Historically, happiness in the United States followed a reliable arc—a perfect U-shaped curve. We were happy when we were young and carefree. Not so happy during the pressure-filled midlife years. Then happy again later in life.

But today, happiness is crashing much earlier. And that should worry us. We pushed this generation hard. Relentlessly hard. The script was clear: work hard, get good grades, stay out of trouble, go to a good college, and “all your wildest dreams will come true.” But I think we both know that’s not true.

This generation grew up during the most affluent period in human history. More money. Better schools. Safer neighborhoods. Nicer cars and fancier clothes. Beautiful homes with granite countertops. Youth sports leagues that required family algorithms to manage overlapping seasons. Tutors and SAT prep courses replaced after-school jobs.

For the truly affluent, college kids enjoyed summers studying and partying abroad in places like Oxford and Cortona. Once the training wheels came off, the kids realized just how misleading the dreamy sales pitch had been. The good life, it turns out, is expensive—crushingly so. The rewards they dreamed of no longer matched the effort required to receive them.

Here’s the cruel irony: after a lifetime of affluence, having to struggle for the basics after college feels unfair. It’s one thing to climb a mountain you were warned about. It’s quite another to discover the mountain after being told the road ahead would be clear. It’s extraordinarily hard to go from a life of privilege and comfort to a life where you have to scrape a little.

Post-college is often an adjustment. Smaller living spaces. More roommates. Less disposable income. Reality sinks in. There’s nothing sexy about going to the grocery store, washing your clothes, and cleaning toilets for the first time. And how many parents explained that the study-abroad program in Cortona would take their kids 15–20 years to pay off?

Previous generations learned resilience by working in a local fast-food restaurant or a dry cleaner after school. They learned humility from starting at the bottom and working for a 45-year-old guy who still lived at home with his mother. They learned that work—especially at the beginning—involves maximum effort for minimal reward.

The very advantages meant to launch young people into successful adulthood have instead left them unprepared for the friction of a normal life. Their parents worked hard to provide a comfortable home, annual vacations, and safe SUVs for carpool. They achieved the good life through years of grit, sacrifice, and thick skin—things the kids never noticed in between travel soccer and studying abroad in Cortona.

The result is a generation meticulously prepared for entering college but totally underprepared for exiting it. Unprepared for an ordinary life. As if college admissions officers were the gatekeepers to six-figure salaries and immediate promotions. They weren’t.

When you grow up living the good life, an ordinary life feels unfair. A fixer-upper isn’t a starting point—it’s failure. A higher-mileage used car isn’t practical—it’s embarrassing. An entry-level salary isn’t a beginning—it’s a disappointment. That’s the insidious power of affluence: it redefines abundance as the bare minimum and anything else as inadequate. But there is good news.

Friction in life isn’t the enemy. It’s the catalyst. It’s rocket fuel for growth. That friction is pushing young adults to ask better questions about what actually constitutes a good life. A good and meaningful life was never about accumulating symbols of status. It comes from faith, family, friendship, and work that serves others. From people and places and purpose. That kind of wisdom typically takes fifty years to develop—but these kids might be learning it early.

Maybe the steepening of the happiness curve is just a recalibration. Fewer car purchases may signal a growing awareness of the crippling impact of debt. Delaying homeownership may allow for greater mobility. And learning to scrape a little is good for the soul. There is always wisdom in the struggle.

The challenge for young people is surviving the transition. This generation needs time and grace to grieve the unrealistic future they were promised. They need to define success differently—to measure wealth in relationships instead of trappings, in meaning rather than material accumulation, and in the realization that happiness isn’t found in Cortona—or in granite countertops.

I’d love to hear what you think of this article. Shoot me a private email at t@tomgreene.com.
I promise you’ll hear back from me—because, you know, I’m a real person and all.

Tom Greene is a writer living in Atlanta, Georgia with his wife and loyal wiener dog, Maggie. His writing can be found at www.tomgreene.com. He can be reached at t@tomgreene.com

David waited for me on Monday morning. He abandoned all formalities and quickly said he was upset over my sermon the day before.

“You criticized Ronald Reagan, and I didn’t like it,” he said. “And other people didn’t like it, either.”

Since no one else ever talked with me about the matter, I have no idea how to gauge the anger meter. But critics often bolster accusations by suggesting they’re leading an angry mob with torches and pitchforks.

I preached about money and shared what one writer called “the president’s most embarrassing press conference.” Reagan lectured the press and the TV audience about bloated government spending, that it needed to shrink and how individuals and churches must step up and help people since they’d do a better job than the government.

So far, so good.

Then he went further.

“As a Christian I was taught the principle of the tithe,” he said. “If Christians tithed, we could help more people and do it more efficiently.”

A reporter somehow had the president’s latest tax filing. He pointed out the first family had given only two or three percent of their income to charity the previous year. Reagan had no valid response at the moment.

I think this was the only part of my sermon David heard, so I gingerly reminded him of how I set it up.

I told him Reagan was on my top five presidents list (and still is). And I said in the sermon that I didn’t mean to disrespect the president since all of us would chafe if our personal life choices were on public display. As the old motto states, “There but for the grace of God go I.”

But I reminded David that the conclusion to the sermon was my assertion that one day we’d all stand before the Judge of the Universe for full accounting. Every word, every deed and every dollar will be part of our judgment, and this judgment is more significant than a routine White House press conference.

John described this day in Revelation 20: “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened . . . and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works,” (v. 12).

Theologians believe “book” is a symbol, since God wouldn’t need to write anything down. We’d say, “the mind of God.” Nevertheless, the point is every secret will be revealed and our destinies assigned.

So, I stand by my declaration that we’ll all give account in a venue more important than a press conference.

Thus, the challenge is to faithfully honor God today in word and deed.

“Reflections” is a weekly faith column written by Michael J. Brooks, pastor of the Siluria Baptist Church, Alabaster, Alabama. The church’s website is siluriabaptist.com.

As the 2026 Legislative Session evolves, do not expect much in the form of substantive legislation. It is an election year and historically, legislators do not address any controversial legislation. The election primaries are right around the corner on May 19, and voters have short memories, but they can remember what just happened yesterday.

Although, my observation is that legislative seats have become analogous to U.S. Congressional Seats in that incumbents are very seldom challenged. In most of our 105 State Legislative and 35 State Senate Seats, the majority are held by incumbent Republicans and Democrats and less than 20 percent are being challenged.

However, the irrelevancy of this election year 2026 Session does not matter to two major groups who have had spectacular success in 2024 and 2025. The Association of County Commissions and the Alabama Education Association have had major legislative accomplishments this quadrennium.

The Alabama Association of County Commissions has been led by Executive Director Sonny Brasfield for the past 16 years. He has done a tremendous job. Prior to that, Sonny was the Chief Lieutenant for legendary Executive Director Buddy Sharpless, who was the director of the powerful organization for 35 years from 1974 to 2009.

To say that Sonny Brasfield has done a sterling job is an understatement. The presidency of the organization is elected each year by the membership of all county commissioners from throughout all 67 counties in the state. They have had several especially outstanding commissioners, who have been instrumental in securing passage of significant and important legislative accomplishments.

In 2023-2024, Jefferson County Commissioner Joe Knight was President. Knight set the stage for success and was successful. He spearheaded and was enabled by Sonny Brasfield in passage of major legislative initiatives for the county commissions.

In 2025 alone, county government priorities took aim at a broad range of issues from strengthening county involvement in mental health delivery services to improving professionalism and representation in the local voter registration process. In addition, the county leaders were involved with the statewide prohibition of Glock switches.

A bill passed by Senator Arthur Orr (R-Decatur) and Representative Alan Baker (R-Escambia) streamlines the sales tax exemption process. This act establishes a process by which county commissions may opt in to applying state sales and use tax exemptions to county sales and use taxes.

Speaking of sales tax, Alabama’s Simplified Sellers Use Tax (SSUT) has been a salvation for the State General Fund, as well as for county governments. The SSUT Act allows Alabama to collect online sales tax. It is a nationally recognized model for online use tax collection that has provided the state and local governments nearly $4.5 billion in total revenue, including almost $1 billion in fiscal year 2025, alone. The Association of County Commissions has been steadfast in defending the SSUT.

The Alabama Education Association has been very successful over this quadrennium under the leadership of Amy Marlowe. The AEA has quietly achieved historic accomplishments that would parallel the years of “King” Dr. Paul Hubbert’s reign as the ruler of Goat Hill. There have been unparalleled pay increases for teachers.

However, if nothing else was accomplished, the passage of the historic K-14 Worker’s Compensation Bill was monumental. This accomplishment achieves what the legendary Dr. Hubbert only dreamed of decades ago.

Beginning no later than October 1, 2026, the new worker’s compensation law replaces the Board of Adjustment’s outdated system with a compensation program offering direct payment of medical bills through the Public Education Employees Health Insurance Program (PEEHIP).

This long overdue law covers full-time public education employees, including teachers, bus drivers, and lunchroom workers. Before its passage, public educators injured on the job had no access to worker’s compensation.

This worker’s compensation accomplishment was spearheaded and championed by Senator Sam Givhan (R-Huntsville). When Senator Givhan became aware that Alabama teachers had no relief for on-the-job injuries, Givhan made it his mission to remedy this wrong. It became a priority and was Senate Bill number one in 2025. He was assisted in the House of Representatives by Tuscaloosa Representative Cynthia Almond, who was appointed by Governor Ivey in 2025 to President of the Alabama Public Service Commission.

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 steve@steveflowers.us.

New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani is socialist true believer, one who still advocates for government ownership of the means of production. What are the economic consequences of government ownership?

We must compare decision-making structures, since economics analyzes decisions. Ownership assigns decision rights; owners make decisions about the use of houses, land, or businesses. And owners get paid for what they own.

Profit is a residual. Businesses incur costs to produce with no guarantee of later sales. The owner keeps any revenue exceeding costs. Aligning decision authority with ownership of the profit creates a powerful incentive to produce efficiently.

Economists assume that profit considerations consequently guide all business decisions – including what, where, when, and how to produce. Owners want to sell at the highest price possible, but customers may not buy and competitors can undercut the price.  A firm which loses money eventually goes bankrupt.

How then does substituting government for private owners change how businesses operate?

Government managers can charge a price just high enough to cover costs but not high enough to make profit. And government managers can lower prices before competition drives prices into line with costs. This benefits consumers.

Some U.S cities supply electricity to their residents. Municipal electricity is price competitive with investor-owned utilities and co-ops. Government ownership is not always a disaster.

Government could though charge high prices and make a “profit.” The revenues could boost government salaries or fund additional government services.

Government enterprises need not charge users at all and cover costs using tax dollars. Zohran Mamdani has promised New Yorkers free buses. Economics strongly recommends continuing to charge customers at least enough to cover the incremental or marginal cost of service.

If government inadequately funds the enterprise, quantity and quality will decline. New York’s free buses might run late or not at all. Underfunding can be a winning electoral strategy since voters have difficulty evaluating funding adequacy. Traffic congestion demonstrates the systematic underfunding of public infrastructure in the U.S.

Government ownership has deficiencies relative to private ownership, beginning with the lack of a residual claimant. Businesses make numerous small adjustments to keep production going.  Something breaks and production halts; the person with decision rights and ownership of the profit seeks a quick remedy.

Diffuse responsibility and lack of personal financial consequences allow problems in government bureaucracies to last days, not hours. Occasionally government can motivate high performance through appeal to patriotism or public spiritedness. But profit systematically works better.

Additionally, political considerations infect business operations.  Elected officials ultimately control government enterprises and cannot disown hiring, purchasing, and contracting decisions. The political factors may be favoritism (hiring buddies) or ideology (advancing diversity and equity through daily operations).

The lack of residual claims particularly slows improvement. People always resist change, even better and more productive ways of doing things. Once government discovers a routine that works, little incentive for further improvement exists. Economic studies documented significantly higher productivity growth for private versus government airlines and railroads in the 1960s and 1970s.

Government enterprises can tap the public treasury and thus do not face the same bankruptcy constraint as private firms. Government enterprises can persist while losing money and poorly serving consumers, like the Postal Service. Uncle Sam occasionally bails out failing businesses, but government enterprises have better access to tax dollars.

Some contemporary socialists get criticized as not real socialists for rejecting government ownership. I content that they “follow the science.”

A century ago, “scientific socialism” was expected to outperform capitalism as rational planning replaced the chaos and waste of the market. Most unexpectedly, economists learned that markets coordinate economic activity much more efficiently than government planners. And government ownership struggles to match the discipline profit seeking imposes on production.

Economically sophisticated socialists learned from this. They advocate for taxes and transfers to achieve socialist goals while letting capitalists produce high standards of living. New York City did not elect an economically sophisticated socialist.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.

Dow Briggs, M.D. is the Executive Vice President of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama.

There are many reasons why Jackson Hospital is struggling, but Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama’s reimbursement is not why it is in bankruptcy.

Despite the misleading claims made by the hospital’s CEO, Jackson Hospital is reimbursed more than fairly. Remember that Blue Cross customers represent less than 25% of Jackson Hospital’s patients. The idea that Jackson Hospital’s slide into bankruptcy — or its potential climb out — rests on the backs of less than one fourth of its patients is not realistic.

In fact, revenue has not been Jackson Hospital’s problem. In a September 2025 meeting, Jackson’s interim management team told Blue Cross that from 2015 to 2023, the hospital’s annual revenue increased more than $122 million, from roughly $199 million to over $321 million — a more than 60% increase.

That’s an average annual increase of more than 7.5%. Even with record revenue in 2022 (the most recent year of available public data), Jackson still recorded a net loss that year of approximately $8.4 million.

Unfortunately, Jackson faltered despite a steady, healthy increase in revenue, and when Jackson struggled, Blue Cross repeatedly came back to the table and helped. We have a great deal of respect for the role the hospital plays in the Montgomery community, and have never treated Jackson Hospital as “just another contract.”

We have increased Jackson’s reimbursement beyond what our standard payment models called for, and we have made cash advances to the hospital to help ensure its viability.

Our decisions were made deliberately, to recognize the hospital’s financial difficulties, and to help preserve access for the community it serves. Our goal has been partnership with the hospital, but our primary responsibility must remain the Alabama employers and families who pay premiums.

Like Alabama families managing their own budgets, we have to stretch our customers’ premium as far as possible. That requires being an efficient administrator, and we are proud that more than 90 cents of every premium dollar goes to pay for patient care.

That is one of the highest healthcare provider payment rates in the country. As healthcare costs continue to increase more than 7% every single year, we must be fair to both our healthcare providers and our customers.

Jackson Hospital does important work for the people it serves. But the reality is that its patient mix does not include the same volume of complex, high-cost cases that larger tertiary hospitals in the River Region manage.

Not every hospital in Alabama receives the same reimbursement — and logically not every hospital should. Hospitals that care for the sickest trauma, cardiac, cancer, or neonatal patients incur significantly higher costs due to specialized staffing, advanced equipment, and complex infrastructure.

Paying all hospitals the same flat rate — regardless of the level and complexity of care delivered — would not be fair to our customers and would dramatically increase health insurance costs for Alabama families and employers.

Our role in the healthcare delivery system means we must negotiate agreements with each of Alabama’s more than 100 hospitals based on objective criteria, including the types of services provided, the complexity of patient needs and the resources required to deliver high quality care.

Payments need to reflect that reality to ensure the entire system remains sustainable. We must also safeguard a system that works for all Alabamians, including the hospitals that shoulder the most complex cases, and the employers and families who pay premiums.

We want Jackson Hospital to succeed. We have demonstrated that very commitment through years of open dialogue. Blue Cross remains ready to work constructively with Jackson Hospital’s leadership, local officials and hospital employees to find solutions that preserve access and protect affordability.

Our objective is the same: a Montgomery where every patient receives the right care at the right place — and where the Alabama healthcare delivery system remains strong for generations to come.

I grew up in the era of streaming. For my generation, watching a movie or starting a new series never meant flipping through cable channels or waiting for a DVD in the mail. It meant logging on, clicking play, and having the freedom to choose what we wanted, when we wanted it.

This is still true for most of my peers and their families in Alabama, where they often live in rural, college and military communities. Affordable streaming has become a primary way people stay connected to entertainment, news and culture. Streaming is no longer a niche or emerging product; it is now the dominant way Americans consume entertainment and the largest segment of the media marketplace.

That freedom is what made American entertainment the envy of the world and it’s exactly what’s at stake as policymakers weigh a proposed merger between Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery.

But today’s streaming landscape is no longer simple or affordable. Families and young professionals alike are forced to juggle a growing list of overlapping subscriptions just to access the shows and movies they enjoy. As the cost of living continues to rise, entertainment budgets are increasingly squeezed.

Consumers shouldn’t have to choose between paying for gas, groceries, or yet another monthly streaming bill. That’s not sustainable for young people or families and it’s not sustainable for the industry.

The Netflix-Warner Bros. Discovery merger offers a commonsense solution. By combining two complementary platforms, the deal would give consumers access to more content on fewer, easier-to-navigate services without sacrificing competition.

In fact, more than 75 percent of HBO Max subscribers already pay for Netflix today. That means millions of Americans are paying twice for overlapping content. A combined service could deliver more movies and shows at a lower overall cost, while keeping prices stable over the long term.

This is exactly the kind of market-driven efficiency conservatives, especially young conservatives, should support.

Critics claim this deal would undermine competition, but that argument ignores reality. Even with a combined Netflix–Warner Bros., our generation of consumers has an abundance of choices: Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+, Disney+, Paramount+, YouTube, YouTube TV and fast-growing ad-supported platforms like Tubi.

In fact, YouTube already dwarfs traditional streaming platforms in viewership, while social media giants like TikTok and Instagram increasingly compete for attention. The entertainment market is fiercely competitive and that competition isn’t going away.

This transaction makes the industry more competitive, strengthening American entertainment well into the 21st century, at a moment of real global pressure. Foreign-owned and state-backed platforms, including China’s Tencent and European media giants, are rapidly expanding their influence worldwide.

Netflix has already invested over $100 billion in U.S. production infrastructure and has employed more than 140,000 cast and crew members between 2020 and 2024. If we want America to continue leading global storytelling, we need strong U.S.-based companies with the scale, technology and creative power to compete.

For those who are worried about culture, it is worth noting that Netflix has been clear to not police content on ideology and foster a marketplace of different ideas and beliefs. In fact, the company has recently expanded its faith-based and family-friendly content, from musical films like “A Week Away” to biblical dramas like “Mary.”

A stronger American studio ecosystem allows for more diversity of voices, which is as American as apple pie.

Furthermore, from a regulatory perspective, there is no justification for blocking this deal for consumers. The Department of Justice has already approved larger and more vertically integrated mergers like Disney and FOX and Amazon and MGM.

To single out Netflix and Warner Bros. would be arbitrary, inconsistent and risk appearing politically motivated. Young people are tired of politics being involved in every decision. This generation of conservatives wants the market to work without unjust interference.

For a generation that values choice, innovation and affordability, this merger is a no-brainer. It is the next logical step in the evolution of streaming. It will simplify our experience, strengthen U.S. jobs and help reinforce America’s cultural leadership far into the 21st century.

At a time when competition from abroad is intensifying and families are feeling stretched at home, policymakers should focus on outcomes and not optics. When the free market delivers lower costs, better products, and stronger American companies, the government should get out of the way and let it work.

Cedric Coley was raised in the River Region and is a member of the Alabama Republican Party. He serves as the CD 2 Chair of Alabama Young Republicans, Chair of the River Region Minority Republicans, Montgomery County Republican Party and is a ALGOP State Executive Committee member.

When someone comes through the doors of a hospital emergency department, it is often one of the worst days of their life – a heart attack, a stroke, a serious injury, a child struggling to breathe.

In those moments, no one is thinking about staffing models or regulations. They are thinking about one thing: Is there a doctor here who can help me right now?

Most Alabamians assume the answer is yes. They would be surprised to learn that, under current law, that assumption is not always correct.

Senate Bill 80 would require every hospital emergency department in Alabama to have a physician physically present on site, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is a straightforward bill that simply aligns the law with what patients already expect when there is not a moment to lose.

Emergency medicine is unpredictable and high-risk by nature. Patients do not arrive on a schedule, and they rarely arrive with a clear diagnosis. In true emergencies, the difference between life and death can hinge on seconds – and on the training and experience of the professional leading the care team.

Physicians accumulate more than 12,000 hours of supervised patient care during medical school and residency. That depth of training matters most during complex, rapidly evolving emergencies.

When emergency departments operate without a physician present, patient outcomes suffer and disparities widen – especially in rural hospitals where surgeons, obstetricians and other specialists are not immediately available. Allowing unsupervised emergency care in these settings creates two standards of care based solely on geography.

Some critics argue that SB80 would place an undue burden on rural hospitals and cause closures. But Alabama is investing heavily in rural health care. This year, the Rural Health Transformation Program will invest $203 million in rural healthcare, alongside $20 million through the Alabama Rural Hospital Investment Program.

Rural Emergency Hospitals also receive more than $3 million annually in federal support. Alabamians expect these investments to raise the standard of emergency care, not lower it. SB80 does not close hospitals – it closes a loophole.

Other largely rural states, including South Carolina, Indiana and Virginia, have already adopted similar physician presence requirements.

No hospitals in those states have closed as a result. In fact, evidence suggests that having a physician on site can reduce costs by avoiding unnecessary tests, delays and transfers that occur when uncertainty replaces expertise.

If it were your loved one on that stretcher, you would want a physician in the room. Senate Bill 80 ensures that expectation is met for every Alabamian, every time.

When seconds matter, patients deserve nothing less.

Dr. Sean Vanlandingham is a practicing rural emergency medicine physician and President of the Alabama Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Across the country, families are getting squeezed. Groceries cost more. Insurance costs more. Energy costs more. Washington’s inflationary policies and radical environmental mandates have made everyday life harder for working people in red states and blue states alike.

Here in Alabama, conservative members of the House of Representatives believe our job is simple: protect Alabama families, protect Alabama jobs, and protect Alabama’s right to make decisions free from outside interference.

That is exactly what the Alabama Affordability Protection Act is designed to do.

This legislation is a conservative response to rising prices and growing pressure from Big Tech and radical, out-of-state environmental groups that see Alabama not as a home to families and workers, but as a battlefield for their national agenda.

These groups have already sent lobbyists to Montgomery and have filed paperwork to infiltrate the coming election.

Let’s be clear about what’s happening. Data centers and other massive industrial users bring opportunity—but they also bring enormous electric demand.

Without firm guardrails, those costs don’t disappear; they get shifted onto everyday ratepayers. Alabama families should not be forced to subsidize billion-dollar corporations. Our plan prohibits cost-shifting from data centers to residential customers, plain and simple.

We also believe that ratepayer dollars should go toward keeping the lights on—not padding lobbying budgets. That’s why the Act prohibits utilities from using ratepayer money to fund lobbyists.

Conservatives believe in transparency and accountability, not back-room influence paid for by working families.

At a time when utility costs are a top concern, Alabamians also deserve a seat at the table. This legislation requires utilities to hold public meetings on rates, ensuring that customers can hear directly from providers and ask hard questions before decisions are made. Sunshine is not radical—it’s conservative.

Finally, the Act provides stronger legislative oversight of the Public Service Commission. The PSC plays a critical role in our economy, and at this moment, the Legislature must reassert its constitutional authority like it can over other regulatory boards.

That oversight is more important than ever as millions of dollars in out-of-state money pour into Alabama through activist networks attempting to influence our elections and steer our energy policy.

These groups are not trying to lower utility bills. That has never been their objective. Their goal is control—over our economy, our grid, and ultimately our way of life.

Notably, the only organized opposition to this plan has come from that same environmental activist crowd. They want fewer guardrails, less transparency, and more influence from outside Alabama. We reject that vision.

This is not an easy vote. Standing up to powerful interests never is. But conservatives don’t shy away from tough decisions when Alabama families are on the line.

If we fail to act, utility rates will not magically go down because outside groups spent more money here. History shows the opposite, so we have to stop it from happening.

The Alabama Affordability Protection Act puts Alabama first. It protects ratepayers, reins in outside influence, strengthens oversight, and sends a clear message: our economy and our elections are not for sale.

We will do whatever it takes to protect Alabama families—and this legislation is a necessary step in that fight.

State Rep. Chip Brown (R-Hollingers Island) has represented HD105 since 2018, State Rep. Susan DuBose (R-Hoover) has represented HD45 since 2022, State Rep. Brock Colvin (R-Albertville) has represented HD26 since 2022, and State Rep. Arnold Mooney (R-Birmingham) has represented HD43 since 2014.

We are once again stuck in legislative gridlock over a simple question: should the people of Alabama be allowed to vote on a state lottery and expanded gaming? 

This is not about politics. It’s about reality. 

It is no secret that by 2027 Alabama will be in serious need of funds. One-time federal dollars are disappearing, while costs tied to education, infrastructure, healthcare, and public safety continue to rise. The question legislatures should be answering now is straightforward: where will that money come from? Taxing the people is one answer — but is it the only answer? 

At the same time, Alabamians already spend money on lottery games and gaming. They buy lottery tickets in Georgia and Tennessee. They take a “fun bus” to Mississippi for gaming. They participate online through unregulated platforms. All of that activity is perfectly legal once it crosses the state line, but not if it happens at home. Why? 

Neighboring states have already answered this question. Georgia uses lottery revenue to fund education and scholarships. Mississippi uses gaming revenue to support infrastructure and local economies. Florida and Tennessee use these revenues for education, transportation, and public services. Meanwhile, huge sums that could support Alabama’s priorities instead flow to other states. 

Opponents will argue about morality. Others will argue about risk. Those are fair conversations to have. But the key point is this: those arguments belong with the voters, not behind closed doors at the State House. 

Alabama voters are smart. They’re thoughtful. And they’re more than capable of weighing the pros and cons of a state lottery and expanded gaming and making a decision for themselves. 

For lawmakers, this may feel like a short-term arm flex in a single session. But the real question is what comes next. When budgets tighten and your district needs funding, what will  your answer be? Raising taxes on your constituents? Cutting services? Hoping for a financial miracle? 

Let’s stop exporting potential revenue. Put the question on the ballot. Trust the voters. And let Alabamians decide.

Laura Johnston Clark is a wife, mother, and businesswoman. She grew up in the Wiregrass and now lives in Birmingham with her husband, retired Air Force Colonel David Etheredge. She is a member of the Alabama Republican Party.

My lifetime friend, Steve Clouse, turns 70 this week. He was born on February 7, 1956. I hope his legislative colleagues and friends wish him a Happy Birthday. He truly is a good man.

Steve was born and raised in Ozark and has represented his home County of Dale as well as neighboring Houston County for 32 years – almost half of his life and well over 72% of his adult life. He was first elected to the Alabama House of Representatives in 1994 at age 38. He will be re-elected to his ninth, four-year term this year.

Steve Clouse is not only the Dean of the Wiregrass delegation in the House, he is the stalwart, respected leader and heart and soul of the Wiregrass delegation. Coincidentally, when Steve came to the House in 1994, he was the only Republican in the Wiregrass, House or Senate. Today, all Wiregrass Senators and House members are arch Republicans. The Wiregrass is one of the most Republican Regions of the State.

Steve is currently Chairman of the House Transportation Utilities and Infrastructure Committee. However, his most important leadership role was as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, where he wrote the General Fund Budget for over a decade.

Steve has always had a keen interest and knack for Alabama politics. He also has an astute marketing mind. When he first ran for the House, he coined the phrase, “Put Clouse in the House.” If he were to have an opponent, he could say, “Keep Clouse in the House.” He is truly a man of the House.

Steve is truly a man of Ozark, also. He is Ozark, through and through. His father, Jimmy Clouse, had deep roots in Dale County. Steve worked with his father in the oil distribution business until his Dad passed away a few years ago.

Steve has been a devout member of the First Methodist Church. He and his wife, Dianne, live right across the street from the Methodist Church. They don’t have far to go so it makes it hard for him to skip.

He parks his white truck right out front of his antebellum style home, right on Main Street, which tells his constituents, “I’m at home, come see me with your problems.”

Believe you me, small town legislators get more cries for help than you can imagine. Especially if you’re Steve Clouse, who knows most of his constituents personally. He has fixed many a Dale countian’s problems and potholes over the past four decades.

I often use the saying Alabama is a Big Front Porch. When it comes to me and Steve Clouse, that adage is definitely apropos.

I have never, not known Steve Clouse. We played together as little boys. Steve’s mama was Ruth Price. She grew up in Pike County. My mama, Gloria Grant Flowers and Ruth Price Clouse were like sisters all their lives. They were best friends as girls and teenagers and continued their friendship after Mrs. Ruth married Jimmy Clouse and moved to Ozark.

Mama lived all her life in Troy. When Steve and I were little boys, our mamas would bring us to Troy and Ozark to play together. We became like brothers rather than friends. We are still more like brothers. I don’t think it is just a coincidence that we have the same first name. I also had a sister named Kay and he has a sister named Kay. We are pretty sure our mamas collaborated on that.

When it got time for Steve to go to college, he chose the University of Alabama where I was finishing up. He pledged the same fraternity that I and a good many Southeast Alabama boys were in, Sigma Nu.

Our legislative districts connected for the 16 years I was in the House. We had almost identical pro-business conservative voting records. People still, today, get us confused because we have similar names. He tells me that often in our almost weekly phone conversations. “Someone called me you the other day.” My response to him, “I’m sure you told them that you were a lot younger and better looking.”

Steve Clouse is one of the best men I’ve ever known. He epitomizes honesty and integrity. I cannot believe that my young friend and little brother is 70. Alabama is a Big Front Porch.

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 steve@steveflowers.us.

U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees. Tom Neely is Chairman of Birmingham-based Oxford Pharmaceuticals.

While many of us try our best to forget the COVID pandemic in 2020, one serious issue that was revealed during that chaotic time is still impacting us today—our reliance on other countries for medications.

Most Americans are so used to taking medicines that they don’t stop to think where the medicine in their cabinets is coming from. 

The pandemic revealed how dangerous it is for the United States to be completely reliant on other countries for medications we could be making right here at home. 

More than 90 percent of the prescriptions filled in the United States each day are generic drugs. Those medicines keep our families healthy, help seniors manage chronic conditions, and ensure our troops and veterans get the care they deserve.

But the vast majority of those generics are no longer made in America. They’re made overseas—primarily in China and India. 

That didn’t happen by accident. It happened because Washington let it happen.

For years, we offshored generic drug manufacturing in the name of lower costs and “efficiency.” What we got instead was dependence on foreign supply chains, chronic drug shortages, and serious questions about quality and safety. That’s not efficiency. That’s negligence.

Americans are paying the price of Washington’s poor decisions. Last year, we spent $5.7 trillion on health care. Yet, we’re still the sickest and fattest country in the world. It’s embarrassing.

I appreciate President Trump and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy for wanting to ‘Make America Healthy Again.’ Part of this involves producing our own medicine.

A major study published in 2025 found that generic drugs manufactured in China and India are 54 percent more likely to cause severe adverse health events than comparable drugs made in the United States or Europe.

Severe means hospitalization—or worse. These are medicines people take every day, trusting they’ll make them better, not harm them.

Anyone who’s toured a modern domestic pharmaceutical facility has seen the quality difference between foreign-made and American-made medications firsthand. American plants operate under strict standards, constant inspection, and a basic moral obligation: we’re making medicine for our neighbors, our parents, and our kids.

That same accountability does not exist overseas. FDA inspectors have documented animals in production areas, shredded quality records, and contaminated batch logs in foreign facilities supplying the U.S. market.

Critics of American-made medicines argue that they’re too expensive. The reality is we don’t have a cost problem. We have a policy problem. The United States still has the capacity to make generic drugs at home. Some American facilities are operating at 50 percent utilization or less. 

Alabama is home to such facilities, like Oxford Pharmaceuticals located in Birmingham, Alabama. It produces a generic tablet for a little over one cent per pill.

A bottle of 100 doses costs about $1.50 to make. Medicare reimburses that same bottle at more than $13. The money is there—it’s just being siphoned off by a supply chain that rewards middlemen and foreign producers instead of American workers and patients.

We can quickly return to ‘Made in America’ when it comes to medicine if we put the right incentives in place. First, we should use federal procurement to support domestic manufacturing.

The federal government is one of the largest buyers of medicines in the world—through Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and the Department of Defense.

We should use that buying power to prioritize U.S.-made generics and provide long-term contracts that give manufacturers the confidence to invest and expand. 

Second, we need targeted trade enforcement. Generic drugs are essential medicines. If we’re serious about reshoring them, then trade policy—including Section 232 actions—has to address generics directly.

There is no national security crisis in branded pharmaceuticals. The crisis is in generics, where foreign dependence has hollowed out domestic production and left us exposed. 

Third, we need transparency. Americans should be able to know where their medicines are made. Right now, it’s often impossible to tell. That’s nonsensical.

If country-of-origin labeling matters for food, it should matter for medicine. No country should rely on its top adversaries for the medicines that keep its people alive.

Americans deserve better than the status quo. We can’t wait for another pandemic to hit to take this seriously. It isn’t just a health crisis; it’s an urgent national security concern as well.

We haven’t been preparing to win in America when it comes to our generic drug supply chain, and we are another disruption away from failure. 

Making medicine in America again isn’t radical. It’s common sense. And it’s long overdue.

We write today on behalf of the Alabama Association for Justice in response to the recent reporting on the Alabama Department of Insurance’s liability insurance claims cost report, which claims rising liability claim severity and large verdicts as factors in higher insurance costs across the state.

We agree that the cost of liability insurance is an important concern for Alabama families and businesses. It’s understandable that rising insurance premiums attract attention from policymakers, insurers and the media.

But it is equally important for the public to understand why these costs are rising — and who bears the burden of those increases.

Insurance costs

Insurance premiums reflect the cost of losses insurers pay — both for property damage and for real human injuries. The recent report asserts that lawsuits are the primary reason for these increases, despite rampant inflation in many component areas.

Obviously, these numbers reflect:

• substantial rises in the cost of medical care
• increased wages (and compensation for their loss)
• growth in long-term disability needs
• rising costs and damages suffered by individuals injured in car wrecks, workplace accidents, negligence cases, and other serious life-changing events

Lawsuits do not cause injuries, they are a pathway for injured Alabamians (individuals and businesses alike) to seek fair compensation when they have been damaged. Lawsuits are a last resort after suffering serious losses and being unable to settle fairly with insurers. But thank goodness we have that right.

What the report does not capture

The Department of Insurance’s data call and summary analysis provide interesting information, but there are limitations worth mentioning:

• The report is based on self-reported insurer data that was not audited or independently verified
• Rising costs in liability lines reflect nationwide trends in rising healthcare costs, wage replacement needs, and the expense of defending complex cases
• Insurance company decisions about reserve levels, underwriting practices, rate filings, and defense strategies also influence the cost of premiums — and those decisions are not always transparent to policyholders

It is also important to look beyond claims costs and consider how insurance companies themselves have performed financially during the same period.

Insurance companies are aggressively seeking increased profits

According to industry financial data, U.S. property and casualty insurers — the companies that write most liability insurance policies — posted record profits in 2024, even as they raised premiums. Industry-wide net income after taxes climbed to roughly $170 billion in 2024, up sharply from the prior year, driven in part by higher premiums and strong investment income.

For example, the aggregate net income for the U.S. property and casualty insurance industry more than doubled from about $87 billion in 2023 to nearly $170 billion in 2024 — a level not seen in recent history. That increase came at the same time that most policyholders saw significant rate increases on auto, liability, and homeowners coverage.

Even some individual insurers reported strong earnings. For instance, USAA — one of the largest property and casualty insurers nationally — reported nearly $4 billion in profit in 2024 and record revenue, as insurance premiums collected grew significantly.

This data shows that many insurers remain financially strong and able to generate large profits, even while they have asked policyholders for substantial rate increases. That disparity between rising premiums and rising profits matters when the industry wants to divert our attention to their increasing costs.

Claims handling and litigation strategy

Insurance companies play an active role in how claims develop and how costly they become.

Over the last several years, many insurers have adopted a strategy of delaying, denying, or aggressively litigating claims rather than resolving them early. This approach is often driven by internal cost-containment policies and national claims-handling models, not by the individual facts of a particular case.

They mistakenly believed that this would save them money. But this strategy drove up overall costs for insurers rather than reduce them.

The Department of Insurance report itself shows that litigated claims take significantly longer to resolve, incur far higher defense costs, and are much more likely to reach or exceed policy limits. Legal claims are also far more likely to involve prolonged settlement delays — with a much higher percentage remaining unresolved for two years or more compared to non-litigated claims. This is a delay in justice for those injured or damaged, which costs them as well.

When insurers refuse to fairly evaluate and pay claims early, injured people and insureds are often left with no choice but to file suit to protect their rights. Once litigation begins, costs rise quickly — not only because of attorney involvement, but because insurers incur higher defense expenses, expert fees, and extended case management costs.

In other words, litigation is often the result of claims-handling business decisions, not their cause. Early, fair resolution benefits everyone — injured individuals receive timely compensation, insurers reduce legal expenses, and overall system costs decline.

Alabama Association for Justice stands ready to engage in constructive dialogue about solutions that:

• Help keep liability insurance affordable for families and employers
• Ensure injured people and damaged businesses can obtain fair compensation
• Promote a balanced claims system where both insurers and their insureds are treated equitably

We encourage reporters and policymakers to look beyond simple narratives and consider all dimensions of this issue as discussions continue.

Clint Mountain is the president of Alabama Association for Justice and the managing partner at Mountain & Mountain in Tuscaloosa. Raised in Montgomery, Alabama, he obtained his undergraduate degree in business management from The University of Alabama in 2000 and his J.D. from The University of Alabama School of Law in 2003.

Across Alabama, criminals are exploiting a growing gap in consumer protection—and families are paying the price.

Cryptocurrency kiosks, often called “crypto ATMs,” are increasingly being used by scammers to steal hard-earned money from unsuspecting Alabamians. House Bill 303, the Cryptocurrency Kiosk Fraud Prevention Act, offers a commonsense solution.

Alabama lawmakers should act quickly and pass it.

Cryptocurrency kiosks resemble traditional bank ATMs and are often placed in familiar, everyday locations. While they can be used for legitimate transactions, scammers have learned how to misuse them.

Victims are commonly pressured by phone, text, or email to deposit cash into these machines to resolve a fake emergency—such as a supposed government fine, bank issue, or urgent family crisis. Once the money is transferred, it is nearly impossible to recover.

This problem is growing at an alarming rate. According to FBI data, more than 12,000 cryptocurrency kiosk fraud complaints were filed nationwide between January and November 2025, with reported losses exceeding $333 million.

In Alabama alone, the Alabama Securities Commission reports that residents have already lost millions of dollars to these scams, and cases continue to rise.

At AARP Alabama, we regularly hear from fraud victims and their families. For older adults—many living on fixed incomes—these losses can be devastating. Retirement savings that took decades to build can disappear in minutes. The emotional toll is just as damaging, leaving victims feeling embarrassed, fearful, and isolated. Fraud is a crime, and the responsibility belongs with the criminals—not the people they target.

House Bill 303, sponsored by Representative Russell Bedsole, takes a balanced approach. It does not ban cryptocurrency kiosks or stifle innovation. Instead, it establishes practical safeguards that protect consumers and deter criminal activity.

The bill requires clear disclosure of fees and exchange rates before transactions occur and mandates visible warnings on kiosks about how to recognize and report fraud. It ensures customers receive detailed receipts—critical for investigations—and sets daily and monthly transaction limits to prevent catastrophic losses.

It also requires live, U.S.-based, toll-free customer service and a direct law-enforcement contact line at all times.

Importantly, the bill creates a mechanism to refund lost funds when possible and prevents crypto kiosks from operating inside banks and credit unions, where their presence may falsely suggest institutional oversight.

Alabama would not be acting alone. Eighteen states have already taken legislative or regulatory action to address cryptocurrency kiosk fraud, and neighboring states are also pursuing consumer protections this year.

These states recognize that without reasonable guardrails, scammers will continue to exploit new technologies and consumers will continue to suffer.

Protecting Alabamians from fraud is not a partisan issue. It is about safeguarding people, families, and communities. As state director of AARP Alabama, I urge every member of the Alabama Legislature to support House Bill 303.

This legislation will protect constituents, strengthen confidence in emerging financial technologies, and send a clear message that Alabama will not tolerate financial exploitation.

The longer we wait, the more damage scammers will do. Alabama has the opportunity to lead—by acting now and passing House Bill 303, the Cryptocurrency Kiosk Fraud Prevention Act.

Candi Williams is the AARP Alabama State Director.

As the 2026 Legislative Session evolves, it is apparent that this year’s annual session will be short and sweet. That is par for the course in an election year session. This is election year and all 105 House Seats, and all 35 Senate Seats are up for election. Therefore, it is an inherent historical reality that nothing consequential or controversial is addressed in a quadrennium ending election year.

However, it is a constitutional requirement that the legislature enact a budget – in fact, both budgets. Indeed, Alabama has two state budgets. We have a Special Education Trust Fund Budget, which encompasses two-thirds of Alabama’s tax revenues, and of course, we have our General Fund Budget, which has one-third of all revenues. Even though crafting the state’s budgets is difficult and mundane work, it is the most important chore of a legislature.

Fortunately, Alabama has some outstanding and experienced leaders, who chair the Budget Committees, do yeoman’s work, and primarily write the budgets. The Chairmen of the Education Budget Committees are Senator Arthur Orr (R-Decatur) and Representative Danny Garrett (R-Trussville). The General Fund Budget Chairmen are Senator Greg Albritton (R-Escambia) and Representative Rex Reynolds (R-Huntsville). They do an excellent job.

The larger Education Budget will be a much tougher task this year because of the rising cost of healthcare, thus health insurance. The teachers’ health insurance fund was founded by and is managed by Dr. David Bonner’s well run Teachers Retirement System. This Public Education Health Insurance Plan (PEEHIP) has provided health insurance coverage to Alabama’s education employees, retirees, and their dependents since its creation in 1983.

PEEHIP has kept their costs in line for nearly a decade without asking the legislature or members for more money. However, PEEHIP is facing a shortfall for fiscal year 2026, due to a significant decline in federal funding for educators and education retirees. It is a nationwide problem.

There are three main reasons for this national problem: cuts to federal funding for Medicare retirees, general inflation that is driving up the cost of everything, and higher utilization by current members and retirees. Folks are living longer, and those who are living longer expend a lot of healthcare dollars. State revenues probably will not be able to keep up with these rapidly rising costs. It will be a heavy lift for the legislature.

The cost of healthcare is not just an Alabama problem. It is a national problem and probably the paramount problem facing American consumers. The cost of health insurance has risen sharply for the third year in a row, reaching just under $27,000 for a family plan. That is a 6% increase from the year before and builds on two prior years of 7% gains.

These figures are confirmed by the most trusted and largest health insurance analyst KFF. The latest KFF survey suggests that half the U.S. population gets health coverage through a job.

Hospital prices have also grown significantly in recent years for numerous reasons. There is an alarming increase of cancer in the working-age population. Employers are also seeing increased outlays on new and costly therapies, particularly the popular drugs known as GLP-1s, a category that includes the weight loss treatments Wegovy and Zepbound.

A good many private companies are shifting the increased cost of health insurance onto workers in the form of out-of-pocket charges such as deductibles and copayments. Legislators are struggling mightily with these problems as they craft the budgets.

This increased healthcare and health insurance cost will be a major issue in the upcoming midterm congressional elections. Millions of Americans who were covered under the Affordable Care Act have seen a significant increase in their health insurance premiums beginning this month. There will be political repercussions from voters come November. Who will be hurt politically remains to be seen but, generally, voters blame the party who is in the White House.

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 steve@steveflowers.us.

Alabama head coach Nate Oats was right when he said the NCAA’s eligibility system is broken. And the Charles Bediako situation is the latest example of how college basketball has become trapped in a rulebook full of contradictions, gray areas, and selective outrage. 

I’m an old school guy, and I don’t love the idea of former professionals playing college basketball. But the truth is that programs are left operating within the existing system, not the one critics wish we still had. If former professional players are eligible, Charles Bediako is eligible.  

Bediako is within his five-year window. He’s 23 years old. He’s enrolled in school and working toward finishing his degree. A high school athlete didn’t lose a scholarship or an opportunity because of him. This is a player returning to campus to do exactly what college athletics claims to value: education and development. 

The loudest criticism surrounding Bediako usually comes down to one thing: he signed a G League deal. And that’s where the NCAA’s hypocrisy becomes impossible to ignore. 

College basketball is filled with players who have played professionally. Not semi-pro. Not “kind of pro.” Real professionals. These are high-level players from overseas leagues often considered more competitive than the G League. Many college programs have benefited from these players, and the NCAA has allowed it. Just this year, the NCAA granted eligibility to a player who had spent the past five years playing professional basketball in Europe and had been drafted by the NBA. 

The money overseas is no joke either. In China’s CBA, players can earn $1 million to $3 million per year. In the EuroLeague, salaries commonly range from $500,000 to $800,000 per year. In Spain, Turkey, Russia, Italy, Israel, and Germany, pro salaries routinely reach into the hundreds of thousands. That’s real income. That’s real professional experience. 

So, what is the difference between a player who has played overseas for years and a player who has played in the G League? Is there even a difference?  

That question is at the heart of the Bediako debate, and it’s the question the NCAA can’t answer with any consistency. For too long, the NCAA has refused to enforce its own rules, but now it is selectively targeting one player in a way that is neither fair nor legal.

Charles Bediako should not be punished for choosing to pursue an education after high school rather than playing professional basketball overseas. He made a decision, pursued his career, and now he’s back in school. He is no different than countless other college players. 

For the most part, coaches around the country have been silent about this and are waiting to hear the outcome of the Bediako hearing. If it’s ruled in his favor, look for schools to do the same thing Alabama did, not because they want to push the boundaries, but because the NCAA has failed to draw clear ones. 

This is why the NCAA needs to fix its system now. We need eligibility rules that are transparent and ensure all student-athletes are treated fairly. Until that happens, targeting a single player operating within the law is wrong.  

The outrage shouldn’t be with Charles Bediako. The outrage should be with the NCAA. 

John Longshore, a Montgomery resident, serves as a sports analyst for both the Longshore & McKnight Show and WAKA Action 8 News. 

For years, many Americans assumed the greatest threat facing this country came from outside our borders. But unfortunately, thanks to Democrats’ disastrous open border policies, the enemy is now inside the gates.

Under Joe Biden, more than 11 MILLION illegal immigrants were welcomed into this country with open arms—and those are just the ones we know about.

Thankfully, President Trump is back in the White House and doing everything he can to enforce the law and deport these criminal illegal immigrants. For the first time in half-a-century, the U.S. had a negative net migration last year. Over 605,000 illegals have been deported, and 1.9 million self-deportations took place in the first year of President Trump’s second term.

This is what 77 million Americans voted for at the ballot box in 2024.

Unfortunately, not all states are complying with federal law enforcement in their deportation efforts. It’s hard to turn on the TV without hearing about the various crises happening in Minnesota under Governor Tim Walz. Minnesota has rolled out the red carpet for illegals, like some from Somalia who have turned around and orchestrated one of the biggest tax fraud scandals in American history.

Not only have they stolen billions from American taxpayers, but they have used the money to fund terrorism back in their home country. Because Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey have refused to work with the federal government to deport these criminals, President Trump had no choice but to send federal agents into Minnesota to enforce the law and get these criminals out of the country.

Predictably, thousands of woke “protestors” have taken over Minneapolis in opposition to the Trump administration’s efforts to enforce the law. These “protests” are undoubtedly being organized and funded by left-wing groups. To make matters worse, Governor Walz and Mayor Frey have stoked the fire by telling ICE to “get the f*** out” and encouraging people to cause “good trouble.”

This language has inspired people to violently attack law enforcement officers, interrupt church services, and drive their vehicles into ICE officers. These first responders have every right to defend themselves while doing their jobs if they are being obstructed or attacked.

This chaotic environment led to the shooting of Alex Pretti, who was seen on video attacking a police vehicle in Minneapolis in the days leading up to him being fatally shot by an officer. This was a tragic situation, but it was also preventable. Alex Pretti appeared to have been carrying a legally-obtained firearm.

But you still have a responsibility to use common sense when you carry a gun. For example, you can’t carry a gun into a church or a police department. You’d be asking for trouble.

I’m all for the Second Amendment, but you have to understand that law enforcement is on high alert because their lives are on the line every day. You as a citizen have a responsibility to make sure you are not threatening a cop in any way.

If you do, there may be consequences. Two of our biggest blessings in this country are the First Amendment, which gives you the right to peacefully protest, and the Second Amendment, which gives you the right to carry a gun. But both of those rights still come with a responsibility.

In this country, you have the right to peacefully protest. But you do not have the right to impede law enforcement—that is called anarchy. While our Constitution clearly protects states’ rights, it also makes it clear that state law does not supersede federal law.

Like it or not, federal law passed by Congress requires people who are here illegally to be deported. If you do not like the laws that are on the books, you can take that up with your elected officials in Congress. It is the job of the President of the United States to enforce the federal law.

All of this seems common sense—so why isn’t the media telling the truth? It’s because the woke media is desperate to talk about anything other than why President Trump is deporting these criminals in the first place. The media would much rather cover the Minnesota protests than investigate why ICE is having to spend so much time and resources in Minnesota in the first place.

As far as I’m concerned, if you are here illegally, you have already committed a crime. But you wouldn’t know it from the woke media who wants you to believe that the illegals hiding in our country are all harmless grandmas and children.

In reality, many of them go on to commit more crimes after they get into our country. More than 70% of the people ICE has deported have been charged or convicted with additional crimes since illegally entering the United States.

Take Jose Ibarra, Laken Riley’s murderer, for example. He was let in under Joe Biden and had already been arrested for attempting to harm a minor before eventually being released. He murdered Laken Riley one year later. It’s heartbreaking, but this is not an isolated incident. Many of these illegals President Trump is trying to deport are violent criminals with a long rap sheet.

Do not let the media’s 24-7 coverage of the riots in Minnesota distract you from the real issues here: the violent, criminal illegals who are living in our neighborhoods thanks to Joe Biden. The media does not want to cover stories like what happened in Georgia just last week, when an 11-year-old girl was raped by a sick illegal alien.

They don’t want to talk about the billions of dollars that a group of criminal illegal Somalians stole from American taxpayers in Minnesota. And they certainly don’t want to talk about how Democrats are allowing illegals to vote in our elections.

Thank God for President Trump, who is doing whatever it takes to enforce the law by getting these dangerous illegals out of our country. God bless our law enforcement officers who are putting their lives on the line every day for our safety.

As a grandfather, I pray that ICE’s deportation operations are successful so that my granddaughter can grow up in a safer, more secure nation.

Four hundred years ago, Charles I was crowned King of England. He became king automatically upon the death of his father, James I, but his coronation was delayed for almost a year.

Officially, the delay was attributed to an outbreak of plague which made public gatherings deadly when, in truth, the excuse masked another reality.

Charles was broke.

His father had spent lavishly and left the crown deeply in debt. Along with the throne, Charles inherited the existing financial obligations and a strained relationship with Parliament. If Charles believed Parliament would fund an extravagant coronation, he would be sorely mistaken.

As the delay lengthened, public anxiety grew. The coronation was not necessary to crown Charles as king, simple heredity did that, but it was a vital public display of royal power and legitimacy. Held in Westminster Abbey, the coronation was a religious ceremony meant to demonstrate that God had anointed Charles as the nation’s ruler, uniting him with his people in a sacred bond of divine favor for a righteous and prosperous reign.

Charles embraced the doctrine of the divine right of kings, which he believed conferred spiritual authority upon him, especially in his dealings with Parliament, and sanctified his royal decrees. Parliament did not share this view. While many respected the king as an essential part of government and an integral element of English society, few believed he was infallible, above the law, or entitled to unquestioned obedience.

When the coronation finally took place, it lacked the grandeur traditionally associated with a new reign. There were no elaborate clothes, feasts, parades, or public processions; nothing for the king’s subjects to enjoy or celebrate. Instead of uniting the kingdom around a hopeful beginning, Charles’s coronation was restrained and joyless.

Rather than fostering kinship, Charles alienated his subjects. Religion remained a matter of paramount importance as many English people remembered the turmoil that occurred when monarchs embraced unpopular religious policies and enforced conformity through persecution. It had been less than 70 years since state-sponsored religion had sanctioned the persecution and execution of religious dissidents.

Instead of easing these concerns, Charles exacerbated them by marrying a French Catholic princess for political reasons. Because the coronation was a Protestant ceremony, she did not participate but observed from behind a screen. Rather than reassuring his subjects of religious moderation and tolerance, the coronation intensified fears that his wife’s influence would shape the king’s faith and policies. No one welcomed the thought of persecutions and instability.

When Charles I ascended the throne, English colonization in America was still tentative and fragile. Jamestown had survived only through great hardship, while Plymouth Colony remained small and precarious. Colonization during Charles’s reign relied on joint-stock companies, proprietary grants, and royal charters. Although Charles did not prioritize colonial expansion, his policies indirectly shaped colonial growth through the granting and confirmation of charters.

Under Charles, colonies such as Massachusetts Bay and Maryland expanded.

The Massachusetts Bay Company received its royal charter from Charles, allowing Puritan leaders to establish a colony with an unusual degree of self-governance. Charles approved the charter largely for financial and political reasons, viewing colonization as a means of expanding English influence without heavy royal expenditure. His treasury also pocketed the franchise fee associated with the charter.

In contrast, Charles’s support for Maryland, granted to Lord Baltimore, was less about remuneration and reflected his desire to reward loyal supporters and provide stability for English Catholics. Maryland was intended as a proprietary colony where Catholics could worship freely, though it ultimately attracted a diverse population. Through these grants, Charles unintentionally shaped the religious and political diversity of the American colonies.

But Charles I’s religious policies also encouraged emigration. His support for the Church of England and a High-Church Anglican style of worship alienated Puritans, who sought further reform and feared a return to Catholic practices.

During the period when Charles ruled without Parliament, religious conformity was more strictly enforced, and dissenters faced fines, imprisonment, or social marginalization. For many Puritans, particularly those with the financial means to relocate, America offered an escape from religious intolerance. Tens of thousands migrated to New England, where they established communities centered on religious autonomy.

The colonies became havens for groups seeking greater religious freedom, reinforcing patterns of self-governance and local political organization that would later define colonial political culture.

Charles’s frequent use of prerogative power, including taxation without parliamentary consent, further alarmed his subjects. These tensions extended to the colonies, where settlers closely followed political developments in England with alarm.

Charles’s inability to tightly supervise colonial affairs allowed colonies to develop representative assemblies, local courts, and systems of taxation modeled on English institutions. This autonomy fostered a political culture that valued local control and resistance to distant authority. The failure to impose consistent royal oversight further entrenched colonial self-rule as colonists experienced liberty to govern themselves in local, representative governments.

The outbreak of the English Civil War significantly altered migration patterns to America. Emigration increased as royalists, parliamentarians, and religious minorities sought safety overseas. New England attracted supporters of Parliament, while colonies such as Virginia and Maryland received greater numbers of royalist sympathizers.

Parliament’s execution of Charles I marked an unprecedented rejection of divinely ordained monarchy. In America, the absence of a monarch and the instability of Oliver Cromwell’s Commonwealth reduced centralized oversight of the colonies. Under this benign neglect, colonial governments consolidated power and refined local institutions, laying the groundwork for future resistance to imperial control.

The experience of self-governance during a period of imperial weakness reinforced colonial expectations of autonomy. Colonists grew accustomed to managing their own affairs and interpreting English liberties in local contexts. These habits would later shape resistance to British reforms and ultimately contribute to the American Revolution.

Charles I’s coronation 400 years ago increased colonial development both in terms of the people who left England and in the English institutions and practical experiences they brought with them. Through charter grants, religious policies, and political conflict, he inadvertently influenced migration to the colonies and allowed colonial self-government to prosper.

Will Sellers is a graduate of Hillsdale College and an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of Alabama. He is best reached at jws@willsellers.com.

The late radio teacher, J. Vernon McGee, had a famous line: “When Satan fell, he fell into the choir loft!”

This comment may be a bit arcane since contemporary churches may not have a loft or choir, but a ‘praise team” on stage or platform. But maybe McGee was onto something—at least in a few cases I know.

One Sunday our pianist (this was many moons ago) played a beautiful arrangement just before the sermon. When I stepped to the pulpit, I thanked her and mentioned how I was moved by the rendition. Shortly I heard a door slam. I dared not look since it would create more interest, but after the benediction, a kindly person explained that the organist left quickly and spoke her hurt to someone on the way out.

Normally the two ladies played a duet, so the piano solo was unusual. I had no clue my statement was offensive, but I called the organist immediately after the service was done. She was apologetic for interrupting the worship. She said she acted in haste and was “dealing with a lot of things.” I didn’t delve into this but assured her of my concern and prayers.

Of course, it’s not just musicians that can cause a bit of heartburn on the platform, but pastors, too.

A fellow pastor came into our customary Monday morning meeting one day with a big announcement.

“I fired the choir,” he said, somewhat haughtily.

He explained further: “They were so disgruntled and mean that I told them we just wouldn’t have a choir. They were done.”

Interestingly, the mayor of the town was in this choir.

A few weeks later the pastor was terminated.

A seasoned pastor I heard cautioned the platform can be “ego on parade,” and that we can “strut” before the Lord and his people. An occupational hazard, no doubt.

I’ve often told our parishioners the spotlight never determines the value of ministry. The church’s greater ministry is done outside the spotlight of acclaim. The late Ray Stedman suggested that 90 percent of Christians have the gift of service (“helps” in the King James Version), meaning they do what needs to be done without seeking recognition. This can be simple acts of charity or writing checks privately without calling attention to our generosity.

However Satan got to Planet Earth, it looks like he’s here for the long-term. Peter described him as a “roaring lion seeking to devour,” thus we must “humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time” (1 Peter 5).

Humility is needed in the pulpit and the pew in order not to give foothold to the enemy.

“Reflections” is a weekly faith column written by Michael J. Brooks, pastor of the Siluria Baptist Church, Alabaster, Alabama. The church’s website is siluriabaptist.com.

Governor Kay Ivey will have been Governor for almost a decade when she leaves office in January of 2027. She will have been Governor longer than anyone in state history other than George Wallace. She is also the first woman elected Governor in her own right. In addition, she is the first female Republican Governor in history.

Governor Kay Ivey would go down in the annals at the State Archives as unique and accomplished for these reasons alone. However, she has been a very good Governor.

Her legacy in her cabinet and judicial appointments have been spectacular. The Governor has an enormously large number of important appointments. This power of the Governor is often overlooked and underestimated. Governor Ivey has shown stellar acumen and reason in her choices. In my estimation, this inherent power has become one of the most important achievements of Governor Ivey’s administration.

Over the past two years, she has made some outstanding and important appointments. The legislature created the cabinet position of Workforce Transformation. She selected the perfect and probably obvious choice to head this new department.

State Senator Greg Reed of Jasper is one of the most profound leaders to come out of the Senate in the past few decades. He had risen to be the President Pro Tem of the Senate. She convinced him to leave his powerful Senate post to take charge of Workforce Development. He is doing a good job.

Kay Ivey convinced another popular and powerful legislator to leave the legislature and take a state position. She garnered Tuscaloosa State Representative Cynthia Lee Almond to take the job of President of the State Public Service Commission. This is a very important position, which Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh handled successfully for years. Twinkle left to head the USDA in the state for the Trump Administration.

The most profound and significant of Governor Ivey’s stellar appointments has been in the realm of her outstanding judicial appointments. First, she has had an amazing number of judicial appointments. Kay Ivey has appointed 42 District Court Judges, 33 Circuit Court Judges, 12 Probate Judges, one Judge to the Court of Criminal Appeals, two Judges to the Court of Civil Appeals, and five Justices to the Alabama Supreme Court.

One of her best judicial appointments was Judge Bill Lewis to the State Supreme Court. He served decades as the Circuit Judge for Elmore County. The governor appointed Lewis to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals in February 2024, then to the Alabama Supreme Court last year. Shortly thereafter, our U.S. Senators plucked him from our State Supreme Court and appointed him as a federal judge.

Governor Ivey chose another successful and qualified judge to take the vacancy on the State Court of Civil Appeals. Covington County Circuit Judge Ben Bowden will move to that State Appellate Court. He is a veteran Circuit Judge, and prior to that was Covington County Probate Judge.

Governor Ivey has chosen outstanding, qualified people for local judicial positions throughout the state. Her choices have been reasonable and logical, and met with overwhelming approval, locally.

She appointed judges in Jefferson County, who are qualified and electable. In Democratic Montgomery County, she has appointed Tiffany McCord as a Circuit Judge. In addition, she chose Azzie Taylor Oliver as Montgomery County District Attorney. Governor Ivey made Scott Brewer the District Judge of Talladega County.

She appointed Ashley Siebert as a District Judge in Baldwin County. She also appointed Laurie Hoyt to serve as a new Circuit Judge in Baldwin County. In Jackson County, she appointed Matthew Mitchell to a District Judgeship. Governor Ivey appointed Grace Jeter as a Circuit Judge in Covington County. Grace has been an assistant District Attorney for 20 years.

Her latest judicial appointment may be one of her best. She appointed her General Counsel, Will Parker, to the State Supreme Court in November 2025. Parker served as Governor Ivey’s General Counsel for six years. He did an excellent job in this role. Prior to his work with Governor Ivey, he served 10 years as an Assistant Attorney General in the Constitutional Division, which is perfect training for the Supreme Court.

Governor Kay Ivey has a legacy for appointments, especially judicial.

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 steve@steveflowers.us.

Our global economy is underpinned by the ability to move goods and food relatively efficiently across the world, allowing producers and consumers to connect.  From bananas to microchips, luxury goods to automobile components – global trade has created a higher standard of living for billions of people and fostered the creation of trillions of dollars of wealth.  The developments that made this possible are numerous and beyond the scope of this paper.  But one thing is certain, containerization changed the world and this paper is a tribute to the extraordinary Malcom McLean, the driving force behind it all.

Businessmen and women that are ambitious and achieve success must have some attributes in common.  They might be exceptional at operations and developing processes or perhaps they excel at strategy.  Maybe they are particularly adept at finance.  Some have the ability to identify and develop talent.  Malcom McLean excelled at each.

Malcom was born in 1913 near Maxton, NC, the son of a farmer who also had a postal route.  He was the second oldest child of six siblings, two of which would later join him in business.  Like many smaller towns in rural areas, hard work was a way of life, and some initiative was helpful.  Malcom’s first venture was a shoeshine service near Maxton’s town square, where many of the population of about 1,300 people regularly shopped.  At the age of fourteen Malcom, when finished with his chores after school, would head to town with his shoeshine kit.  His sales pitch was a “shine for a dime.”

After graduating high school in 1931 Malcolm’s first job was stocking shelves at a local grocery and he quickly progressed to the front of the store.  He heard of a gas station in nearby Red Springs that needed a manager.  He applied for, pursued and won the job. He had enough experience to know that details matter and quickly had the station organized.  Malcolm also displayed an early eye for marketing prompting him to take a page from the organ grinders, which were very popular at that time.  He bought a monkey to entertain the customers, particularly the ones with children.

Sales soon increased at the gas station convincing the owner he had made the right hire.

The Red Eagle station bought gas from a distributor in Fayetteville, about twenty-eight miles away.  Malcom watched every cost detail carefully and noted that the trucker hauling the gas charged a fee of $5.00 for his services.  After running some numbers and checking out an old trailer that had been rusting in a nearby yard, he proposed to the gas station owner a cost saving option – let Malcom buy a used truck, fix up the trailer and haul the gas himself.  The owner agreed and with one truck McLean Trucking was born in 1934 when Malcom was all of twenty-one years old.

He would continue driving a truck for several years.  Throughout his career, Malcom watched costs carefully while looking for innovations that would create a strategic advantage.  From the start he looked for people that shared his passion for excellence.  Soon his younger brother Jim and his sister Clara joined him at McLean Trucking.  Together they pursued business, relying on cost management and customer satisfaction as customers knew they could rely on the McLeans. A nice client list developed, including the R. J. Reynolds Company.  By 1940, McLean Trucking had thirty operating trucks and revenues of about $230,000.

And by 1945 the company had 162 trucks and about $2.2 million in annual revenues.  While regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), Malcom realized that profitable growth required an ongoing cost advantage.  From integrating the sales process into full cost pricing amidst accountability in all departments, McLean Trucking became the employer of choice.

Malcom also knew competitive and capable people wanted to work with a winner.  His time behind the wheel gave him a perspective other owners might not have.  This provided him with empathy that led to incentive programs that aligned customer experience with employee quality and company profitability.  By the end of 1945 McLean Trucking was known for being able to make a route profitable when others could not.

Malcom turned to buying or leasing ICC – approved routes other companies could not make economically viable and added six hundred additional trucks from 1947 to 1949.   This scale allowed the company to act strategically.  A load of cigarettes heading north to New England could have a truck return a load south of any number of goods in the post-World War II economy.  Armed with this efficiency and effectiveness, Malcom proposed cutting freight cost in half for R. J. Reynolds in 1947.

By 1954 McLean Trucking was one of the largest trucking companies in the U.S. with about $11.4 million in revenue.  In that same year, Malcom would meet Walter Wriston, a young banker at National City Bank.  Wriston and McLean developed a business and personal relationship. Walter would eventually become Chairman and CEO of Citicorp.  Meanwhile, McLean Trucking was nicely executing on efficiencies and scale.  Malcom’s own experience as a driver, and certainly as an entrepreneur, trained his eye on a situation hardly efficient – shipping ports.

Over the course of several centuries, from sails to steam and other fuels, not much had changed about the way a ship was loaded, unloaded and then reloaded.  From all by hand to some evolution in machinery, as of 1954 it was still a highly labor-intensive process that often took weeks and had the additional reality of shrinkage amidst all the hands involved.  Malcom first saw it through a windshield of a truck but armed with his ever-present yellow pad, he devised a different process.

What if cargo was loaded into containers that were transported off a truck or by rail, directly on a ship and then unloaded in the same container onto a flatbed truck trailer or railcar?  The potential  reduction in cost could be very material, and, after all, freight was just a cost that could reduce a good’s price and, as Malcom often noted – “Price sells.”  He also knew that cargo shipping by ports was, like trucking, regulated and with applicable statutes, including the Jones Act, which required that movements among U.S. ports be on U.S.-built and owned vessels.

To achieve the vision, Malcom needed ships and established routes.  The ships would have to be fitted, unions engaged and port authorities nurtured then converted.  In short, a transformation of significant proportions.  By now, Malcom was wealthy, a long way from shining shoes.  He had a place in New York City and a highly profitable trucking business he enjoyed running with his brother and sister.  An April 1953 article in the Winston-Salem Journal Sentinel, “Truck Cab to Swivel Chair:  The Story of the McLeans,” underscores the success they had achieved together.

A less ambitious man might have just rode the wave.  But Malcom started looking for a shipping company to buy.  Pan-Atlantic Steamship had operating rights to sixteen ports and four ships voyaging from Boston to Houston.  It was a wholly owned subsidiary of Waterman Steamship Corporation, a publicly traded company headquartered in Mobile, AL.  After some inquiries, Malcom discerned that Waterman could be bought for about $42 million.  Funding that would require capital and a plan.

In today’s capital markets disaggregation of working capital, disposing of non-core assets and recapping financial capital while refocusing operations are everyday things.  They were not in 1954.  Malcom McLean and Walter Wristen executed what surely must have been one of the first leveraged buyouts, and with considerable success.

Waterman had about $25 million in cash, an unleveraged balance sheet, thirty-seven ships, a hotel and some other non-core assets.  Malcom presented his plan to Wriston – offer shareholders $42 million and acquire the firm, immediately utilize excess cash to retire some of the debt, sell the hotel and other non-core assets and retrofit the ships for containers.  Wristen presented the plan to the credit committee at the bank.  While initial reviews were positive, the plan encountered some turbulence as the credit committee approached a decision.

Wristen messaged McLean that his direct presentation was needed.  Fortunately, Malcom was in NYC then and quickly made his way to the bank and met with Wriston’s superiors.  The presentation must have been compelling as the loan was approved.  One of the VPs did note to McLean that Wristen was “just a trainee”.  Malcom responded, “…he’s going to be the boss of you both pretty soon.”

The evolution from sailing ships to moving cargo was on.  McLean Trucking, now publicly traded, had provided a source of wealth for Malcom but regulations limiting ownership in shipping and trucking would eventually be a problem and a solution was for Malcom, Jim and Clara to put their shares in trust and eventually sell.  By 1956 the first ship, the Ideal X, a T-2 tanker built in 1945, had been retrofitted as a container ship and set sail from Newark to Houston with all 58 slots booked.  Before this voyage it was generally understood that freight costs were about $5.58 per ton.  After this voyage was complete, Malcom’s team ran the numbers and the per ton cost was about $0.16.

Eventually, this business became known as Sea-Land and, in addition to Jim and Clara, Malcom added capable leaders in Paul Richardson, Ken Younger, Bernie Czachowski, Charles Cushing,

Ron Katims and Ken Johns.  Later on in his career, Malcom would add John McCown, a Harvard MBA, to his team.  McCown today is one of the most highly regarded experts on global shipping.

By 1969 Sea-Land was thriving and virtually every other maritime shipping company, and every major port, had followed Malcom’s playbook.  But capital necessary to compete was such that Malcom was looking for a good strategic fit.  The very profitable R.J. Reynolds Company, flush with cash and well capitalized, made sense and that year a deal was done – Malcom would become a material shareholder in RJR and, for a while, a board member.

But Malcom McLean was a builder of companies and people.  His value as a board member of RJR wasn’t the best use of his time.  Malcom would also later invest in some significant real estate ventures – Diamondhead, in south Mississippi and Pinehurst, the venerable North Carolina golf resort. His curiosity and genuine desire to develop people played on in his life after the RJR transaction.

By 1972 he had developed a friendship with Fred Smith, an ambitious businessman from Memphis, who had a vision of transporting goods by air/ground promising overnight delivery.  Smith’s early calculations of cost and margin benefited from McLean’s input and soon Fed Ex began.  It’s just one of many impacts Malcom had on people.  Here is another.

In 1987, the same year RJR would be acquired in a $24 billion leverage buy out via an irony only an investment banker could love, Malcom met Thomas Harris, who had founded Merchant Capital in Montgomery that same year.  Thomas had heard of Malcom’s plantation, named Sehoy, in Bullock County, Alabama and had reached out to Malcom.  Active in politics at that time, Harris was looking for a venue to have a major political event at.  It was a longshot, but he overnighted a letter to Malcom at his residence in the Pierre Hotel in NYC.

Not without charm himself, Harris convinced Malcom to make Sehoy available, which McLean had bought from some duPont family members.  What a place to have an event – 28,000 acres (with 7,000 additional acres leased), a golf course, exquisite house, superlative quail courses, a 500-acre lake and a runway you could land any jet on!  Sehoy was in another league, and every guest went away impressed.  Numerous guests of note during Malcom’s years there included – Bing Crosby, Sam Walton, Griffin Bell, Lewis Grizzard and others.  From 1987 to his death in 2001, Malcom and Thomas enjoyed a special friendship, and we’d see Malcom from time to time visiting in our Merchant Capital offices, where I then worked.

On one occasion, I’d guess about late 1997 or early 1998, Malcom was in Montgomery and Thomas asked me to meet with him and discuss our budding, but certainly small, investments we hoped to scale.  We went over each one and Malcom listened carefully, asking perceptive questions and relaying shrewd observations but with gentle encouragement.  I already had received a MBA by then but that afternoon I got a second one.

Malcom McLean passed away on May 27, 2001.  His funeral was held at the 5^th Avenue Presbyterian Church in NYC.  A number of former colleagues, employees and, of course, extended family all arrived to bid farewell.  Thomas Harris was seated between Fred Smith and Walter Wriston.

John McCown writes that he and some others made calls to contacts in the shipping industry with an idea – how about a moment of silence during the service while ships in NY’s port blew their horns?  The idea spread across the globe.

At 11:20 edt that day the officiant noted the moment of silence during the service.  At virtually every port across the world ships blew their horns in tribute to the extraordinary Malcom McLean.

What is unfolding in Minneapolis is not spontaneous unrest, nor is it simply the expression of social grievance. It follows a familiar and deliberate pattern — one that prioritizes pressure, public shaming, and narrative control over facts or due process.

The stated issue is never the true objective. The real objective is power, and Minneapolis is being treated less like a community in need of stability and more like terrain to be leveraged.

The pattern is predictable. A triggering incident occurs, and conclusions are declared before investigations begin. Emotion replaces evidence. Institutions are urged to violate their own rules in the name of compassion or moral urgency.

When they comply, that violation becomes the new precedent. When they resist, escalation follows—mockery, intimidation, and intensified pressure. Every concession is treated as proof that the strategy works, while restraint is interpreted not as good faith but as weakness.

To be clear, no one wants to see the loss of human life. That should never be in question.

But if the media and political class choose to sensationalize the lives of protesters who knowingly place themselves in the path of federal law enforcement, then innocent lives lost to violent crime, particularly crimes committed by those who should not have been in the country, deserve the same attention.

A young woman like Laken Riley should not disappear from the national conversation simply because her story is less useful to a preferred narrative. Disorder, confrontation, and chaos may drive ratings, but quiet victims do not. That imbalance should trouble anyone claiming moral authority.

Federal leaders should understand what is actually being tested. This is not only about immigration policy or policing decisions in a single city. It is about whether institutions can be forced, in real time, to abandon their own standards under narrative pressure and moral intimidation.

If that pressure succeeds once, it becomes a model. If it fails, the escalation simply moves elsewhere. The goal is not persuasion. The goal is submission.

Minneapolis matters because it is being used as a demonstration site. What happens here will not stay here. We saw this after 2020, when cities rushed to dismantle or restrict police departments before reforms were properly debated or outcomes measured.

In Minneapolis itself, officials pledged to “reimagine policing,” yet violent crime rose while residents in high-crime neighborhoods begged for more, not less, protection.

In cities like Portland and San Francisco, elected leaders initially tolerated disorder in the name of justice, only to reverse course years later after businesses fled and public safety deteriorated.

The lesson should be crystal clear by now. Appeasement does not calm these moments. It accelerates them. Institutions that abandon their standards invite further pressure, not resolution.

According to the Police Executive Research Forum, by 2021, 60 percent of urban police departments reported pulling back from proactive enforcement due to fear of public backlash. This is a stark example of how narrative pressure reshapes real-world behavior.

This is not about denying accountability or dismissing legitimate concerns. It is about recognizing when cities are treated like expendable backdrops for political theater, while victims who don’t serve the narrative are ignored. Minneapolis is not just facing unrest. It is facing a trial run. How leaders respond will echo far beyond its borders.

Laura Johnston Clark is a wife, mother, and businesswoman. She grew up in the Wiregrass and now lives in Birmingham with her husband, retired Air Force Colonel David Etheredge. She is a member of the Alabama Republican Party.

Alabama has seen a staggering number of law enforcement deaths in recent years, with over a dozen police officers and sheriff’s deputies shot and killed in the line of duty since 2019 alone. Many more have been critically wounded.

These tragedies are a stark reminder of the dangers faced by the men and women who have devoted their lives to protecting our communities.

There is no such thing as a “normal shift” in law enforcement. Every time officers or deputies respond to a call, stop a suspect, or step up to protect the innocent, they put their lives on the line.

Unfortunately, the dangers faced by Alabama’s law enforcement officers do not come only from criminals. In many cases, the greatest threats to officer safety come from woke, pro-crime, anti-police prosecutors and judges.

There is no better example than the case of Montgomery Police Officer Aaron Cody Smith. Officer Smith was a young cop in his 20s, supporting a wife and three children, when his life changed forever.

It was a late-night shift in a high-crime area when Officer Smith found himself pursuing a burglary suspect. In an attempt to apprehend the suspect, Officer Smith used all methods of non-lethal force, while the suspect continued to resist arrest. The suspect eventually turned on Officer Smith, charging at him with a metal pole. Officer Smith shot the suspect, killing him.

Even though Officer Smith had plainly acted in self-defense—and even though he took every possible step to save the suspect’s life after the shooting—he was prosecuted for murder. And when a jury convicted Officer Smith on the lesser crime of manslaughter, the Attorney General’s Office argued for the Alabama Supreme Court to uphold his conviction.

Throughout this tragic ordeal, only one person in the Alabama judicial system stood tall for Officer Smith and for the right of the police officers to defend themselves: my former colleague, Jay Mitchell.

Jay, who was then a Justice on the Alabama Supreme Court, wrote a courageous opinion explaining that the baseless prosecution of Officer Smith was among “the most astonishing failure[s]” of justice that our Court had seen. I was honored to join his opinion. As Jay explained in his writing, Alabama law gives all people—including police officers—the right to defend themselves.

Thanks to Jay’s courage, Officer Smith is now a free man. He has been reunited with his wife and three daughters and recently welcomed a new baby boy.

Without Jay’s opinion, the situation could have been very different: Officer Smith would likely be in prison for the rest of his daughters’ childhoods, and he never would have seen the birth of his son.

As Officer Smith’s case illustrates, Jay’s track record on criminal justice issues is unparalleled. At every turn, Jay has defended the thin blue line that stands between order and anarchy. He wrote the famous opinion for our Court that overturned the so-called “year and a day rule” — which allowed murderers to go free if their victim died over a year after the attack.

He ruled over and over again that convicted criminals should not receive special treatment or leniency from the judicial system. And when the presiding judge of Montgomery County issued an administrative order allowing felons to walk free without posting bond, Jay spearheaded an initiative to overturn that order before it could take effect.

All of these rulings play a crucial role in keeping our streets and our law enforcement officers safe.

As our next Attorney General, Jay will continue to defend that thin blue line. He will put violent criminals in jail and keep them there. And he will make sure that no other police officer or sheriff’s deputy has to endure the type of harassment, injustice, and persecution that Officer Cody Smith did.

If Soros-backed prosecutors in blue cities try to wrongfully prosecute cops, Jay will stop it. He will exercise his authority as the State’s chief prosecutor to prevent any more miscarriages of justice.

With Jay at the helm, Alabama’s law enforcement officers will be free to do their jobs confidently and decisively, knowing that they will not be prosecuted for defending themselves or their communities in the line of duty.

The Honorable Michael F. Bolin served as an Associate Justice on the Alabama Supreme Court from 2005 until 2023. He now serves as a Jefferson County Commissioner.

Qualifying for Alabama’s 2026 primary elections closed on Friday, January 23. With that deadline now behind us, voters deserve a clear look at who has put their name on the ballot and what that means for the offices they seek.

In Lee County, there has been a troubling development in the race for Revenue Commissioner that should not be brushed aside or treated lightly.

In each of Alabama’s 67 counties, the Revenue Commissioner or Tax Collector holds one of the most important and sensitive jobs in local government.

These officials are entrusted with collecting and distributing the tax dollars that keep our counties running in a responsible manner because that money pays for hospitals, public schools, city and county governments, volunteer fire departments, and the everyday services people count on in their lives.

In Lee County, the Revenue Commissioner collected and distributed more than $210 million in taxes, licenses, and fees during the last fiscal year, per the statutory requirements under Titles 32 and 40 of the Code of Alabama. That direct responsibility for safeguarding public funds and ensuring that they are handled lawfully and responsibly is paramount to the functions of the office.

Alabama law is clear about the seriousness of this office.

Title 40-5-3 of the Code of Alabama sets out the duties and qualifications required to serve as Revenue Commissioner, including the handling, bonding, and accountability standards expected of anyone entrusted with this role.

On Jan. 23, the final day of qualifying, an individual (who is not the incumbent) filed papers to run for Lee County Revenue Commissioner.

Public court records show this individual received a discharge from a Chapter 7 Federal Bankruptcy in the fourth quarter of 2025.

That fact alone raises serious and unavoidable questions. Based on the plain language and intent of Title 40-5-3, it is highly unlikely that someone emerging from a recent Chapter 7 bankruptcy would be able to meet the statutory requirements and practical responsibilities of the office if elected.

Because Bankruptcy Court proceedings are public record, the Lee County Republican Party should be tasked with the responsibility of carefully reviewing and scrutinizing the information and making a responsible decision regarding this individual’s ability to serve and fulfill the duties of the office if elected.

Kara Silvers is a resident of Auburn and works in the education field.