Gun control and arming teachers bills dead for session
Gun control proposals failed in the Alabama Legislature after most Republican committee members skipped out on Wednesday debate on the bills, including a proposal to raise the age to buy an AR-15 or similar rifle. The House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee canceled a scheduled meeting after only four members, mostly Democrats, attended. The committee has 11 members. The lack of action likely kills the bills for the session. The committee inaction came a day after the House of Representatives failed to bring a Republican bill to arm teachers up for vote, also signaling the demise of that proposal. Rep. Juandalynn Givan, a Birmingham Democrat, said the lack of attendance for the gun control debate shows that Alabama lawmakers are not serious about discussing substantive changes to gun laws. “Vote it up or vote it down. Don’t be cowards. …. You can’t show up at the meeting to at least have a conversation?” Givan said. Givan referenced how students walked out of high schools across the country last week in national protests against gun violence. “Our kids walked out of school last week to take a stand, and we can’t come to a meeting to take a vote. What does that say about the leadership in the state of Alabama?” Givan’s bill would have raised the age to buy a rifle from 18 to 21. At least two legislatures, including Florida’s, approved similar measures after last month’s shooting at a Florida high school that claimed 17 lives. The committee was also scheduled to debate two other gun control bills by Democrats. One would allow judges to temporarily take firearms from people deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. Another was a long-shot proposal to ban sales of AR-15′s and similar weapons. The separate Republican proposal to arm teachers — another idea introduced in the wake of the Florida shooting __ also stalled in the legislative session expected to wrap up next week. The House of Representatives adjourned Tuesday without debating a bill by Republican Rep. Will Ainsworth of Guntersville that would allow designated teachers and school administrators, to carry, or access, firearms in school after undergoing training. Republican lawmakers appeared divided over the proposal that got pushback from some educators and groups such as Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. It would have also likely faced a filibuster by Democrats. House Speaker Mac McCutcheon, in a statement signaling the bills demise, said that: “I can offer a personal guarantee that this issue will be revisited when the Legislature convenes its next session.” Ainsworth said Wednesday that he believed he had the votes to narrowly clear a procedural hurdle and pass the legislation, but it faced time constraints and an expected filibuster. Ainsworth said many schools cannot afford to keep an armed law enforcement officer, known as a school resource officer, on campus. He said he and other lawmakers will sign a petition urging Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey to call a special session this summer on school safety. “We’ve got over 500 schools in our state that don’t have any armed protection. In my opinion, that is an urgent need that needs to be addressed,” Ainsworth said. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Ask the candidates: Gubernatorial responses on cabinet picks
This is the second installation in a series we will be doing for gubernatorial candidates and those running for lieutenant governor. The first question was about transparency and their public schedule. You can read their responses here. Every candidate answered the first question, but in this weeks edition we are missing responses from Governor Kay Ivey’s campaign and Mayor Tommy Battle. We will update the post if they come in. For some insight into Ivey’s current cabinet you can find information here. Here is the question as posed and the candidate’s responses: As Governor what can we expect to see with regard to your cabinet picks? Do you believe in shaking up the place with fresh ideas and perspectives or leaving in place those who came before you who may have institutional experience? What qualities and qualifications will you be looking for in your leaders? Are their any specific agencies or agency agendas that you feel will be critical to the execution of your main priorities, if so which one(s) and how? Republican candidate Scott Dawson: My cabinet members will be of one mind: to move Alabama forward. And to do that we won’t be trying the same things Alabama has tried for forty years. Remember the Ritz-Carlton principle? When we take over a hotel we keep the employees but remove the managers. Why? Because if the managers were doing their job, we would not have been invited in. I’m clearly the only outsider in this race. If the people of Alabama choose to send me to Montgomery it will be a clear message that they are ready for a new team with fresh leadership to bring the drastic changes that Montgomery needs. The operations of every agency and every cabinet member affect the everyday lives of Alabamians and there will be no sacred cows when it comes to evaluating agencies and ensuring that they are focused on their missions. In order to make this state the best it can be for the people, we can’t have cabinet members who are tied to special interests or unwilling to try new ideas. My cabinet members will be devoted to the people’s business and unfettered by special interests. They will be servant-leaders who lead with wise collaboration and the highest standards of integrity in order to regain the trust of of the people and move Alabama into a prosperous future. Democratic candidate Sue Bell Cobb: I will seek input from stakeholders inside and outside the agencies to ensure we have the best administrators possible. First and foremost, it is critical that we have civil servants who are ethical and beyond reproach so that we can rebuild trust in our institutions. Secondly, I will be looking for leaders who put the people of Alabama first while doing their duties as efficiently and effectively as possible so as to be good stewards of taxpayer resources. If current departmental leaders are doing a good job, I do not believe in removing them simply because they were appointed by another governor. Mayor of Tuscaloosa Walt Maddox via Chip Hill, Communications Director (Democratic candidate): As Mayor of Tuscaloosa, Walt Maddox has made great staffing decisions that helped Tuscaloosa become one of the best run cities in the state and propelled Walt to national recognition as one of the country’s best Mayors. As Governor, he will continue to make it a priority that his staff and cabinet reflect the diversity and strength of our state. Those he chooses for key positions will be the most qualified and ethical women and men who are committed to achieving the highest standards of excellence. State Sen. Bill Hightower via Matt Beynon, Senior Communications Strategist (Republican candidate): As Governor, Bill Hightower’s cabinet will be a reflection of his values and agenda for the state. Bill Hightower will be committed to reforming Alabama’s antiquated tax code, eliminating wastefull earmarks, and overhauling the way state government operates. His goal is to identify quality people for his cabinet, who will make Alabama proud, enhancing the reputation of our state, while demanding exceptional performance of them. The goal is not to merely “shake up the place”, but to deliver a multi-decade foundation for the future which will propel Alabama to a higher growth rate enabling stronger schools, a broader economy, and a superb quality of life. Institutional knowledge is important, but if its based upon the career-politician good-ole-boy network, and not true performance, it will get in the way of delivering what Alabamian’s deserves. People expect performance and Bill Hightower intends to deliver it. *Responses are in the order in which they were received.
Allegations from women in his past shadow Donald Trump
The chorus of women from President Donald Trump’s past is getting louder. Accusations about Trump’s past sexual exploits bubbled up on three fronts Tuesday, with two women pressing court cases and a porn actress publicly needling the president. Trump has so far weathered the rising #MeToo movement, but the latest developments served as a fresh reminder about the shadow thrown by questions about the thrice-married businessman’s past. In short order on Tuesday: —A former Playboy model who claims she had an affair with Trump in 2006 filed a lawsuit in California seeking to invalidate a confidentiality agreement so she can discuss her alleged relationship. —A New York City judge ruled that a defamation lawsuit by a former contestant on “The Apprentice” can move forward while Trump is in office. She has accused Trump of unwanted sexual contact. —Porn actress Stormy Daniels and her lawyer continued their media campaign against Trump as she seeks to invalidate a nondisclosure agreement she signed days before the 2016 presidential election so she can discuss their relationship. “People DO care that he lied about it, had me bullied, broke laws to cover it up, etc.,” Daniels tweeted. Trump has consistently denied accusations from all three women. He has previously called his accusers “liars” and has deemed such reports “made up stuff.” But it was another distraction for a White House already contending with a rash of high-level departures and a stalled legislative agenda. But the women aren’t going away. The former Playboy model, Karen McDougal, is set to do an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN Thursday. And Daniels — whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford — has taped an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” expected to air soon. McDougal’s attorney appeared on NBC on Wednesday morning. “Karen McDougal had a sexual relationship with Donald Trump for 10 months,” said Peter Stris. “It was a romantic relationship. They were together very often.” Some longtime allies questioned whether the accusations would have much impact. More than a dozen women came forward during the 2016 campaign to say that Trump had harassed them or worse, many speaking out in the wake of the “Access Hollywood” tape in which he was heard bragging about groping women. Some of them spoke out again as the #MeToo movement took off. “I think we learned through the campaign something we never thought was true. People were able to bifurcate the person from the policies,” said former campaign adviser Barry Bennett. “They were willing to overlook the personal behavior or the words on tape.” In the case of the Playboy model, Karen McDougal filed suit Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court against American Media Inc., the company that owns the supermarket tabloid National Enquirer. It had paid her $150,000 during the 2016 presidential election. The lawsuit alleges that McDougal was paid for the rights to her story of an affair, but the story never ran. It also alleges that Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, was secretly involved in her discussions with American Media. McDougal’s lawsuit was filed on the same day a New York judge sided with Summer Zervos, a 2006 “Apprentice” contestant. She sued Trump after he dismissed as “fabricated” and “made-up” her claims of misconduct at a hotel in Beverly Hills, California, in 2007. Her lawsuit sought an apology and at least $2,914. In saying the suit can go forward, Judge Jennifer Schecter wrote, “No one is above the law.” Trump’s lawyers had argued the Constitution immunized him from being sued in state court while he’s president and had said the case should at least be delayed until he’s out of office. They said their position was supported by a long line of Supreme Court cases requiring courts to show deference to the president and his schedule. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that a sitting president was not immune from civil litigation on something that happened before taking office and was unrelated to the office. The ruling came after Paula Jones filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton. That case was dismissed by a judge, but was appealed. The appeal was still pending when Clinton agreed to pay $850,000 to Jones to settle the case. He did not admit wrongdoing. Also Tuesday, an attorney for Daniels — her real name is Stephanie Clifford — tweeted what he described as a 2011 photo of Clifford taking a lie detector test during which she addressed her relationship with Trump. Lawyer Michael Avenatti added the hash tags #searchforthetruth, #whosenext? and #buckle-up. Daniels and McDougal have offered strikingly similar stories about their alleged relationships with Trump. Both women claim to have had sexual encounters with him in Lake Tahoe, Nevada, in 2006. McDougal, who was the 1998 Playboy Playmate of the Year, said Trump also brought her to his private bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel. In a time of rising concern about the treatment of women, the president has repeatedly offered sympathy for men accused of misconduct. After White House aide Rob Porter was pushed out over public reports that two ex-wives had accused him of abuse, Trump praised Porter and then appeared to cast doubt on the ex-wives’ allegations. The president last year backed Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, who was accused of pursuing romantic relationships with teenage girls when he was in his 30s, saying that Moore “totally denies it.” Porter’s exit put White House leadership under a harsh spotlight, raising questions about the security clearance process, and prompting calls for the president to state his support for victims of domestic violence. A week later, Trump declared he was “totally opposed to domestic violence.” Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Senators press Trump officials on safeguarding 2018 ballots
With the 2018 elections already underway, senators chided the current and former secretaries of Homeland Security on Wednesday for not more strongly warning the American public about past Russian intrusions in state election systems and for a lack of urgency to protect balloting this year. Kirstjen Nielsen, President Donald Trump’s secretary of Homeland Security, testified alongside Jeh Johnson, secretary under former President Barack Obama, as the Senate intelligence committee launched an effort to protect the country’s election security after Russian agents targeted election systems in 21 states ahead of the 2016 general election. There’s no evidence that any hack in the November 2016 election affected election results, but the attempts rattled state election officials and prompted the federal government and states to examine the way votes are counted. Senators on the panel have criticized both administrations for not moving quickly enough to stem the Russian threat, and continued to do so at the hearing. Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican, critiqued Nielsen’s opening statement, which described a series of efforts the department had already announced. “I hear no sense of urgency to really get on top of this issue,” Collins said, noting that 2018 elections are already underway. Collins noted that many state election officials have remained without security clearances, making it harder for the department to share information with them. To speed up communications and intelligence sharing, the department has been working to grant security clearances to up to three election officials in each state. Nielsen said Wednesday that just 20 of those officials have been granted full clearances. “We are doing our best to speed up the process,” Nielsen said, adding that the department has a policy in place to provide information on immediate threats to state and local election officials even if clearances have yet to be granted. Communication and intelligence sharing by the federal government has been a key concern among state and local election officials. Those officials complained that it took the federal government nearly a year to inform them whether their states had been targeted by Russian hackers. Collins, who has introduced legislation with other members of the committee to improve election cybersecurity, also pressed Johnson, asking if he should have issued stronger warnings in 2016 as it became clear that Russians were trying to intrude into the systems. Johnson defended the way he alerted state and local election officials, noting that in the late summer and fall of 2016 he was repeatedly issuing public warnings for those officials to get cybersecurity assistance from the department. “We were beating the drum pretty hard,” Johnson said. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, also lambasted the Obama administration’s response, saying it was not sufficient to warn the public “in any way, shape or form.” Before leaving office, the Obama administration designated the nation’s election systems as “critical infrastructure,” on par with the electrical grid and water supply. That decision prompted alarm among state election officials, who expressed concern the federal government was trying to take over elections that have long been the jurisdiction of state and local governments. Johnson said he had considered the move earlier, but had backed off because of resistance to states. Johnson also testified that during the 2016 election he contacted The Associated Press because he was worried about the possibility the news cooperative’s election results could be hacked. He said he called AP’s CEO Gary Pruitt about his concerns and came away satisfied that the company was taking appropriate precautions as it counted votes and analyzed results. The hearing follows a Tuesday news conference in which committee members from both parties said government efforts to protect state and local elections from Russian cyberattacks haven’t gone far enough. Top U.S. intelligence officials have said they’ve seen indications Russian agents are preparing a new round of election interference this year. Senators warned that it could be worse the next time around. “What it looks like is a test,” said Maine Sen. Angus King of the 2016 hacking attempts. The committee is recommending that states make sure voting machines have paper audit trails and aren’t capable of being connected to the internet. Senators also are pushing for better communication among the various U.S. intelligence agencies and federal, state and local governments. Senators are also urging state and local election officials to take advantage Homeland Security Department resources, such as comprehensive risk assessments and remote cyberscanning of their networks to spot vulnerabilities. As of last month, just 14 states had requested risk assessments and 30 had asked for remote cyberscans of their networks, according to Homeland Security officials. But even that was straining resources, since many of those risk assessments have not been completed. The committee’s recommendations preview an election security report expected to be released in full in the coming weeks. It is the first of four reports planned as part of the panel’s wide-ranging investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The recommendations come as Congress is eyeing $380 million in state grants for election security in a wide-ranging spending bill expected to be unveiled as soon as Wednesday. The bill also contains $307 million for the FBI to go after Russian cyberattacks. The top Democrat on the intelligence panel, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, has said he thinks the nation’s election security needs to be more robust, especially since Trump has not addressed the matter as an urgent problem. “It’s pretty amazing to me we’ve had the director of the FBI, the director of national intelligence and the head of the NSA say in public testimony within the last month that they’ve received no direction from the White House to make election security a priority,” Warner said. Nielsen defended Trump at the hearing, saying, “the line he is drawing is that no votes were changed. That doesn’t mean there’s not a threat.” She added: “We think the threat remains high.” Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Background check measure on guns included in spending bill
A measure strengthening the federal background check system for gun purchases will be included in the $1.3 trillion government spending bill being negotiated by congressional leaders, aides said Wednesday. The “Fix NICS” measure would provide funding for states to comply with the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check system and penalize federal agencies that don’t comply. The bipartisan measure was approved in the House, but stalled in the Senate amid concerns by some Republicans about restricting gun rights without due process and complaints by Democrats that it does not go far enough to address gun violence. The giant spending bill also includes money to improve school safety as Congress struggles to respond to the deadly assault on a Florida high school and other shootings. The money will be used to train school officials and law enforcement officers how to identify signs of potential violence and intervene early, install metal detectors and take other steps to “harden” schools to prevent violence. The House approved the STOP School Violence Act earlier this month, but the measure has not been taken up in the Senate. Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said she and other gun-control advocates would be disappointed if Fix NICS represents the strongest action Congress takes this year on guns. “It’s a tiny, baby step forward,” Brown said Wednesday in a conference call with reporters. “We think it’s not far enough.” The Brady campaign has urged a three-point plan that includes expansion of background checks to cover gun purchases at gun shows and on the internet; banning new assault weapons and high-capacity magazines; and enabling court-issued restraining orders against people deemed a threat to themselves or others. The National Rifle Association backs Fix NICS as a way to add transparency and accountability to the background check system, but has pushed harder for a separate bill allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons across state lines. Lawmakers also were discussing a provision that would allow the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to do research on gun safety. A law adopted in the 1990′s blocks such research and prohibits the CDC from engaging in advocacy on issues related to guns. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Can we agree to ban the term “Fake News”?
President Donald Trump has shaken up a lot norms in the political world. Some things he’s introduced to the Office of President for the better, like communicating directly to the American people through his twitter account, some for the worse like what he chooses to communicate through his twitter. One of the Trumpisms from the blessing/curse that is his twitter account that I truly wish would go away is the term “fake news.” When Trump says “fake news” sometimes he’s actually talking about news coverage that rely on nameless sources and bad information, or biased reporters and/or media outlets. Fake news is a fine enough term to describe news stories whose entire premise contradicted by actual evidence or facts or as is the case for many stories Trump disputes is based on blind sources peddling what can best be described as White House or administration gossip and back-stabbing. Unfortunately, Trump has digressed — he’s gone from calling out actual fake news stories to simply using the term to refer to any news he doesn’t like or that isn’t favorable to him. What’s worse, now others are doing it too. From every day media consumers to communications professionals and their staffs, the term has taken on a life of its own. For those of us in the press and media, Trump’s “fake news” rallying cry has become the catch-phrase for people from both sides of the aisle when they don’t like what a news story is saying. Don’t agree with the facts as described by a news story or journalist no matter how balanced the reporting? Just decry it as “fake news.” We at Alabama Today have been dealing with a “fake news story” just this morning. There are few things as infuriating as trying to explain to the subject of a piece, or their staff for that matter, that their dislike of the facts does not render the news fake. Politicians are human.They make mistakes and sometimes what they do or say is misinterpreted. Then again, sometimes what they do or say is exactly how they meant it and they just don’t like that someone’s writing a story about it. I’ve seen it all. Moreover, I’ve lived it from the other side as a communications professional as well. Let’s not parse words when someone is calling a story or an outlet “fake news.” Their intent to discredit the story. Sometimes it’s an effort to discredit the people behind it, sometimes it’s an effort to discredit those who wrote it, but all in all it’s generally a way of deflection. And a lazy one at that. While there are reporters whose bias is so clear that their reporting is generally skewed one way or another, that’s certainly not every reporter and every outlet. Nor is it anyone on the Alabama Today team. I personally chuckle a little when someone says an editorial I wrote is “fake news.” Editorials are opinion pieces. How can you say my opinion is fake? You’re not discrediting me at that point, you’re showing an ignorance to the fact that news outlets provide two types of content: news and editorial. There is a difference between the two. My editorial isn’t fake news just because you don’t like it. Screaming “fake news” — and I’m seeing the left, and the right, do it these days — is an intellectually dishonest and lazy cop-out. Rather than saying something is “fake news,” be specific about your objections and voice those in a mature way. That goes for any subjects of so-called “fake news,” as well as readers. I found myself explaining to someone today that a media outlet’s job is to report relevant and timely facts (yes, facts, not opinion), and then allow the reader decide what to make of those facts. We need to do better job of this as a society. We need to do better as political and communications professionals and stop trying to vilify those who are putting information in the hands of readers, listeners or watchers, or whatever medium people are getting their news through, and allow them decide what they think on their own. Let’s reserve screaming “fake news” for stories about Big Foot and Elvis sightings.
Doug Jones uses first floor speech to urge colleagues to take on gun violence
Alabama Sen. Doug Jones took to the Senate floor on Wednesday to give his first floor speech since being sworn in to the U.S. Senate in January. During the speech, Jones called on his colleagues to take up the issue of gun violence. “Today, I gave my first floor speech on an issue that has divided so many Americans, and is a complicated one for me, too. But as leaders, we have to reject the “us versus them” mentality. At the end of the day, we’re all Americans who are united by a bond of shared values and love of country. Let’s work together to find common ground where it exists, and begin to make our country a safer place,” Jones posted on Facebook. Watch Jones’ speech below:
Walt Maddox releases School Safety Plan
With school safety on the forefront of everyone’s minds; Walt Maddox released his school safety plan that he would implement if elected Governor on Wednesday. “Our children deserve a bright and safe future,” Maddox said on his campaign website. “There is no higher priority for government, for society, than ensuring that our children are protected.” Legislative officials are under pressure to make a decision regarding school safety given last week’s national school walkout meant to honor the 17 victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting Parkland, Fla. In his release, Maddox listed five school safety strategies that he will instill if elected Governor of Alabama: School hardening Training school security officers and staff Restrictions on guns Early identification of potential attacker Support gun control Maddox will face former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, along with Christopher Countryman, James Fields, Doug Smith and Anthony White in the June 5 Democratic primary. The winner will go on to face the Republican nominee in the general election, to be selected among: Gov. Kay Ivey, Tommy Battle, Bill Hightower, Scott Dawson, or Michael McAllister. Read Maddox’s full school safety plan below: 1. School Hardening Our schools were built with open doors and were never constructed with the level of security in mind that we now must demand. Our schools have become soft targets for those who want to harm our children and our way of life. All future schools must be designed and built with security as a central focus. In addition to the physical improvements, every Alabama school must be protected by a trained and certified law enforcement professional (School Security Officers). 2. Training school security officers and staff School Security officers will be highly trained to work with in a school environment. There will also be required active shooter and other school safety training for local law enforcement, staff and administrators. Planning and integration of responses are vital in preventing these incidences or saving lives. 3. Restrictions on guns No gun will ever be allowed on a school premise at any time except for the trained school security officers. 4. Early identification of potential attacker Protocols will be in place to identify people who are prone to violence in an effort to prevent any harm. This includes the integration of the Department of Mental Health, Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, and local law enforcement and school systems. 5. Support gun control We will fully support rational gun control efforts to ensure those that are mentally unstable do not get guns. Together, we can secure our schools, make our children safe, and protect the future by allowing our students to focus on their reason for being there – to improve their minds, expand their knowledge, and prepare them to be the leaders of tomorrow.
Mike Rogers takes hard stand against “extremist liberal groups” false narrative
Alabama 3rd District U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers is under fire from what he describes as “extremist liberal groups” for a comment he made during a Homeland Security Committee meeting on disaster preparedness last Thursday. But the Congressman says his comment is being taken out of context in an effort to “take an innocent conversation and try to turn it into something it was not.” Following Puerto Rican Congressional Delegate, Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, Rogers began his questioning by stating, “It’s refreshing to finally have a witness who doesn’t have an accent,” directed to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator Brock Long. Latino Rebels, a blog self described by their founder Julio Ricardo Varela during an NPR interview as “independent and a little bit alternative,” took to Twitter asserting that Rogers was referring to the “accents” of Puerto Rican individuals testifying on hurricane preparedness following the incredibly destructive Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, which struck the island in the fall of 2017. “Why is @RepMikeRogersAL saying the following, “It’s refreshing to finally have a witness that doesn’t have an accent before this committee,” right after @RepJenniffer of #PuertoRico speaks. And Rogers has a F-ING ACCENT! #NoMames” tweeted news site Latino Rebels. Why is @RepMikeRogersAL saying the following, “It’s refreshing to finally have a witness that doesn’t have an accent before this committee,” right after @RepJenniffer of #PuertoRico speaks. And Rogers has a F-ING ACCENT! #NoMames pic.twitter.com/3LfCzdLPuh — Latino Rebels (@latinorebels) March 20, 2018 But Rogers says that’s not what he was doing. He explained the statement was a joke being made to Long, who formerly served as the Alabama EMA Director. “The witness at the hearing, FEMA Administrator Brock Long, was previously EMA Director in the State of Alabama. I have known Brock a long time in Alabama and actually had breakfast with him and my colleagues before the Homeland Security Full Committee hearing last week. My opening remarks directed at Brock Long were, ‘Mr. Long, it is refreshing to have a witness without an accent.’ It is crystal clear that it was a joke directed at Brock because he and I both have similar accents from the South. A joke that we are the ones that don’t have an accent and everyone else does,” Rogers explained. Rogers said he considers the accusations that his remarks were meant as anything but a joke, “fake news” being pushed by “radical liberal groups.” “Fake news is what this all boils down to,” Rogers continued. “Extremist liberal groups like Latino Rebels, who claim to ‘cause trouble’, take an innocent conversation and try turn it into something it was not… It is disgusting that these radical liberal groups are pushing around lies that just foment hatred and further divide our country. “Even Congresswoman Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon (R-PR) knew it was a joke directed at Brock and she has even said so herself,” added Rogers. “What @RepMikeRogersAL was clearly referring to was @FEMA_Brock ’s enunciation, which like https://Rep.Rogers ’, is considered by many people to be a Southern drawl. It was a light-hearted bit of humor and I appreciated it. Rep. Rogers was not being negative about any accent,” she tweeted back to Latino Rebels on Tuesday. What @RepMikeRogersAL was clearly referring to was @FEMA_Brock ’s enunciation, which like https://t.co/Y0I9RDTh5G’, is considered by many people to be a Southern drawl. It was a light-hearted bit of humor and I appreciated it. Rep. Rogers was not being negative about any accent — Jenniffer González (@RepJenniffer) March 20, 2018 But not everyone sees the comment the same way as Gonzalez-Colon. Hoping to win her Party’s nomination and unseat Rogers in November, former Miss America Mallory Hagan calls the comment “bigoted.” “It’s time to expect more from our leaders,” Hagan said in an email to her supporters. “We’ve had enough partisan divisiveness and hatred — we need Representatives who respect and are willing to work with all people for solutions to our common problems. It’s time for this 16-year incumbent to go.” Before Rogers released his statement adding what he feels is clarifying context to his remarks, several Alabamians took to social media to react to the video: John Hammontree (via Facebook): Let he who is without accent, cast the first stone. Pam Franklin (via Facebook): It would be refreshing to have someone else represent your district from our state, Mike. Jennifer Moore (via Facebook): I would like to be able to go one day without being embarrassed of my state. kunderthunt (via Reddit) You can hear the “I let my racism slip out oops” pause Watch the video clip below: <span data-mce-type=”bookmark” style=”display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;” class=”mce_SELRES_start”></span>
Jefferson County Commission plans to clean up county, demolish dilapidated houses
The Jefferson County Commission is making plans to clean up the county and demolish dilapidated houses. According to Birmingham Watch, at the commission meeting last Thursday, commissioners moved the matter of demolishing a structure at to the consent agenda. “It’s something we haven’t had in our toolshed, our repertoire to work with,” Commission President Jimmie Stephens said at the meeting. “When we have a dilapidated home that becomes a public nuisance, whether it’s been abandoned by a storm, tornado or whether it’s been abandoned for lack of use, we need to have the tools – and now we do – to go in and demolish that home and clean it up for the neighborhood.” Stephens further explained that he hopes more money is added to the budget to demolish more dilapidated homes next year. “It’s long overdue,” Stephens added. “We want to put funds in the budget next year so we can do that in a meaningful way… If you have 10 (dilapidated) homes in a community that need to be demolished, it won’t do any good to do two of them,” he said. “We need to have a plan in place where we can … work on X community this year and next year work on Y community.”
State Senate votes against term limits for lawmakers
According to a poll commissioned by the organization and conducted by McLaughlin and Associates 84% of Alabamians want term limits placed on Members of Congress, but only nine state senators voted to bring a term limits bill to the floor for debate on Wednesday. State Sens. Bill Hightower, Trip Pittman, Paul Sanford, Bill Holtzclaw, Greg Reed, Larry Stutts, Phil Williams, Rusty Glover and Arthur Orr voted in favor of bringing SB127 to the floor for debate. But the bill failed a procedural motion, 9-15, to do so. “Today’s decision by Montgomery Insiders to vote against legislative term limits legislation epitomizes why Alabama voters are so frustrated with their state government,” said the bill’s sponsor, Mobile-Republican state Senator, and candidate for Governor, Bill Hightower. “More than four in five Alabama voters believe we need term limits, but career politicians understand this is a threat to their personal ambition and power. This morning the Montgomery Insiders put cronyism and smoke-filled backroom deals above the people they are supposed to represent.” SB127 would have proposed an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama that would provide that no person may be elected to either house of the state Legislature for more than three consecutive four-year terms. Currently, most other constitutional offices in Alabama have term or age limits. Hightower’s term limits legislation is a key component of his gubernatorial platform — the Alabama First Agenda, which is focused on reforming the way Montgomery operates. “We will not stop until we end the old boys network that is stopping real change!,” Hightower continued. “We will never change Montgomery if we continue to elect the same insiders, and that is why I am running for Governor, to shake up the establishment and bring positive change to Alabama. As Governor, we will continue to push for term limits and many other reforms that the career politicians know will end their grip on power,” concluded Hightower. Most all of the senators who voted in favor of bringing SB127 up for debate, are all self-term limited: Sen. Bill Hightower: self term limited after 2 terms Sen. Trip Pittman: self term limited after 3 terms Sen. Paul Sanford: self term limited after 3 terms Sen. Bill Holtzclaw: self term limited after 2 terms Sen. Phil Williams: self term limited after 2 terms Sen. Rusty Glover: self term limited after 3 terms
Fairhope Mayor Karin Wilson retracts contentious police hire
Fairhope Mayor Karin Wilson announced during a March 20 City Council meeting she would be retracting the controversial hire of new police sergeant and public safety director Tony Goubil. Wilson’s hiring of Goubil in February caused an uproar from several city council members and current Fairhope Police Chief Joseph Petties. “I was inundated with phone calls that night about something that I had no knowledge of. I am not understanding how someone can be hired under my Department without my knowledge and without any input from me,” said Petties in an email to Wilson. The reason everyone was shocked and perplexed by the hire was because the Alabama Ethics Commission sent Goubil to investigate a complaint filed against Wilson, and although the complaint was dismissed, “those who filed the claims questioned how Goubil’s investigations into those claims could be trusted in the light of his hiring by Wilson.” Since then, Wilson has met with several city council members and Petties to discuss the new position, and the hiring process for it. “I believe there is a need for a public safety director, and Goubil is a great choice for this position,” Wilson told The Courier. “But, I do understand other people would like to have input and I want to hear them out and come to a mutually agreed upon decision. I am withdrawing Mr. Goubil’s name until a new organizational chart can be developed and approved with council.” “I think it’s appropriate that we stay or pause any new public safety position until a time the council and mayor have had time to collaborate on what everyone’s primary concerns are,” said councilman Jay Robinson in the same report. “It’s also imperative we discuss those concerns with our chief of police and make sure we are giving him all the resources he needs to do his job to the best of his ability. I think the way we’re handling this right now is the best way to move the city forward.”
