Brad Israel and Nathan Cox: Why we as veterans are voting for Katie Britt for U.S. Senate
Katie Britt is an excellent & experienced leader who brings a tireless amount of positive energy and tenacity to any given situation. We have both known Katie since college. Nathan while playing football with her now husband Wesley at the University of Alabama and Brad while interning in Washington, DC alongside Katie. She is a genuine and caring leader and would be an extraordinary U.S. Senator for the State of Alabama. We both know Katie to be the caliber of person to do what she says she is going to do and take care of her fellow Alabamians. As Veterans, we are confident that our voices, among a sea of other Alabama Patriots, will be heard and taken care of. Katie recognizes we can do better and do more to support our Veterans, as well as all those currently in uniform; she will be proactive in addressing these issues, not waiting on them to get worse or ignoring them because of other priorities. How do we know? Because she has shared this and engaged us in genuine conversations in what we need to do; we know Katie has done this with so many other Veterans across our great State too. Katie surrounds herself with incredible people and will build coalitions, not only throughout the state, but also in Washington where she already has great influence because of what she stands for and her ability to build real, authentic relationships. This leadership is exactly what we need in order to take care of our communities and our people here in Alabama, someone that believes in us and is willing to always do the right thing because she wants to make us proud. We encourage you to get out to vote on May 24th, our state needs to march forward with a strong and courageous leader we can trust and one that is proud to call Alabama Home. This is why Katie Britt will get our vote and we hope she can earn yours too. This is an opinion column. About the authors: Nathan Cox served in the United States Marine Corps and deployed overseas as an Infantry Officer. He was a Rifle Platoon Commander with 3rd Bn 6th Marines and during his deployment in Iraq was awarded the Navy Commendation Medal with combat “V” for Valor as a 1st Lieutenant in recognition of his actions while in combat. Nathan is the founder and CEO of 68 Ventures, the parent company for numerous operating and development entities along the Alabama Gulf Coast and Florida Panhandle. Nathan graduated from the University of Alabama summa cum laude in investment finance and economics, then earning his MBA from the University of South Alabama. He played football at Alabama while earning Academic All SEC Honors and was recognized with the Paul “Bear” Bryant Award his senior year as the university’s most outstanding student athlete. Brad Israel served as 12 years of military service as an officer in the U.S. Army Infantry and Special Operations Community. On 9/11, Brad took on the responsibility to serve his country and lead men in combat. He has deployed all over the world as a Green Beret and spent over two years in combat in support of Operation Enduring Freedom – Afghanistan. Brad serves as Chief Leadership Advisor for 68 Ventures and all its core companies.
Foundation for Moral Law wins religious freedom victory in Louisiana
The Foundation for Moral Law, an Alabama-based nonprofit organization dedicated to the defense of religious liberty, claimed victory in a Louisiana case involving Pastor Aaron Spell of Life Tabernacle in Central, Louisiana. Spell was cited for six misdemeanor violations of the Governor’s church closing order in 2020. In 2020, in response to the COVID pandemic, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards issued an executive order closing most businesses, including churches with ten or more people. Exceptions were provided for certain “essential” businesses, but the order did not classify churches as essential. However, Spell continued to hold worship services and was arrested for doing so. Pastor Spell contacted the Foundation for Moral Law for assistance. Judge Roy Moore, the founder of the foundation, agreed to defend him. They also retained Louisiana Attorney Jeffrey Wittenbrink as local counsel. While adjudication continues in federal court, now at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Attorney Wittenbrink appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court to quash the criminal charges against Pastor Spell. Wittenbrink argued that this was unconstitutional state interference with the church in violation of the First Amendment and of various state constitutional provisions and statutes. On Friday, May 13, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pastor Spell and his church, quashing the misdemeanor citations. The Court held that the Governor’s orders were unconstitutional because they discriminated against religion by exempting other activities and that the Governor had failed to show evidence that these restrictions were necessary to protect the public. “Pandemic or not,” the Court said, “this court cannot look the other way when the state infringes upon a citizen’s fundamental right to exercise his religion.” Judge Moore said on behalf of Spell, “Religious liberty is the first and foremost right granted by God and guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and by the Louisiana State Constitution as well. The Foundation hails this case as a milestone in the defense of freedom.” Attorney Wittenbrink added, “Even the dissenting opinion refrained from saying the Governor’s orders were constitutional. The dissent only wanted to remand the case to the lower court to make more findings of fact to support its conclusion. But the majority held that the State had the burden to produce that evidence and that the State had failed to do so.” Pastor Spell thanked God for moving the courts to grant this victory and for leading him to the Foundation. “All along,” he said, we have placed ourselves in God’s hands and declared with the apostles in Acts 5:29, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ We are thankful for this victory and will continue to preach and worship Jesus Christ as he has commanded us.” The case will now proceed in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue of state interference with the church using COVID restrictions as an excuse to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Supreme Court rules for Sen. Ted Cruz in campaign finance case
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sided Monday with Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and struck down a provision of federal campaign finance law, a ruling that a dissenting justice said runs the risk of causing “further disrepute” to American politics. The court, by a 6-3 vote, said the provision Cruz challenged limiting the repayment of personal loans from candidates to their campaigns violates the Constitution. The decision comes just as campaigning for the 2022 midterm elections is intensifying. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that the provision “burdens core political speech without proper justification.” The Biden administration had defended it as an anti-corruption measure, but Roberts wrote the government had not been able to show that the provision “furthers a permissible anticorruption goal, rather than the impermissible objective of simply limiting the amount of money in politics.” Justice Elena Kagan disagreed, writing that for two decades the provision checked “crooked exchanges.” Kagan said in a dissent for herself and the court’s two other liberals that the majority, in striking down the provision, “greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought right to stop.” She said the decision “can only bring this country’s political system into further disrepute.” In an emailed statement, Cruz’s attorney, Charles Cooper, said the ruling: “is a victory for the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech in the political process.” The case involved a section of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly referred to as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The provision said that if a candidate lends his or her campaign money before an election, the campaign cannot repay the candidate more than $250,000 using money raised after Election Day. The provision said loans could still be repaid with money raised before the election. Cruz, who has served in the Senate since 2013 and ran unsuccessfully for president in 2016, loaned his campaign $260,000 the day before the 2018 general election for the purpose of challenging the law. Cruz’s spokesman, Steve Guest, said in an emailed statement that the senator was “gratified” by the decision, which Guest said would “help invigorate our democratic process by making it easier for challengers to take on and defeat career politicians.” The decision is the latest since Roberts became chief justice in 2005 in which conservatives have struck down congressionally enacted limits on raising and spending money to influence elections. That includes the 2010 Citizens United decision, which opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections. Kagan, in her dissent, described one result now that the most recent provision has been struck down. A candidate could lend his or her campaign $500,000 and, after winning, use donor money to pay that back in full, she said. The grateful politician might then respond to donors’ money with “favorable legislation, maybe prized appointments, maybe lucrative contracts,” she wrote. “The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public. It inevitably suffers from government corruption.” At another point, she said: “It takes no political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption — the danger of ‘I’ll make you richer and you’ll make me richer’ arrangements between donors and officeholders.” Roberts, however, noted in his majority opinion that individual contributions to candidates for federal office, including those made after the candidate has won the election, are capped at $2,900 per election. “The dissent’s dire predictions about the impact of today’s decision elide the fact that the contributions at issue remain subject to these requirements,” he wrote. He pointed out that most states “do not impose a limit on the use of post-election contributions to repay candidate loans.” Cruz had argued that the provision made candidates think twice about lending money because it substantially increased the risk that any candidate’s loan will never be fully repaid. A lower court had agreed the provision was unconstitutional. The case may be most directly important to candidates for federal office who want to make large loans to their campaigns. But the administration, which declined a request for comment following the ruling, has also said that in the past the great majority of candidate loans were for less than $250,000 and therefore the provision Cruz challenged did not apply. The government has said that in the five election cycles before 2020, candidates for Senate made 588 loans to their campaigns, about 80% of them under $250,000. Candidates for the House of Representatives made 3,444 loans, nearly 90 percent under $250,000. The case is Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 21-12. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Anti-Trump posts from Casey Wardynski’s campaign manager resurface; call into question GOP loyalty
The battle for the 5th Congressional seat being vacated by Mo Brooks has become more heated as the Republican primary comes to a close. With it comes more questions and evidence of which candidates are loyal to the principles of the Alabama GOP and President Donald Trump. The primary candidates for the seat are John Roberts, Paul Sanford, Dale Strong, and Casey Wardynski. Wardynski’s decision to hire a decidedly anti-Trump campaign manager, his stance supporting Common Core, and his voting record have led some of his detractors to question Wardynski’s judgment. Chad Niblett, Wardynski’s campaign manager, is under fire for old social media posts that show anti-Trump views while Wardynski himself has a checkered past with Alabama GOP stances on hot button issues like Common Core. Another issue that has raised the question of Wardynski’s allegiance to the ALGOP is his decision to hire Niblett as his campaign manager. While Niblett also has experience with Rep. Jerry Carl’s campaign in the past, he also has quite a history of anti-Trump rhetoric. In one post, Niblett admitted to not voting for Judge Roy Moore in 2017. In that tweet, he also makes clear that he believes Trump’s accusers in allegations that Trump himself has claimed to be “false.” Niblett wrote on Twitter, “Also, the allegations against Moore were only one reason that I didn’t vote for him. I think it should be clear that I believe Trump’s accusers. I should have listened to them before, but I didn’t. I will in 2020.” While all of these Twitter posts have since been deleted from Niblett’s page, the screenshots provided to Alabama Today show a pattern of disparaging remarks about Trump. In 2019, Niblett commented to Kamala Harris via Twitter, stating, “Just wish the last administration would have. At least Trump has taken some steps. I can’t stand his orange a**, but your party hasn’t done anything either.” The only political undertaking of Wardynski prior to this campaign was when he sparred with The Alabama State Legislature in 2013 and argued about repealing mandatory Common Core standards. In 2013, while Wardynski was the Huntsville City School Superintendent, he strongly opposed SB 190, or the Alabama Accountability Act. Wardynski is on record stating, “None of this debate about moving away from Common Core makes any sense to me.” Wardynski went on to elaborate that, “Common Core Standards spell what we think children need to be able to master to be college and career ready.” Casey Wardynski argued that Alabama schools should look to guidance for curriculum standards in states such as Massachusetts and Vermont. Paul Sanford was one legislator that spearheaded the Alabama Accountability Act in 2013, and has concerns about his stance on Common Core and his on voting record, which shows he has rarely voted in a primary. “It comes as no surprise that Common Core Casey has been misleading the people of North Alabama to get their votes,” Sanford commented. “I spent years fighting him when I served the area as State Senator both at the state level with Common Core and at the local level when parents and teachers came to me with issues caused by his dictatorial style of leadership as Superintendent. Now, he wants to pretend he has been a dedicated Trump-supporter since the beginning, yet he didn’t even show up to vote in the 2016 or 2020 Republican Primary Elections — or any primaries since 2014 at that,” Sanford continued. “Given he has refused to vote in multiple elections, what makes us think he will actually vote for our conservative values in Congress. I think the people of District 5 deserve a representative that tells the truth, actively cares about our conservative values, and will show up both at the polls and on the floor for votes. It is clear some candidates will lie and mislead people about anything to win an election and I think it’s an absolute shame,” he concluded. A copy of Wardynski’s voting record below shows he has only voted in a Primary Election once in 2014. Colin Sudduth, campaign manager for Dale Strong, believes Wardynski’s record speaks for itself. “There is no record of Casey Wardynski ever attending a Republican meeting or supporting Conservative causes before he decided to run for office,” Sudduth commented. “In fact, Wardynski is best known for opposing Republican efforts to stop the Obama Common Core Standards in Alabama. Wardynski talks a lot about Trump, but he surrounds himself with people that have attacked President Trump personally and supported the fake Mueller investigation. Dale Strong was one of Donald Trump’s biggest supporters from day one, and that continues today. Wardynski couldn’t have supported Trump because there is no record he even voted in the 2016 Presidential Primary.” Here are additional examples of Niblett’s prior Twitter posts.
Progressive environmental activists pick ‘Republican’ favorites in Alabama Public Service Commission primary races
According to Alabama Secretary of State campaign finance records, radical “environmental justice” activists are once again pushing their agenda in Alabama. They have selected their preferred “Republican” primary candidates Robin Litaker and Brent Woodall for the Public Service Commission. As first reported by Dylan Smith of Yellowhammer News, both candidates have taken large sums of money from Nelson Brooke, of Black Warrior Riverkeeper. Brooke has made a total of $73,000 in contributions to Alabama candidates all of the money going to democrats except three contributions: $20,000 to Litaker this cycle, $10,000 to her in her last race, and $10,000 to Woodall. Alabama Today reported on Brooke’s contribution history in an opinion piece last cycle when Litaker, who is attempting her third run to the Public Service Commission. She ran against Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh in 2020. Cavanaugh handily won that election with 73.8% of the vote. In 2018, Litaker ran against Beeker with him getting 68.7% of the vote. In that race, she was her own biggest contributor and the next closest gave her $250.00. According to the Yellow Hammer report, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) campaign finance records show that Margaret Wade Johnston, from the advocacy group Sierra Club, loaned Litaker’s campaign $45,000. Johnston has a history of backing progressive candidates in an attempt to defeat incumbent conservatives in Alabama. Johnston donated to the Democratic challengers of U.S. Reps. Robert Aderholt and Mo Brooks in the 2018 general election and also donated to former U.S. Sen. Doug Jones in 2020. Like Johnston, Brooke also has a history of financially supporting far-left candidates in federal races, including former President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign and socialist U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid. It is unknown if the ALGOP will take action to decertify their elections based on these contributions. Earlier this year, Trip Powell was removed from the ballot for giving a $500 contribution to Walt Maddox. Litaker and Woodall supporter Brooke gave Maddox a total of $6,000. In 2018, the party voted to not certify a candidate who made social media posts that were described as “anti-Semitic, racist or otherwise offensive.” The primary election is on May 24, 2022. You can find your polling place or get more voting information at AlabamaVotes.gov.
Governor candidates Lindy Blanchard and Tim James take to the road in statewide tours to defeat Kay Ivey
As Election Day in Alabama draws near, two of the candidates looking to unseat Governor Kay Ivey have announced statewide tours. Gubernatorial candidates Lindy Blanchard and Tim James have both hit the road to get their individual messages to the people of Alabama. A recent poll commissioned by Alabama Daily News and Gray Television and conducted by Cygnal, Ivey’s former consulting firm, has Ivey getting 40% of the vote. The poll, which was released to subscribers of Inside Alabama Politics first, has James coming in behind Ivey at 17.9% and Blanchard with 14.6% with a margin of error of +/- 3.99% making it a dead heat for which one of them will be in the run-off should there be one. Lew Burdette follows James and Blanchard with 5.8% and Dean Odle with 3.6%. Blanchard announced she will continue traveling across Alabama this week for her Alabama Values Tour stopping to speak with voters in every corner of the state. On Monday, Blanchard started with what she called “‘Bama Roots Day” and made stops in Montgomery to Fort Deposit, Greenville, and Mobile, and then ended the day in Brewton. Tuesday is “Faith and Family Day” beginning with multiple stops in Huntsville and will continue to Decatur, Birmingham, and ending in Montgomery. Please see below for a schedule of Blanchard’s Tuesday Tour Events: Breakfast MeetingBlue Plate Cafe3210 Governors Dr. SW, Huntsville, AL 358058:30 AM Faith Walk to the CrossMonte Sano State Park5105 Nolen Ave SE, Huntsville, AL 3580111:30 AM Montgomery County GOP “Countdown to the Primary” Baseball Game – Riverwalk Stadium200 Coosa St, Montgomery, AL 361046:30 PM Tim James will be kicking off his “Fight Back” bus tour across Alabama on Wednesday morning, May 18, at Fort Dale Academy in Greenville. From Greenville, Tim will stop to meet with Alabama voters in Camden, Linden, Tuscaloosa, Sheffield, and Florence. Thursday morning, May 19, James will begin the day in Huntsville, and travel through Guntersville, Gadsden, Oxford, Sylacauga, Alexander City, Auburn, and Opelika. Friday morning, May 20, he will meet with Alabama voters in Auburn and his hometown of Opelika, then depart for Troy, Ozark, Dothan, Enterprise, Elba, and Andalusia. On Saturday, May 21, James will start in Mobile and make stops in Fairhope, Foley, Daphne, and end the day back home in Greenville. To get more information including a sample ballot, your polling place, and your current voter registration information leading up to the May 24, 2022 election, visit the Secretary of State website at AlabamaVotes.org.
Abbott says agreement reached to reopen baby formula plant
Baby formula maker Abbott said Monday it has reached an agreement with U.S. health regulators to restart production at its largest domestic factory, though it will be well over a month before any new products ship from the site to help alleviate the national shortage facing parents. Abbott did not immediately detail the terms of the agreement with the Food and Drug Administration, which has been investigating safety concerns at the Sturgis, Michigan, plant since early this year. The consent decree amounts to a legally binding agreement between the FDA and the company on the steps needed to reopen the factory. An FDA spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the announcement Monday evening. After production resumes, Abbott said it will take between six-to-eight weeks before new products begin arriving in stores. The company didn’t set a timeline to restart production. The FDA is expected to announce additional steps Monday to allow more foreign imports into the U.S. to address the supply problems. It comes as the administration of President Joe Biden faces intense pressure to do more to ease the shortage that has left many parents hunting for formula online or at food banks. Abbott’s plant came under scrutiny early this year after the FDA began investigating four bacterial infections among infants who consumed powdered formula from the plant. Two of the babies died. In February, the company halted production and recalled several brands of powdered formula, squeezing supplies that had already been tightened by supply chain disruptions and stockpiling during COVID-19. The shortage has led retailers like CVS and Walgreen’s to limit how many containers customers can purchase per visit. Outrage over the issue has quickly snowballed and handed Republicans a fresh talking point to use against Biden ahead of November’s midterm elections. Abbott is one of just four companies that produce roughly 90% of U.S. formula, and its brands account for nearly half that market. After a six-week inspection, FDA investigators published a list of problems in March, including lax safety and sanitary standards and a history of bacterial contamination in several parts of the plant. Chicago-based Abbott has emphasized that its products have not been directly linked to the bacterial infections in children. Samples of the bacteria found at its plant did not match the strains collected from the babies by federal investigators. The company has repeatedly stated it is ready to resume manufacturing, pending an FDA decision. Former FDA officials say fixing the type of problems uncovered at Abbott’s plant takes time, and infant formula facilities receive more scrutiny than other food facilities. Companies need to exhaustively clean the facility and equipment, retrain staff, and repeatedly test and document that there is no contamination. On Monday, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf told ABC News that an announcement was forthcoming about importing baby formula from abroad. The key issue is making sure the instructions for the formula are in languages that mothers and caregivers can understand, he noted. Pediatricians say baby formulas produced in Canada and Europe are roughly equivalent to those in the U.S. But traditionally, 98% of the infant formula supply in the U.S. is made domestically. Companies seeking to enter the U.S. face several major hurdles, including rigorous research and manufacturing standards imposed by the FDA. San Diego father Steven Davis has faced heart-wrenching challenges finding formula for his medical fragile daughter, who was on an Abbott formula but has had to switch with the recall and subsequent shortages in other brands. Zoie Davis was born 19 months ago with no kidneys, a rare, life-threatening condition that requires dialysis and a feeding tube until she weighs enough for a kidney transplant. She’s four pounds shy of that milestone, said Davis, a mortgage lender and his daughter’s caretaker. “Her life is dependent on her weight gain,” he said. Davis said he used an organic brand from overseas until costs and customs hurdles made that too difficult. Friends and strangers from out of state have sent him other brands, but each time she switches requires more blood tests and monitoring, Davis said. Despite her challenges, Zoie is walking, talking, and “doing pretty good” on other developmental milestones, Davis said. “She’s a shining light in my life,” he said. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
