Florida AG Ashley Moody calls on Joe Biden to classify illicit fentanyl as weapon of mass destruction
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody is calling on President Joe Biden to classify illicit fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction after 26 people in two separate incidents were poisoned by fentanyl in one week, including nine who died over the July 4 weekend. She sent a letter to President Biden on Monday demanding that he take immediate action to stop the fentanyl crisis in America. Last year, 75,673 adult Americans died from opioids, primarily fentanyl. Over the past two years, more than double the number died from synthetic opioids than were killed in the Vietnam War, Moody noted. While she’s not equating fentanyl deaths “to those of Americans who fought and gave their last full measure of devotion for this country,” she said, she’s providing the numbers “to give context to the stark carnage that this country is experiencing. “Fentanyl has hit the state of Florida hard, like many other states across this country, and the death toll is increasing at an alarming, exponential rate.” According to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, there were 5,806 fentanyl-related deaths in 2020; in the first six months of 2021, there were more than 3,210. Moody sent the letter after 19 people overdosed from fentanyl poisoning in Gadsden County over July 4 weekend, killing nine. One week later, seven people were found unresponsive at a convenience store in Tampa after they’d consumed drugs laced with fentanyl. In March, five West Point cadets overdosed, in addition to others in their group who also got sick from drugs laced with fentanyl while on spring break in Wilton Manors. The exposure was so deadly, the first responder also overdosed after attempting to resuscitate them, Moody said. Those poisoned by fentanyl in Tampa and Wilton Manors survived after receiving medical treatment. “Fentanyl has flooded into the country, and Joe Biden continues to look the other way as Mexican drug cartels smuggle massive amounts of this deadly opioid across our southwest border,” Moody said after the Gadsden County incident. Addressing the president, she said: “Biden, do your job, secure the border and help us end this opioid crisis.” In the letter, she said the Biden administration has “done little to abate this American tragedy. Indeed, many of your policies have exacerbated the death toll,” caused by fentanyl “making it across our southern border.” Moody noted that “the federal government already works to disrupt the supply chains of other chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons. It’s not hard to imagine that similar tactics could be used to reduce the flow of illicit fentanyl into the U.S. through cartels in Mexico – and save countless American lives.” According to Department of Homeland Security, a WMD “is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other device that is intended to harm a large number of people.” Last July, the nonprofit organization, Families Against Fentanyl and a group of bipartisan officials, called on the president to designate fentanyl as a WMD. They did so after record amounts of fentanyl were seized at the southern border and after federal data showed that fentanyl is the leading cause of death among 18-45-year-old Americans. More Americans died from fentanyl in 2021 than from gun violence and car accidents combined. FAF’s founder, James Rauh, said, “Not only is illicit fentanyl being used by drug traffickers to poison thousands of unsuspecting Americans, it is also a chemical weapon that poses a very real threat in the wrong hands. The growing prevalence of fentanyl also heightens the potential for this deadly drug to be repurposed by terrorists or cartels as a chemical weapon in a mass-casualty event. “The fentanyl death toll will continue to rise unless America takes bold action,” he warned. FAF welcomed Moody’s call to action, noting that the WMD designation has bipartisan support in Congress. “With A.G. Moody’s announcement today, the movement continues to grow. … It’s clear that the status quo isn’t working,” it said. “WMD designation would allow the federal government to activate unused and under-used resources to stop illicit fentanyl before it ever reaches our border.” Last month, U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan, D-OH, introduced a Congressional Resolution, H.Res.1172, requesting the Biden Administration designate illicit fentanyl as a WMD. Biden has issued recommendations to Congress to reduce the supply and availability of fentanyl and issued an executive order imposing sanctions on foreign nationals involved in the global illicit drug trade in the U.S. His administration also proposed dedicating “$10.7 billion to expand access to substance use prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and recovery support services” and permanently added illicitly manufactured fentanyl-related substances as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that’s 50 to 100 times more deadly than morphine. Roughly two milligrams, about the weight of a mosquito, is enough to kill a full-grown adult. Fentanyl precursors are often first shipped from China to Mexican ports. Cartel workers make fake opioid pills or lace other narcotics with them and then transport them into the U.S., primarily through the southern border. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Terri Sewell’s legislation to create the Black Belt National Heritage Area passes House
U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell announced that her bill, H.R. 3222, the Black Belt National Heritage Area Act, passed the House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 365-57. The bill was introduced by Sewell in May 2021 and aims to designate areas within the 19 counties in Alabama’s Black Belt as a National Heritage Area. Through public-private partnerships, National Heritage Areas are able to leverage funding for long-term projects that have substantial economic and environmental benefits. The bill will now make its way to the U.S. Senate. “I’m thrilled to announce that the House has passed my bill to create the Black Belt National Heritage Area!” commented Sewell. “As the birthplace of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights movements, the Black Belt is where some of the most consequential chapters of American history played out. This designation will not only help preserve the rich history of the region, but will also open up new economic and tourism opportunities. As a proud daughter of the Black Belt, I thank my colleagues for passing this critical bill and will continue working to get it signed into law.” According to Sewell’s press release, National Heritage Areas are established by Congress to help with efforts to protect and promote communities that are regarded as distinctive because of their culture, history, resources, and environment. These historic areas are authorized to receive up to $1 million in federal funding annually to preserve, protect and promote important sites. Under the Alabama Black Belt National Heritage Area Act, the University of West Alabama would collaborate with the National Park Service and Black Belt communities to determine a strategic management plan. Dr. Tina Naremore Jones, Vice President of the Division of Economics Workforce Development at the University of West Alabama, explained how the funding would help tell the stories of Alabama’s Black Belt. “The story of Alabama’s Black Belt could not be more relevant with ongoing conversations exploring the multifaceted aspects of our country’s past, present, and future. For Alabama’s Black Belt with its famously rich soils and landscapes have had a profound impact on the culture, history, and politics of this country,” Naremore Jones commented. “Through designation as a National Heritage Area, we can shine a spotlight on these stories and bring them to prominence and ensure that future generations cannot only learn but appreciate our shared heritage. Designation is also important in that it helps us continue to build local capacity through shared resources. Our grassroots organizations have been steadfast supporters of this effort, and we are thankful for Congresswoman Sewell and Senator Shelby’s leadership in moving this legislation forward.” Emily Jones, Southeast Regional Director for The National Parks Conservation Association, thanked Congressman Sewell and Senator Richard Shelby for their efforts. “By calling for an Alabama Black Belt National Heritage Area, Congresswoman Terri Sewell and Senator Richard Shelby have taken a stand for centuries of rich Alabama history and breathtaking Southern lands and waters, including the last remaining prairie east of the Mississippi River,” stated Jones. “The Alabama Black Belt was named for its soil, but this region has also served as fertile ground for Black history and the Civil Rights Movement. Civil rights leaders like John Lewis put blood, sweat, and tears into their work to organize and register Black voters here in the 1960s. Now more than ever, it’s imperative that we honor their contributions to the ongoing fight for the American right to vote.” Jones continued, “This new National Heritage Area would help local organizations work to protect Alabama history and natural resources and generate economic growth in the Black Belt region. A new designation would help raise the profile of the beautiful Talladega and Tuskegee National Forests, the Cahaba, Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers, and the Choctaw and Cahaba National Wildlife Refuges, as well as tell important stories of civil rights activism and the forced removal of Native tribes from this land.”
Steve Flowers: State Legislature will remain super majority Republican
The Alabama Legislature will remain super-majority Republican for the next quadrennium. As the dust settles from the May/June party primaries, there have been negligible, if any, party changes. There has been some shuffling on the deck of the GOP boat, but it has all been intraparty struggles. By and large, both the House of Representatives and the Alabama Senate have remained safe havens for incumbents. The Senate especially returns essentially intact. The entire leadership of the Republican-led Senate will stay the same. The leaders of the State Senate, including Greg Reed, Jabo Waggoner, Clay Scofield, Arthur Orr, Greg Albritton, Clyde Chambliss, and Steve Livingston, will all be back in their same leadership posts. The sterling freshman class of Senators will be Sophomores. This class of leaders includes Dan Roberts, Tom Butler, Sam Givhan, Will Barfoot, Garlan Gudger, April Weaver, Donnie Chesteen, Andrew Jones, Chris Elliott, Jack Williams, and David Sessions. The Democratic leaders also return in entirety, including powers Bobby Singleton, Rodger Smitherman, Vivian Figures, and Billy Beasley. There seems to be a more harmonious working relationship among the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate that has not existed in past years. This body is poised to provide leadership for the state for the next four years. The State House of Representatives will remain essentially the same, also. However, there has been more reshuffling in this Chamber, especially in the GOP ranks. The super-majority Republican control will definitely continue to exist, with at least 78 of the 105 seats remaining in the grasp of the Republicans. The House is probably more conservative than the Senate, although they are both pretty right-wing. The leadership of the House of Representatives will change. House Speaker Mac McCutcheon (R-Madison) and Speaker Pro Tem Victor Gaston (R-Mobile) are not seeking reelection. There has been an internal jockeying for Speaker between Steve Clouse (R-Ozark) and Nathaniel Ledbetter (R-Dekalb) going on for almost a year. It will continue until November when the Republican caucus makes their choice. The contest between Ledbetter and Clouse has been gentlemanly without discord or acrimony. Most House members hate to make a choice because both men are so well-liked and respected. There will be harmony when it is decided, they will work together, and both will remain in a leadership position. There is a cadre of Republican leadership returning to the House, including Clouse and Ledbetter. Republican leaders returning are Danny Garrett, Terri Collins, Ginny Shaver, Jim Hill, Paul Lee, Randall Shedd, Kyle South, Tracey Estes, David Standridge, Steve Hurst, Randy Wood, Jim Carns, David Faulkner, Reed Ingram, Rhett Marquis, Jeff Sorrells, Chris Sells, Chris Blackshear, Joe Lovvorn, Chip Brown, and Chris Pringle. House Democratic leaders returning are Chris England, Anthony Daniels, Peb Warren, Laura Hill, John Rogers, Mary Moore, Thomas Jackson, Sam Jones, Berry Forte, Dexter Grimsley, and Barbara Boyd. Incumbency is a potent, powerful, inherent advantage, especially in legislative races. There were a couple of incumbents taken out in the House within the Republican ranks. They were beaten by future female superstars. Indeed, this was a very good year for female Republican legislative candidates all over the state. There are several new female legislators that are superstars and worth watching as leaders. Cynthia Almond of Tuscaloosa leads the list although she actually has a session under her belt. She won her seat without opposition last year. Almost every list includes Susan Dubose of Shelby County. She beat an incumbent even though her district was distorted to help him win. She won the old-fashioned way. She worked hard. She started early and stayed late. Ultra-Republican Baldwin County elected all females to represent them in the House of Representatives. Jennifer Fidler, Frances Holk-Jones, and Carla Knight Maddox will make up the Baldwin delegation. Lee Hulsey of Helena from District 15 in Jefferson/Shelby will be a quick study in the House. It was not just the year of the woman in statewide races; the ladies have made a significant move in the Alabama House of Representatives. See you next week. Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.
Government says Steve Bannon ignored subpoena, acted above the law
Federal prosecutors called their first witness to the stand Tuesday and began building their case that former Trump adviser Steve Bannon willfully ignored a congressional subpoena in open defiance of the U.S. government. Bannon, a longtime adviser and strategist for former President Donald Trump, was brought to trial on a pair of federal charges for criminal contempt of Congress after refusing for months to cooperate with the House committee investigating the U.S. Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021. Under questioning Tuesday from Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Vaughn, Kristin Amerling, the chief counsel for the January 6 committee, went through a detailed explanation of the committee’s role, the Bannon subpoena, and why the panel felt it was important to compel his testimony. Amerling said Bannon’s public statements leading up to the riot “suggested he might have some advanced knowledge of the events of January 6.” Amerling said there were multiple indications that Bannon “might have had some discussions with individuals in the White House, including the president.” The day’s session ended with Amerling being questioned by the prosecution. The trial was scheduled to resume Wednesday morning. In her opening statement, Vaughn told jurors that the subpoena issued to Bannon by the committee investigating the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election and the events leading up to the Capitol insurrection “wasn’t optional. It wasn’t a request, and it wasn’t an invitation. It was mandatory.” She added: “The defendant’s failure to comply was deliberate. It wasn’t an accident; it wasn’t a mistake. It was a choice.” Bannon’s lawyers argued that the charges against him were politically motivated and that Bannon was engaged in good-faith negotiations with the congressional committee when he was charged. “No one ignored the subpoena,” defense lawyer Evan Corcoran told the jury. In reality, Corcoran said, one of Bannon’s previous lawyers, Robert Costello, contacted an attorney for the House committee to express some of Bannon’s concerns about testifying. “They did what two lawyers do. They negotiated,” Corcoran said, adding that Bannon and his legal team believed “the dates of the subpoena were not fixed; they were flexible.” An unofficial adviser to Trump at the time of the Capitol attack, Bannon was charged with defying a subpoena that sought his records and testimony. He was indicted in November on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress, one month after the Justice Department received a congressional referral. Upon conviction, each count carries a minimum of 30 days of jail and as long as a year behind bars. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, had previously ruled that major elements of Bannon’s planned defense were irrelevant and could not be introduced in court. He ruled last week that Bannon could not claim he believed he was covered by executive privilege or that he was acting on the advice of his lawyers. Outside the courthouse, Bannon launched into an extended rant against the committee chairman, Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, and the committee hearing, calling it “a show trial.” He also repeated the discredited claim that Trump won the 2020 election and called President Joe Biden illegitimate. But he did not criticize his trial or Nichols. Bannon, 68, was one of the most prominent of the Trump-allied holdouts refusing to testify before the committee. He had argued that his testimony was protected by Trump’s claim of executive privilege, which allows presidents to withhold confidential information from the courts and the legislative branch. Trump has repeatedly asserted executive privilege — even though he’s not a current president — to try to block witness testimony and the release of White House documents. The Supreme Court in January ruled against Trump’s efforts to stop the National Archives from cooperating with the committee after a lower court judge — Tanya S. Chutkan — noted, in part, “Presidents are not kings.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
House passes same-sex marriage bill in retort to high court
The U.S. House overwhelmingly approved legislation Tuesday to protect same-sex and interracial marriages amid concerns that the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade abortion access could jeopardize other rights criticized by many conservatives. In a robust but lopsided debate, Democrats argued intensely and often personally in favor of enshrining marriage equality in federal law, while Republicans steered clear of openly rejecting gay marriage. Instead, leading Republicans portrayed the bill as unnecessary amid other issues facing the nation. Tuesday’s election-year roll call, 267-157, was partly political strategy, forcing all House members, Republicans, and Democrats, to go on the record. It also reflected the legislative branch pushing back against an aggressive court that has raised questions about revisiting other apparently settled U.S. laws. Wary of political fallout, GOP leaders did not press their members to hold the party line against the bill, aides said. In all, 47 Republicans joined all Democrats in voting for passage. “For me, this is personal,” said Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., who said he was among the openly gay members of the House. “Imagine telling the next generation of Americans, my generation, we no longer have the right to marry who we love,” he said. “Congress can’t allow that to happen.” While the Respect for Marriage Act easily passed the House with a Democratic majority, it is likely to stall in the evenly split Senate, where most Republicans would probably join a filibuster to block it. It’s one of several bills, including those enshrining abortion access, that Democrats are proposing to confront the court’s conservative majority. Another bill guaranteeing access to contraceptive services is set for a vote later this week. House GOP leaders split over the issue, with Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Whip Rep. Steve Scalise voting against the marriage rights bill, but the No. 3 Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York voting in favor. In a notable silence, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell declined to express his view on the bill, leaving an open question over how strongly his party would fight it if it should come up for a vote in the upper chamber. Key Republicans in the House have shifted in recent years on the same-sex marriage issue, including Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who joined those voting in favor on Tuesday. Said another Republican, Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, in a statement about her yes vote: “If gay couples want to be as happily or miserably married as straight couples, more power to them.” Polling shows a majority of Americans favor preserving rights to marry, regardless of sex, gender, race, or ethnicity, a long-building shift in modern mores toward inclusion. A Gallup poll in June showed broad and increasing support for same-sex marriage, with 70% of U.S. adults saying they think such unions should be recognized by law as valid. The poll showed majority support among both Democrats (83%) and Republicans (55%). Approval of interracial marriage in the U.S. hit a six-decade high at 94% in September, according to Gallup. Ahead of Tuesday’s voting, a number of lawmakers joined protesters demonstrating against the abortion ruling outside the Supreme Court, which sits across from the Capitol and remains fenced off for security during tumultuous political times. Capitol Police said among those arrested were 16 members of Congress. “The extremist right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has put our country down a perilous path,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., in a floor speech setting Tuesday’s debate in motion. “It’s time for our colleagues across the aisle to stand up and be counted. Will they vote to protect these fundamental freedoms? Or will they vote to let states take those freedoms away?” But Republicans insisted the court was only focused on abortion access in June when it struck down the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade ruling, and they argued that same-sex marriage and other rights were not threatened. In fact, almost none of the Republicans who rose to speak during the debate directly broached the subject of same-sex or interracial marriage. “We are here for a political charade; we are here for political messaging,” said Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. That same tack could be expected in the Senate. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said, “The predicate of this is just wrong. I don’t think the Supreme Court is going to overturn any of that stuff.” As several Democrats spoke of inequalities they said they or their loved ones had faced in same-sex marriages, the Republicans talked about rising gas prices, inflation, and crime, including recent threats to justices in connection with the abortion ruling. For Republicans in Congress, the Trump-era confirmation of conservative justices to the Supreme Court has fulfilled a long-term GOP goal of revisiting many social, environmental, and regulatory issues the party has been unable to tackle on its own by passing bills that could be signed into law. The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal a law from the Clinton era that defines marriage as a heterogeneous relationship between a man and a woman. It would also provide legal protections for interracial marriages by prohibiting any state from denying out-of-state marriage licenses and benefits on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. The 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, had basically been sidelined by Obama-era court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which established the rights of same-sex couples to marry nationwide, a landmark case for gay rights. But last month, writing for the majority in overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito argued for a more narrow interpretation of the rights guaranteed to Americans, noting that the right to an abortion was not spelled out in the Constitution. In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas went further, saying other rulings similar to Roe, including those around same-sex marriage and the right for couples to use contraception, should be reconsidered. While Alito insisted in the majority opinion that “this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” others have taken notice. “The MAGA
