats and Republicans. Without the filibuster, Republicans can potentially pass legislation regarding health care, tax reform, immigration, and infrastructure.

Strange’s decision marks a dramatic split from Mitch McConnell, who has been vocal in his support of both Strange and the filibuster. With this move, Strange seems to be aligning himself more closely with the Trump Administration’s agenda as opposed to the agenda of the Senate insiders.

Doug Jones, the Democratic candidate for the Alabama senate race to fill Jeff Sessions’ vacated seat, seems to be flying relatively low under the radar. While it will be tough for any Democrat to mount a significant campaign in a deeply red state, according to an article by POLITICO, Jones is “cash poor, outgunned,” and isn’t getting any help from his fellow Democrats.

Several state special elections have gained national recognition as of late, as Democrats attempt to swing seats as disapproval with the GOP continues to rise. Many of those attempts have crashed and burned, most notably Jon Ossoff’s attempt at Georgia’s sixth congressional district. Ossoff was able to gain national prominence by positioning himself as a leader of the anti-Trump resistance. He railed against Trump throughout his campaign, earning him the support of prominent Democratic super-PACs. In the end, Ossoff raised more money than any House candidate ever – $23 million – but it still was not enough to swing the election.

Perhaps in light of these recent defeats, Democrats have been reluctant to get their hands dirty in Alabama’s special election. In fact, Jones reportedly has under $100,000 in cash for his run at the Senate. However, Jones seems perfectly fine with running a low profile campaign. He appears to be an ideal Democratic candidate in the “the post-Charlottesville world.” However, unlike some other Democratic candidates such as Ossoff, Jones has refused to make anti-Trump messaging the driving force of his campaign.

In an interview with POLITICO, Jones insisted that he would rather focus his campaign on civil rights, wages, and health care.

“This election should not be about Donald Trump. He is popular in a lot of places, but he is also widely unpopular [among some] people that are going to vote. I don’t really have to talk about Donald Trump, [though] sometimes it’s just impossible not to, given some of the noise that went out of the White House these days.”

Without Jones receiving any national recognition, Democrats seem very reluctant to get involved in a race where the Republican president won by 28 percentage points last year. POLITICO also pointed out that while Trump’s approval ratings have continued to fall across the nation, his approval continues to rise in Alabama. His national approval rating currently sits at 40 percent, compared to 54 percent in Alabama.

“Alabama is a stretch. Some of the other races this year have been too, [but] this seat is probably more difficult,” said Adam Bozzi, a senior operative for the group. “Replicating what Jon Ossoff did is probably unrealistic, for anybody.”

Even the most optimistic Democrats acknowledge Jones’s chances are a long shot at best. POLITICO noted, “Jones is looking more closely at the model of Archie Parnell, the little-noticed South Carolina Democrat who came surprisingly close to winning a congressional seat in June by organizing a strong ground game that largely flew under the GOP radar.” Joe Trippi, Jones’ chief strategist, said that the campaign hopes to appeal to the state’s broader electorate by focusing on Jones’s biography instead of flashy fundraising.

Jones has received support from prominent Democrats such as former Vice President Joe Biden and civil rights activist Representative John Lewis. However, any major fundraising by Democrats will have to wait until after the Republican runoff in late September. Many are waiting to see who Jones’ opponent will be before promising any contributions.

“We haven’t decided to get involved in this race. Alabama is obviously a tough state for any Democrat, but with Trump’s nose-diving approval ratings and Democrats’ string of successes in special elections this year, we’re keeping a close eye on this,” said Carolyn Fiddler, political editor at Daily Kos, the blog that was largely responsible for Ossoff’s fundraising efforts.

There is no doubt that Jones will need help if he hopes to mount any sort of challenge to Luther Strange or Roy Moore. Will his fellow Democrats rally behind him or will he be left to fight on his own?

The state of Texas recently passed a new law meant to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. This Texas law came in the wake of increasing numbers of large urban areas across America becoming “sanctuary cities” based on their refusal to comply with federal immigration law. However, earlier this week, U.S. District Court Judge Orlando Garcia issued a preliminary injunction preventing implementation of the new Texas law.

The law, SB 4, gives local Texas police the authority to inquire into a person’s immigration status during routine traffic stops and holds police chiefs accountable should they fail to enforce federal immigration laws.

In his option, Judge Garcia held that SB 4 ran afoul of other federal laws, a position that’s disputed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. In a written statement by AG Paxton, he said, “Texas has the sovereign authority and responsibility to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens. We’re confident SB 4 will ultimately be upheld as constitutional and lawful.”

The Justice Department has yet to issue a formal opinion on the merits of Judge Garcia’s ruling, but Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley supported the Texas measure in a written statement, saying:

“The Texas legislature should be commended for finding ways to increase cooperation with federal immigration authorities. When jurisdiction work to keep criminal aliens off their streets, it shows a commitment to the rule of law and to reducing violent crime, including violent crime stemming from illegal immigration.”

Texas Democrats are touting this temporary court ruling as a victory, however. As of now, the state of Texas has yet to appeal the decision, but such an appeal is probable.

Opinion Editorial by Kaela Carpenter

The Democratic Party was formed by the anti-federalists, who opposed the ratification of the 1787 constitution. Founded by Andrew Jackson, (who supported slavery and would play a large role in the Indian removal), the party advocated westward expansion, Manifest Destiny, and greater equality among white men. When the Civil War began in 1860, it was a war between the mostly Republican north and the mostly democratic, slaveholding south. However, the portrayal of the history of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on their website reads: “For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, worker’s rights, and women’s rights.”

For the DNC to say that they have been fighting for civil rights for the past 200 years is to ignore the history behind the relationship between Democrats and civil rights. By definition, civil rights “is the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.” This includes the African American slaves at the time.  However as seen above, the Democratic Party was willing to split up the United States in order to continue to hold human beings as slaves. Additionally, Andrew Johnson, the 17th President of the United States, vetoed a bill that extended the rights of emancipated slaves by stating that “any person born in the United States, regardless of race, is a U.S. citizen.”

Along with the fact that the Democratic Party did not fight for equality and civil rights in its history, their claim that they have also been fighting for “health care, Social Security, worker’s rights, and women’s rights” for more than 200 years is false as well. Health care and the government’s involvement in it did not truly exist until the 1900’s. Social Security did not exist until 1935 when Franklin Roosevelt sighed it into being, and by doing so he went against the Democratic Party’s original intent to keep government small and forever changing the way the party ran. Additionally, women’s rights were not put in place until 1919. Worker’s rights are the only point they make that they could argue to have fought for 200 years.

Unions, organized to ostensibly protect the rights and interests of the group were headed by heavily democratic leaders. However, while the unions may have helped protect the rights of the workers, the eventually began to bully business owners. So while the workers were being ‘protected,’ who was protecting the business owners?

Because the DNC is ignoring their own history and choosing to wash it away and pretend it never happened, it is hypocritical for the Democrats to continually insult President Trump for stating falsehoods while they are trying to erase their own history. This is one of the main problems with the DNC, they bully and bash others for mistakes and statements that pale in comparison to the lies being told within the DNC.

Editors Note: The views of our Guest Contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Yellowhammer.

The Senate managed to put together a vote on whether or not to debate on Healthcare legislation early Tuesday. With a dramatic entrance from John McCain and Mike Pence casting the tie breaking vote, the Senate can now debate a new healthcare bill on the floor.

Alabama’s delegation wasted no time taking to social media to celebrate the vote. Senator Richard Shelby took to twitter throughout the day to show his support, calling it a “defining moment for the Republican party.” Senator Strange was also pleased with the vote, vowing “to continue to fight for the relief Alabama families deserve.”

The vote went down to the wire as some Republican holdouts, namely Rand Paul, cast their last minute votes. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and President Trump spent most of the week daring Republican senators to renege on their promise to replace Obamacare. In the end, their persistence paid off as the Healthcare bill can now move on to further debate.

Democrats still remain decidedly against the bill, while Republicans claim it will lower premiums and be a better option for the American people. At this point, it is unclear what version of the Healthcare bill senators will be debating, as every version has died in the senate. It is likely that the Leadership will make proposals and amendments that will attempt to get everyone what they want.

The United Auto Workers have recently petitioned for an election to unionize the Nissan plant in neighboring Mississippi, and Alabama is likely next their list. According to Nissan and UAW officials, the vote is scheduled for August 3 and 4. This move is significant because the overarching strategy of labor unions is to gain a foothold in one Southeastern auto plant. If they’re able to do so, it’s far more likely that the dominoes will fall, allowing them to expand their reach to other automakers in the southeast, including those here in Alabama—Mercedes, Hyundai, Honda, and Toyota.

Alabama’s Governor, Kay Ivey, does not want that to happen. As she told Yellowhammer today,

Businesses and employees have a mutually-beneficial relationship. That’s why I’m working to ensure our businesses thrive, our people succeed, and the economy grows.

As a right-to-work state, we are putting all workers on an even playing field. This gives companies confidence they can hire the best available workers regardless of affiliation.

Our common-sense approach has enabled Alabama to become a leader in both the automobile and aerospace industries and hopefully the biotech and computer science industries in the future.

Alabama business leaders concur. “We don’t need unions in Alabama, and they are not welcome. Alabama is among the least unionized states in the country, and that is a powerful economic development tool. Being a right to work state is a badge of honor. Alabama workers and employers value loyalty, and they take tremendous pride in the quality of their work and have a strong work ethic,” said William Canary, President & CEO of the Business Council of Alabama.

The hastily scheduled vote over in Mississippi is likely the result of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) “ambush election rules” that took effect in April of 2015, under the Obama administration. Under the old rules, votes were held 42 days after a petition was filed. The new “ambush” rules shortened the time between petition and vote to 24 days. This allows unions to spend months building momentum for their position before filing a petition, while those who may oppose it only have 24 days to organize their voters in response.

The so-called ambush votes are only one of the NRLB rule changes under Obama that heavily tipped the scales in favor of the labor unions. Others include:

• • Expanding the scope of employment to allow collective bargaining negotiations to be held with workers that were originally hired as contract workers, and holding employers liable for any labor violations committed against them
• • Allowing temp workers hired by a third party to be grouped into the same union agreements as company employees
• • Requiring employers to publicly disclose agreements with their consultants that have long been exempt from the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
• • Dictating how employers develop their employee handbooks as a way to regulate rules and policies that employers develop for their workers

In addition to these rule changes, the General Counsel for the NLRB under Obama published a memorandum informing union officials that they may accept electronic signatures as proof of interest required to file a unionization petition. Right-to-work advocates cite this as another biased move that makes it easier for labor unions to gain control in the country’s 28 right-to-work states.

Nevertheless, the path for unions has not been an easy one south of the Mason Dixon Line. Failed attempts at unionizing autoworkers include a botched campaign at Volkswagen AG in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This failure led the UAW to abandon its campaign at the Mercedes-Benz plant in Vance, Alabama.

Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee all have a robust auto manufacturing industry, and many cite their strong right-to-work laws as the driving force behind its thriving presence in the region. In each of these states, high-wage, high-skilled workers benefit from the presence of these foreign automakers. In South Carolina, many BMW factory workers qualify for a low-cost lease of a new BMW as an additional perk to their high-wage job in a safe, positive, and professional work environment.

Touting Mississippi’s similar economic expansion, Governor Phil Bryant said: “As a right to work state, we have assured workers the freedom from intimidation and interference in their desire to seek economic security by helping them establish not just a job, but a career.”

Despite the tangible economic benefits seen across the Southland, the unions continue to push. Recently, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, actor Danny Glover, and the NAACP have thrown their support behind the UAW campaign in Mississippi. They claim the unions will improve the quality of life for African Americans. This race-focused tactic is new, as union attempts based solely on poor work conditions and low pay have failed to gain traction in the New South, where modernized automobile plants offer highly-coveted jobs to everyone in the community, black and white alike.

Another reason this Mississippi vote is so critical is that if unions do you gain a foothold, the automakers will be less likely to expand operations at their existing U.S. locations. They know that the unionization of their facilities will impede productivity and profitability, making them more likely to move new product lines to other countries, just as Ford recently moved to China. Conversely, the absence of unions provides a strong incentive for the automakers to add new lines to existing plants, and build new plants in Alabama.

Canary agrees, stating: “Over the last two decades, many businesses that were located in heavily unionized states have moved their operations here, choosing to locate their facilities in the right-to-work Alabama due to the ability to compete in the global market place.”

Noting UAW’s obstinance and the NLRB rule changes that have made their efforts easier, many are closely monitoring the UAW’s attempts to unionize the Nissan plant in Mississippi. While the Tennessee loss temporarily slowed their momentum, the UAW has regrouped, and they seem determined to capture the South. Many speculate that a victory in Mississippi could be just the spark they need to set up shop in Alabama.

About the authors: Chris Simmons is a graduate of the University of Alabama and a law student at Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law. Larry Huff is Yellowhammer’s Executive Editor, and you can follow him on Twitter @LHYellowhammer

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In light of the recent failures of U.S. Senate Republicans to roll back President Barack Obama’s liberal policies, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL5) is calling for the upper chamber to abolish the filibuster rule.

The filibuster is a procedural rule in the Senate that allows for minority members to block or stall legislation they oppose. First used in 1837 and strengthened in 1975, a legislative filibuster can only be broken by invoking cloture, which requires 60 votes. Republican Senators, such as Rand Paul, used the tactic under the Obama Administration, and now Democrats are doing the same to stall President Donald Trump’s agenda.

“Our Republican Senate majority is killing our conservative agenda, our Republican agenda, and President Trump’s agenda. The murder weapon is the Senate filibuster rule, an archaic accident of history created during the days of horse and buggy, and slavery,” Rep. Brooks said on the House floor this morning.

Over the past several years, Democrats and Republicans have changed the rules to limit when the filibuster can be used. Such a tactic — which only requires a simple rather than a super majority — has been dubbed “the Nuclear Option.”

On November 21, 2013, Democrats instituted a rule change lowering the requirement for cloture to only 51 votes for all debates on executive and judicial nominees (excluding Supreme Court nominees). During the recent struggle to confirm Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Republicans struck back by applying the same rule to Supreme Court nominees. The traditional filibuster is still in place for debates over Senate legislation.

Brooks, who wants to be the latest Alabamian to represent the state in the Senate, believes the historical scale has always tipped in the Democrats’ favor.

“In the past 90 years, Republicans have not had a single filibuster-proof Senate while Democrats enjoyed filibuster-proof senates in the 1930s, the 1960s, and in 2009,” he said. “In those years, Democrats passed ObamaCare and forced Great Society welfare programs on us that busted our budgets, destroyed the work ethic, broke up American families, and threaten America with a national insolvency.”

To the North Alabama Representative, the issue is a timely one instrumental to ensuring the passage of Trump’s agenda. Like Brooks, Trump is a strong opponent of the filibuster, and he has taken to Twitter to express his frustration.

either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. Our country needs a good “shutdown” in September to fix mess!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 2, 2017

The U.S. Senate should switch to 51 votes, immediately, and get Healthcare and TAX CUTS approved, fast and easy. Dems would do it, no doubt!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 30, 2017

“Now is not the time to play procedural games,” Brooks said. “I agree with President Trump. Senate: end the filibuster!”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Trump’s Secretary of Agriculture is rolling back Obama-era regulations on school lunches that were costly for districts and unpopular with students. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue announced the changes Monday, stating that the federal government will halt sodium reduction requirements for the next three years and allow schools to serve non-whole grain products.

Schools struggling with the cost of the Obama whole-grain regulations will be allowed to be exempted by their state in the upcoming 2017-2018 school year.

Perdue emphasized that the program may have been well intentioned, but that a better long-term plan was needed. Highly unpopular to students, he noted the entire program was counterproductive. “This announcement is the result of years of feedback from students, schools, and food service experts about the challenges they are facing in meeting the final regulations for school meals,” Perdue said in USDA statement. “If kids aren’t eating the food, and it’s ending up in the trash, they aren’t getting any nutrition – thus undermining the intent of the program.”

The regulations rolled back by the Trump Administration were originally authorized under the Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was part of First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign to reduce childhood obesity. It gave the USDA the authority to set nutritional standards for all foods sold in schools, including vending machines, “a la carte” lunch lines, and school stores. The USDA has since set limits on the amount of fat, calories, sugar, and sodium in school foods. The Act also increased the number of children eligible for free and subsidized lunches.

Liberals have praised the program, but local school districts have denounced the cost while students have complained about the terrible quality. Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL4) witnessed the program’s issues first-hand and attempted to resist it while Obama was in the White House.

RELATED: Aderholt slams Michelle Obama’s gross, expensive school lunch program that is rolling back in Alabama

“I have been in the school lunchroom, I have sat down with the individuals responsible for preparing student meals, and I have sat down with the students about this,” he explained. “As well-intended as the people in Washington believe themselves to be, the reality is that from a practical standpoint these regulations are just plain not working out in some individual school districts.”

President Trump recently nominated Neal Gorsuch for the U.S. Supreme Court, but despite his qualifications, his nomination faces an increasingly contentious road to confirmation.

For starters, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee secured a one-week delay to vote on sending his confirmation to the Senate floor. That committee vote will now happen on April 3rd and the subsequent battle on the Senate floor is expected to unfold shortly thereafter.

A simple majority can confirm a Supreme Court nominee, so the path forward seems easy enough. There are 52 Senate Republicans, all of whom will presumably vote to confirm Gorsuch. Therefore, even if all 48 of the remaining Senators (46 Democrats and 2 Independents) vote against the confirmation, the Republicans still have a simple majority. However, Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York says not so fast. He vows to filibuster Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation. Because it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster, Republicans will have a tougher mountain to climb if Schumer makes good on his threats.

It’s important to note, however, that there’s never been a successful filibuster of a U.S. Supreme Court nominee, and Huntsville, Alabama native Caroline Aderholt doesn’t think this will be the first. In fact, Aderholt, Chief of Staff for Concerned Women for America, isn’t convinced the filibuster will even happen. “I think it’s likely the Democrats are posturing to appease their base, but when it comes down to it, I’d be a surprised if they actually follow through,” she said. And as she pointed out, Democrats like Patrick Leahy from Vermont are already signaling hesitancy on the filibuster. As Leahy told the Vermont Digger, while he won’t support the Gorsuch nomination he’s “not inclined to filibuster.”

Whatever hand the Democrats ultimately play, there’s no shortage of hard feelings surrounding Gorsuch’s nomination, as Aderholt’s colleague Penny Young Nance was reminded last week. After attending the highly intense confirmation hearing and leading a rally supporting Judge Gorsuch, Nance returned to her car and experienced a close-call blowout a few minutes later. After examining her vehicle, Arlington, VA police told Nance someone had inserted over 10 screws in her tires, which could’ve easily caused a fatal crash at freeway speeds (the incident is now under investigation).

Such acts of hostility aside, CWA remains resolute in its support of Judge Gorsuch. “We’ll watch this debate each step of the way and we’re poised to activate the 500,000 women in our organization to engage their Senators on this issue, including any Republicans who may be hesitant to do what it takes to confirm Gorsuch,” Aderholt said.

That “doing what it takes” if the Democrats do filibuster is likely the so-called “nuclear option.” The requirement that it takes 60 votes to override a filibuster is only a Senate precedent, and while such precedents matter, it isn’t a Senate rule, much less a Constitutional mandate. So the Republicans can override it. Moreover, this same “nuclear option” was set in motion by the Democrats back in 2013, so one could argue they opened the door to this measure that they so vehemently oppose.

Regardless of what plays out on the Senate floor, Alabama’s Senior U.S. Senator, Richard Shelby, is ready to confirm Judge Gorsuch. As the popular Senator told Yellowhammer:

We absolutely cannot back down. Judge Gorsuch is highly qualified, well respected and committed to defending our Constitution. If the Democrats are determined to obstruct his nomination, then I believe we should use every tool available to confirm Judge Gorsuch. This is too important to the American people.

Caroline Aderholt agrees, and along with the half-million women belonging to her organization, she’s standing with Senator Shelby to support the Gorsuch nomination until he’s confirmed as the 113th Supreme Court Justice of the United States.

The chair of the Alabama Democrats has experienced a rocky few years overseeing the floundering state party. Amid reports of infighting and skirmishes, a local news team has revealed that Nancy Worley owes court fees dating back to 2012.

According to WAAY, her critics say “she’s acting as though she’s above the law.” The story didn’t come to the station’s attention until a current member of the party asked for an investigation into the fines.

Montgomery County Court documents show that Worley owes $1345, which were incurred after she was charged with a misdemeanor five years ago.

She would not immediately agree to pay the outstanding fees.

“I am unaware of any Court charges which I owe in Montgomery, Alabama, since I have never received a notice of any charges,” Worley said in a statement. “I have called one of my attorneys and he does not recall receiving a notice of these charges either. The other attorney is deceased. I have also called the Clerk’s Office and she plans to investigate what, if anything, that I owe. I shall be glad to pay anything I owe if I receive a bill with details.”

Former Alabama House Minority Leader Craig Ford (D- Gadsden) is among those who doubt Worley’s side of the story.

“I think her being in the position she’s in, she knows,” Rep. Ford insisted.

Rep. Ford, a potential gubernatorial candidate in 2018, urged Worley to step down in October.

“To put it bluntly, the Alabama Democratic Party is on life support, and the only hope we have of turning our situation around is if we make immediate and significant changes, including changes in leadership,” he wrote at the time.

When Worley took over in 2013, the Democratic Party was broke and facing eviction from their Montgomery headquarters. They were duly labeled as one of the “most dysfunctional” state parties in the U.S. by Roll Call magazine. There hasn’t been much improvement since then. A February meeting of the Democratic Executive Committee saw several public clashes of power and loads of blame shifting as party members attempted to grasp control of the Democrats’ future.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Following the emerging allegations that Jeff Sessions improperly tied himself to Russian authorities during the 2016 presidential race, President Donald J. Trump is strongly standing by his Attorney General.

RELATED: Sessions recuses himself from Russia probe

“Jeff Sessions is an honest man. He did not say anything wrong. He could have stated his response more accurately, but it was clearly not intentional,” Trump said in a statement. “This who narrative is a way of saving face for the Democrats losing an election that everyone thought they were supposed to win. The Democrats are overplaying their hand. They lost the election, and now they have lost their grip on reality. The real story is all of the illegal leaks and other information. It is a total witch hunt!”

It was revealed Wednesday that Sessions, while serving as a Senator, held a meeting in his office with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. While some have implied the new information meant that Sessions wasn’t forthcoming about speaking with the foreign diplomat, he adamantly stated that he was fully honest during the course of his confirmation hearings, and believed Sen. Franken was referring to ongoing meetings.

According to Sessions, his discussion with Kislyak was an independent event, and two senior staffers were present during the meeting. Topics of discussion included the Ukraine and terrorism; not the election.

RELATED: Alabama Republicans react to Sessions hysteria

In a press conference yesterday, Sessions formally announced that he is recusing himself from from current or future investigations regarding the Trump campaign. “I think I should not be involved in an investigation of a campaign I had a role in,” he said.

According to a new poll from McLaughlin & Associates, a whopping 84 percent of Alabama voters support a constitutional amendment to institute term limits for members of congress. Currently, representatives and senators can serve as long as they are continually reelected.

The survey revealed that 89 percent of Alabama Republican voters and 79 percent of state Democrats are in favor of term limits. It also showed that 81 percent of those questioned wanted their state representative to vote in favor of such a measure, while only 3 percent wanted it to be opposed.

“The public’s message is clear: it’s time for term limits on Congress,” said. Nick Tomboulides, Director of U.S. Term Limits. “They are overwhelmingly in favor of this common-sense reform.”

Results were calculated by surveying 400 likely general election voters registered in Alabama. The poll was conducted in March of 2016, and the process consisted of phone interviews conducted by researchers at McLaughlin.

Putting term limits on Congress would require a constitutional amendment because no such restriction exists in Article II. Article V of the U.S. Constitution outlines the amendment process, which can be done in one of two ways. The language of an Amendment can be drafted by either a convention of the states – called for by two-thirds of such – or by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress. The amendment must then be approved by three-fourths of the states, which can be done by the state legislatures or special state ratifying conventions.

Originally, the Constitution did not contain term limits for the president, either. Every president prior to Franklin D. Roosevelt had honored the tradition established by George Washington of stepping aside after a second term. In 1951, presidential term limits where officially enshrined into the law with the Twenty-Second Amendment.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A new bill has been pre-filed in the Alabama House of Representatives to institute a minimum wage of $10 per hour. State Rep. Juandalynn Givan (D-Birmingham) wants to raise Alabama’s minimum wage from the federally mandated floor of $7.25 to a higher hourly rate because “we have people who are barely making ends meet in the state of Alabama.”

“It’s just time and it’s a uniform minimum wage act so it’s not just for one municipality versus another, it’s for the entire state of Alabama,” Givan told WSFA.

If passed, the law would apply to all hourly workers. It also includes a provision for tipped employees, mandating that they also receive $10 per hour, with 30 percent of the total coming from wages.

Several states across the country have already forced employers to pay more, with California and New York demanding wages as high as $15 per hour. While well intentioned, economists have found evidence that minimum wage laws have little overall effect on poverty rates, and in some cases, the laws have adverse effects on the poor.

In a 2007 peer-reviewed study conducted by economics professors from Cornell University and San Diego State University, researchers examined U.S. Census data from 1979 to 2003 to estimate the effects of minimum wage increases on state poverty rates. According to one of designer of the study, they “found no evidence that minimum wage increases were effective at reducing overall poverty rates or poverty rates among workers.”

Similar studies from The Cato Institute show that minimum wages create serious disincentives for employers to eliminate and replace low-skilled labor. In reality, minimum wages help seal the economic doom of the very people they are intended to protect. As the Nobel-Prize winning economist Milton Friedman once said, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

Many major chains such as McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and Panera Bread, have heavily invested in kiosks that will replace hourly workers. Business Insider recently chronicled the shift from man to machine, and noted that executives are explicit as to their motivation. “If you’re making labor more expensive, and automation less expensive — this is not rocket science,” said Andy Puzder, the CEO of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s.

Alabama’s legislative session begins today. With solid Republican majorities in both houses, and a Republican governor, the bill will likely be dead on arrival.

(h/t WSFA)