Every year, Americans – often youngsters – suffer serious eye injuries from fireworks on the Fourth of July. People like teenager Jameson Lamb, robbed of his vision in his right eye at age 16 when a Roman candle he thought was extinguished hit him in the face. Or Erika Rodriguez-Loza, 14, who was permanently blinded in one eye when a firework burned her optic nerve.

Children and teenagers are nearly twice as likely to be injured by fireworks than are adults, and 15% of fireworks injuries involve eye trauma.

But you don’t have to be a kid or even lighting the fireworks yourself to suffer a serious eye injury. In fact, more than half of fireworks injuries are suffered by bystanders who are simply watching the pyrotechnics when something goes awry.

With Independence Day on the horizon, it’s the perfect time to focus on protecting our eyes and dispelling several myths about fireworks that put people at risk of blindness.

Myth #1: Consumer fireworks are harmless. Fireworks can cause blinding eye injuries such as chemical and thermal burns, corneal abrasions or retinal detachment. If you have plans to celebrate July 4th with fireworks, it is essential to wear eye protection.

1. Myth #2: Sparklers are made for little kids and aren’t dangerous. Don’t let their small size fool you. Sparklers burn at more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s hot enough to melt certain metals. Sparklers are responsible for about 1,400 eye injuries each year.

Myth #3: Duds are harmless. All fireworks should be handled with extreme caution and that includes malfunctioning fireworks. Do not try to relight faulty fireworks. Instead, soak them thoroughly with water using a hose from a distance and throw the dud away.

Myth #4: Only those handling the fireworks are at risk. Fireworks-related eye injuries often happen to bystanders. Watch fireworks from a distance and make sure you and everyone else watching the pyrotechnics with you are wearing eye protection.

If an eye injury does occur, seek medical attention immediately. Even eye injuries that may seem minor should be treated right away to prevent further damage or infection.

Too many people just don’t see the potential life-changing harm in sparklers, firecrackers and bottle rockets. They learn too late the necessity of wearing eye protection. It’s always best to leave fireworks to the professionals. But if you choose to celebrate the Fourth with fireworks, don’t buy into the myths. Wear safety glasses and take the necessary precautions to keep yourself, your family and your friends safe.

If you want more tips and information about protecting your eyesight this Fourth of July, visit www.eyesmart.org.

Dr. Wyatt earned his medical degree from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and completed an ophthalmology residency at the University of Alabama at Birmingham/Eye Foundation Hospital. He has been in private practice at Wyatt-Kirkpatrick Eye MD Associates in Selma since 1999. Dr. Wyatt currently serves as President of the Alabama Academy of Ophthalmology.

Like many of you, I was thrilled last week to see the Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the terrible Roe v. Wade decision. The Supreme Court decided in this case that “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

What does this mean for abortion law moving forward? The Supreme Court is simply saying there is no federally protected right to an abortion. Instead, individual states now have the ability to write their own abortion laws, rather than having these laws forced on them. I’m proud to be from Alabama where pro-life laws enacted by our state legislature in Montgomery can finally be recognized.

Life is a precious gift from God, and every human is made in God’s image. From the time of conception to the time of death, every life is worth protecting and fighting for. This has been one of my top priorities in Congress, and it’s why I’ve cosponsored more than a dozen pro-life bills during my year and a half in Congress. Some of the bills I’ve cosponsored are the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, the Protecting Life in Crisis Act, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

Pro-life bills like the ones I’ve worked on to defund Planned Parenthood and eliminate the use of taxpayer funds to perform or promote abortions have not gotten any traction this Congress, and they will not see the light of day as long as we have Speaker Pelosi in power. I’m looking forward to a Republican majority after November because House Republicans stand ready to take action on these types of issues.

Protecting life from conception to death is not a radical decision and it should not be a partisan issue. I firmly believe we as a society have an opportunity to build a culture that respects life and works to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

Moving forward, I urge all of you to insist your representatives are on the front lines of the fight to defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for every single American, especially the unborn who have no way to fight for themselves. As we applaud the Supreme Court’s decision in this case, let’s all take a moment to recognize the decades of tireless work from the pro-life movement and renew our commitment to making sure we never forget how precious life is.

Jerry Carl represents Alabama’s First Congressional District. He lives in Mobile with his wife Tina.

“The world is run by those who show up.” This quote has been used to motivate everyone from athletes to business leaders, but it’s never been truer than when it comes to elections — especially elections with a low voter turnout.

When only 13% of Alabamians turned out to vote in the June 21 runoff election, there were high stakes at hand. People say it only matters who wins in November, so they’ll wait until then to vote. The problem is the primary and runoff elections are what place people on the November ballots to be voted on in the first place. Since Alabama is such a Republican state, once the primary election is over many of the elections are decided. Every election matters. Every vote counts.

Despite the low turnout, Alabamians elected some good people. Congratulations to Katie Britt and her entire team on a brilliant win, which she would have won without the endorsement of former President Trump. I’m sure she was happy to have his help, but she won it fairly of her own accord. That speaks volumes about her work ethic and commitment to the campaign. There were many difficulties along the way, and her persistence, hard work and dedication to the cause paid off for her. She will be an excellent U.S. Senator.

Britt’s team is led by SR Communications’ Paul Shashy and Sean Ross. They have led the campaigns of both our U.S. Senators — Tommy Tuberville and now Britt. What’s impressive is that they are so young. They’ll be around as long or longer than Sens. Tuberville and Britt, and you’ll hear their names many more times. Then again, maybe you won’t. They work behind the scenes, and both have a quiet humility about them, which is a welcomed addition in Alabama politics. They have pulled many other campaigns from the near throes of death to victory and their win rate in multiple campaigns is rock solid. They’re hard to beat, much less any candidate or cause they represent.

Special shout out to Wes Allen who dethroned proverbial candidate Jim Zeigler in the secretary of state race. Allen, a former probate judge who has run a dozen elections without error, deserved this win and will be the only probate judge in history to win the coveted seat of secretary of state. He’ll make a great one. A special shout out to Allen’s political consultant Angi Horn who devised a brilliant strategy to come from behind and defeat Zeigler for a big win.

We got lucky with the low turnout and elected some good people. But back to the fact that we had such low turnout. A former legislator once told me a man ran a political poll and asked what the two biggest problems in the state were. The results came back as ignorance and apathy. He couldn’t believe it, so he went to his local coffee shop, surely the people gathered there would be a better polling audience because they were common people, he thought. So, he asked them, “What are the two biggest problems in our state?” They said, “We don’t know, and we don’t care.” Thus, proving the point of the poll.

With numbers like we saw in the runoff — one of the three lowest runoff turnouts in our state’s history — you must hang your head a little and wonder if it’s true. Either way, there’s one thing for sure, with low turnout, there are high stakes. Thank God we elected some really good people.

Beth Chapman is Alabama’s former State Auditor and 51st Secretary of State. She now owns and operates Beth Chapman & Associates, LLC. This is her weekly column, “Around the Capitol” published in newspapers and blogs across the state. She can be reached at Beth@bethchapman.com.

It was a last minute and very fluid situation when our son determined to make a job-related move to Denver. He flew and asked us to drive his car. Since the moving van was delayed a bit, we took three days rather than the two we’d originally thought. We spent the second night in Dodge City, Kansas where I got to visit the Old West Museum, remembering how as a boy my family used to watch “Gunsmoke.”

Then I persuaded my wife that we ought to stop a few minutes in Garden City—about an hour away, but in route—to pay respects to the Clutters.

Herbert, Bonnie, Nancy and Kenyon Clutter lived in nearby Holcombe where they were murdered on Nov. 15, 1959. It was later revealed that the killers thought Mr. Clutter kept a lot of money at his farm, but they left after their grisly crime with less than $50.

Novelist Truman Capote read about the crime and became fascinated with it. He worked several years on the story, visiting Kansas many times along with his Alabama friend, Nelle Harper Lee (who published “To Kill A Mockingbird” in 1960). “In Cold Blood” was published in 1966. Capote called it a “nonfiction novel.” It became the second best-selling true-crime book in history behind “Helter Skelter” chronicling the life and times of Charles Manson.

The tragedy of “In Cold Blood” continued with the decline of Capote. He never wrote another novel and died after many years of drug use and alcoholism.

The Valley View Cemetery in Garden City is beautiful and well-maintained, though I expected the Clutter burial site would be more ornate. Instead there are three simple headstones as one might see in any community cemetery.

I have conducted almost 400 funerals over the years. I try as all pastors do to offer comfort to broken families. We read about the resurrection of Christ and his promise that “Because I live, you shall live also” (John 14:19).

But a Christian funeral is also a time to challenge the living about a day that is sure to come. As I often say, “There’s a red letter day on God’s calendar as far as you’re concerned. This is the day you will step into eternity and give account to the God who gave you life.”

Our deaths may not be as notable as the Clutters, but death is certain.

I remember often while growing up seeing crosses alongside the Alabama highways with the words, “Prepare to meet God.” I later learned this is a word from the ancient prophet Amos. Though hundreds of years old, this exhortation is yet timely.

Today is, indeed, a day of preparation to meet God.

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

During the waning days of the campaigns for governor and U.S. Senator, I received an inordinate amount of correspondence lamenting the outrageous, demagogic, disingenuous, negative ads, especially on television. The frustration can best be summed up by a thoughtful writer’s comments, “Steve, it is sad with all the issues we need to face in Alabama (health, education, infrastructure) we continue to dumb down our elections. I found the Kay Ivey ads revolting and racist.”

The writer went on to say that he was a Democrat, and he knew a Democrat could not win in Alabama and the best they could get is 40%. My response was, “Negative and dumbed down, overt racist ads work. If they didn’t, then these media gurus would not use them.” Over 65% of the ads used were negative, over the top ads that only had a scintilla of truth. Why, again? Because they work. I also told this reader that this vicious, atrocious simpleton advertising is not limited to just Alabama.

We are a right wing conservative Republican state, and only conservative Republicans vote in a Republican Primary. This reader stated he is a Democrat. He probably did not plan to vote in the Republican Primary. Therefore, the ads were not designed to appease or attract him or his vote.

Ads are designed to pander to right wing, conservative Alabamians. Therefore, it is pretty clear that ads are going to depict their candidate as being against abortion, illegal immigrants and for having, owning, and shooting guns. The media gurus are obviously going to say that someone’s Republican opponent is for killing babies, letting Mexicans cross the border illegally and being against the Second Amendment.

Furthermore, allow me to take up for the Republican electorate of Alabama, who have consumed these ads. We are a red right wing Republican state. If you think these media gurus or hired guns, as I like to call them, are not moving to a left wing liberal state and doing the same thing to the left wing voters of California and New York, you are mistaken.

If you were to see the television ads in a California Democratic primary, these hired guns would be revealing to the left wing, liberal base ads that show their candidates advocating that the governor should perform free abortions on demand during the third trimester on the Capitol steps, and every county in California should be made to open and fund transgender schools. The hired guns would further have a picture of their gubernatorial candidate holding a welcome sign and personally embracing all illegal immigrants crossing the border and gifting them a social security card, welfare check and voucher to any school in the Golden State, and of course giving them a democratic voting application regardless of whether they could read, write or speak English. Their gubernatorial candidate would follow up with a statement saying, “We as democrats do not care what this costs us because we do not believe in a balanced budget.” Then they would have their gubernatorial candidate erecting signs all over the state instructing all gun owners to turn over their guns, immediately, because the Second Amendment does not apply in California.

In short, we are a very diverse and very partisan nation. There is a lot of difference in political and social philosophy between California and Alabama. California is definitely a liberal Democratic state and Alabama is definitely a conservative Republican state.

The same hired gun political ad gurus travel from Alabama to California. They do not dwell on philosophy. They are hired to win elections. They design their ads to appeal to the base of the conservative Republican Party in Alabama and they design ads to pander to the left wing, liberal Democratic base in California.

As far as our Alabama GOP primary, in defense of Kay Ivey, she was going to win reelection regardless of what her eight opponents did or how much they spent. She would have gotten 60% if there had not been $16 million of mostly untruthful negative ads thrown at her. She did not go negative against the eight novices that attacked her. Folks, Kay Ivey, ain’t anymore for abortions on demand than Mother Teresa.

In closing, negative ads work. It they didn’t work they would not use them. You always have and probably always will see negative ads. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist in Huntsville to understand that if you are trying to win a Republican Primary in Alabama, you pander to the conservative base voter. So, you ask, “Do campaign ads pander?” The answer is “Duh, yes.”

Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. Steve served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at: www.steveflowers.us.

Recent estimates show that runaway inflation and increasing costs for essentially everything cost the typical American family an extra $5,200 a year to maintain their current way of living. The Consumer Price Index, which monitors the prices of basic goods and services, reported that Americans are paying 12% more this year for groceries when compared to last year. This is the largest increase in prices since 1979.

All of us are feeling the pain at the pump. As of last week, the cost of fuel is more than double what it was last year, and there does not seem to be an end in sight to the rising cost. The national average is more than $5.00 a gallon in the United States. While I’m grateful to live in a state like Alabama where gas is somewhat cheaper than the national average, all of us are being affected by sky-high prices in places like California. When truckers fill up their tanks in states like California where prices are through the roof, that cost is passed on to the consumer. Not only are we spending more money to get to the grocery store, but we are also paying more for the groceries once we get there.

Basic groceries items like eggs, coffee and chicken cost 15-32% more than they did last year. We’ve got to do something to bring these prices down. That’s why House Republicans have been working to cut down the cost of food transportation and lower gas prices. Representatives Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Bruce Westerman have introduced the American Energy Independence from Russia Act (which I have proudly cosponsored) to boost domestic energy production by restarting oil and gas leases on our federal lands and waters.

I’ve also introduced my own bill – the Unleashing American Energy Act – to require oil and gas lease sales off our own Gulf Coast and the coast of Alaska. My bill and the American Energy Independence from Russia Act are in response to the Biden administration’s halting of lease sales and their war on our domestic energy production. Their actions have driven energy costs through the roof and have made all consumer goods more expensive to purchase. While these bills (as well as countless others that have been introduced by House Republicans) won’t fix all our problems overnight, they will get us turned around and get these prices headed back in the right direction.

While House Republicans have been fighting to get inflation and fuel prices under control, House Democrats have been focused on the issues they care most about – things like regulating big cat ownership, crippling our energy independence, pushing the Federal Reserve to be more racially inclusive (instead of focusing on keeping inflation in check), and further infringing on our constitutional rights. The truth is simple: the American people need relief from the Democrats’ price hikes and runaway inflation, and voters should start asking them why they continue pushing an agenda that harms hardworking American families. Enough is enough.

Jerry Carl represents Alabama’s First Congressional District. He lives in Mobile with his wife Tina.

The one word we in Alabama want and need to hear when a child needs serious medical attention is “Children’s.”

At Children’s Hospital of Alabama, we know a child will receive the absolute best health care and most up-to-date medical treatment available.

U.S. News & World Report has again recognized that fact and named Children’s Hospital of Alabama in a three-way tie for the best pediatric hospital in the southeast. Children’s tied with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Monroe Carell, Jr. Children’s Hospital of Vanderbilt.

This is the 13th consecutive year Children’s of Alabama has participated in the U.S. News & World Report rankings program, and it is the 13th consecutive year it has been included in the rankings among the best children’s hospitals in the Southeast.

This comes as no surprise to any of us who have ever taken a child there for medical care and received world-class treatment and first-class care.

When I worked for the Cystic Fibrosis (CF) Foundation for 10 years, all the children we worked with were patients at Children’s. There’s no question these young patients received some of the best healthcare care in the world.

As I traveled to conferences across the country, it was Children’s Hospital of Alabama that scientists referenced for its ground-breaking research and state-of-the-art treatment centers – not just for CF, but for multiple illnesses and diagnosis.

Children’s Hospital of Alabama scored in the top 50 nationally on all 10 of the following services which are considered in the ranking: cancer; cardiology and heart surgery; diabetes and endocrinology; gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery; neonatology; nephrology; neurology and neurosurgery; orthopedics; pulmonology; and urology.

Children’s is a clinical and educational arm of the UAB School of Medicine. The hospital has provided specialized care for children via inpatient and outpatient medical services since 1911 throughout central Alabama.

Children’s Hospital of Alabama is a private, non-profit 501 (c) (3) medical center. It is the teaching hospital for UAB Medical School’s pediatric medicine, surgery, psychiatry, research and residency programs. The medical staff consists of Children’s full-time physicians, faculty members of UAB and private practicing physicians in the community.

I hope you never have a sick or injured child, but if you do and you hear a doctor say, “Go to Children’s,” just go there. You’ll be glad you did because your child will get the best medical care available – right here in Alabama.

Beth Chapman is Alabama’s former State Auditor and 51st Secretary of State. She now owns and operates Beth Chapman & Associates, LLC. This is her weekly column, “Around the Capitol” published in newspapers and blogs across the state. She can be reached at Beth@bethchapman.com.

When the world was a mess, Alabama showed plain common sense. Our tourists are proof positive of that.

Over the last two years, tourists and vacationers have flocked to Alabama to escape unnecessary restrictions and mandates. They also traveled here in record numbers because Alabama has something for everyone.

From our white sandy beaches on the Gulf Coast to the river valleys across the state to vibrant cultures and top-ranked cities, we remained open, welcoming and promoting normalcy.

Google searches, alone, proved Alabama was one of the county’s most desired getaways. More people searched for information about our state than they did other tourist hot spots, like California, Hawaii and New York. Alabama travel information jumped from 30th place to fourth among the 50 states.

Other states and the national tourism industry suffered a drop of 45%. But here in Alabama, we did not just recover; we thrived. In 2021, 26% more tourists vacationed in Alabama and spent a record amount of almost $20 billion.

It’s no secret that economic growth is a priority of mine, and that includes expanding Alabama tourism. During my tenure, we have seen the tourism industry almost double in revenue. Revenues went from $10.7 billion in 2012 to $19.7 billion in 2021. Now, this growth could be attributed to new tourism attractions and good advertisement, or the truth of the matter: Alabama has it going on.

Even more importantly, tourists create good-paying jobs. Tourism helped fund 227,334 jobs last year. With that many jobs and $6.8 billion in payroll, the Alabama tourism industry is, no doubt, important to the overall health of Alabama’s economy.

It does not stop here.

Alabamians just voted to provide more funding for state parks and public historical locations. This constitutional amendment will help improve, renovate, construct and maintain our 22 state parks which encompass 48,000 acres of endless opportunities to fish, camp, canoe, hike and enjoy the great outdoors.

We are keeping Alabama the beautiful, beautiful.

Tourism down on the Gulf Coast is a money-making machine and the rest of Alabama isn’t far behind. You can retrace the steps of the Civil Rights Movement, discover outer space in Huntsville at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center, hike the start of the Appalachian range at Pinhoti Trail or spend a weekend on the lake at one of my favorite Alabama destinations, Lake Jordan.

Whether you are a first-time tourist, a frequent visitor or a local, I invite you and your family to explore all that Alabama has to offer this summer.

Kay Ivey is the 54th governor of Alabama.

The February shutdown of an Abbott Laboratories plant in Michigan due to contamination precipitated the nationwide baby formula shortage. The plant finally resumed production this month. Whether these events reflect corporate greed or bureaucratic bungling illustrates why we so often disagree about policy.

Let’s start with some facts. Abbott is one of the four largest formula producers and makes the Similac and Elecare brands. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) closed the plant after investigation of a whistle-blower’s report confirmed poor sanitation and Abbott recalled potentially tainted formula. Contaminated formula has been linked to two deaths. The resulting shortage has left parents scrambling madly.

What do these facts show? In one view, Abbott put profits ahead of babies. As the left-wing Guardian observes, “The embattled baby formula producer Abbott used windfall profits to enrich investors instead of replacing failing equipment that was likely injecting dangerous bacteria into its infant nutritional products.” The “prioritization of shareholder wealth” shows the “rot in the nation’s economic system.”

Abbott’s actions demonstrate the need for consumer protection. But policing corporate greed is hard. The regulations consumers enact must be enforced. Companies lobby to keep regulators’ budgets small, resulting in too few and poorly paid inspectors, who then curry favor with companies in hopes of getting hired for better salaries. Companies “capture” the protectors.

An alternative view starts with bureaucratic bungling. The FDA mailroom took four months to get the whistleblower’s report to the proper office. After ordering the shutdown, the FDA did not tell the Biden Administration about the impending shortage.

Bad policy also contributes. A complicated tariff-quota system protects U.S. formula makers from European competition. FDA labeling requirements, not safety concerns, keep this formula from being legal in the U.S. These policies could have but were not waived when Abbott’s plant closed. President Biden eventually sent military planes to retrieve some.

Government regulation of food safety is poor policy based on Upton Sinclair’s view in The Jungle. Yet all purchases in a market economy are voluntary, so how does sickening or poisoning customers yield long-term profits? Food processors would still face litigation without the FDA and insurance companies would cover these losses. Insurers (and consumers) would demand assurance of quality, perhaps from a third party like Underwriters’ Laboratories.

Quality assurance requires accountability. Who at the FDA will lose their job for misplacing the whistleblower’s report or not alerting the rest of Washington? Politicians pass laws and regulations appearing to protect Americans without truly delivering.

Which side is correct? Difficulty determining this arises largely from how world views shape our thinking. Economist Thomas Sowell such views “visions” and saw most policy disagreements as arising from two conflicting visions, the constrained and the unconstrained.

Visions are simple but often form the basis for theories, labeled paradigms by Thomas Kuhn. Paradigms shape inquiry in all fields, including economics. I would distinguish economics’ two main world views or paradigms as markets are incredibly complex and work amazingly well, versus markets frequently fail and enlightened economists can improve outcomes. Although sounding like cover for laissez-faire or government activism, most economists see these as describing how the world works, with policy advice following.
Paradigms are often difficult to tested against each other. Economics cannot conduct controlled, society-wide experiments. Consequently evidence, like the events at Abbott, never conclusively demonstrates markets failing or working. No simple test will ever confirm which worldview is more accurate.

When paradigm shifts occur, they do not typically involve one side conceding. As Professor Kuhn demonstrated, revolutions occur as young scholars recognize the new paradigm’s superiority and the old paradigm’s proponents retire. This reflects another reality: once we embrace a worldview, abandoning it is very difficult.

Getting the facts correct is always important. But disagreements arise from interpretation through different world views. Listen to economists with different world views describe events and decide for yourself which view makes more sense.

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

I got into this U.S. Senate race for one reason: I have never before feared for the future of my country like I do today.

I think many of you feel the same way. I’ve heard it from thousands of Alabamians while traveling our state. Jim in Muscle Shoals was worried about being able to afford putting enough $4 per gallon gas in his car to get to work. Sarah in Foley was struggling to find baby formula to feed her newborn son. I’ve heard from you, and I feel your pain.

Joe Biden has done more damage in his short time in office than any other President in American history. Socialism is on the march, and we find ourselves in a battle for the soul of our nation.

During my time in Congress I’ve had a very simple guiding philosophy: is the vote I’m about to cast going to make Americans’ lives better? Am I being asked to support a bill because it helps a select few of special interest groups, or because it helps the people?

I’ve taken some bullets during my time in Washington, both figuratively and literally. I was on the ball field in 2017 when a Bernie Sanders supporter shot a number of my colleagues. My name was one of six on the hit list in his pocket. I’ve been called a racist, misogynist, a Klansman and just about every other name in the book.

But, I fought. I fought because America is worth fighting for. You are worth fighting for.

I never asked for anything in return. I don’t want my name on buildings. I don’t want a seat at the table in some smoky backroom. I just want Alabama and America to be great.

I hope that my record reflects some success in that. I’m proud of my A+ ratings from the NRA and Gun Owners of America for defending the Second Amendment. I’m proud of my 100% record of supporting life according to National Right to Life. NumbersUSA has given me an A+ for putting America First and fighting for a strong border and immigration policies that suit America’s national interest, not the interest of the rest of the world. I’ve been consistently ranked the most conservative Congressman in Alabama according to the American Conservative Union and CPAC.

But let me be clear, none of this matters if we lose the country we love. Lobbyists and special interest groups have spent millions trying to buy Senate seats and corrupt the public policy debate in America. They’ve been very active for my opponent in this race. I ask the people to ask why that is? Why are the lobbyists, special interest groups, McConnell lackeys, and Swampers ALL IN against me?

Ilhan Omar and AOC have called for me to be expelled from Congress. Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney have fought to get me kicked off my committees. And Mitch McConnell has spent over $20 million attacking me trying to keep me out of the Senate. You’ve seen his work on TV and in your mailbox. It’s disgusting, it’s deceitful, and it’s shameful.

But I’d like to think it’s because I’ve made a career of putting America First. I’ve shown I will not waver and I can’t be bought. I stand for the people, period.

While I’m proud of my proven conservative record, there is still unfinished business. America can ill afford a Senator who will be owned by the same America Last forces that have hindered Republicans from any real progress. McConnell and the Swamp believe our Senate seat is for sale. I ask you to show them it’s not.

I’ve never before feared for the future of my country like I do today, but I still believe there’s hope. But we are out of time, and we can’t get this wrong. On June 21, I ask for you to vote for Mo Brooks so we can send a proven fighter to the Senate.

I’ve never gone wobbly on you, I’ve never kept quiet or toed the line to get along. I promise that in the Senate you’ll be proud to know that Alabama has a fighter on the front lines, ready to do not what’s easy, but what’s right.

I’m ready to fight to save the country I love. I ask that on June 21 you give me that chance.

U.S. Representative Mo Brooks represents Alabama’s Fifth Congressional District and is a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate

Included in the lists of great speakers of the 20th century are Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King and Adolph Hitler.

The latter addition may cause us to do a double-take since we recognize Hitler as psychotic, or demon possessed, depending on one’s perspective, but Hitler ranks high as a man whose passion moved a nation, albeit to their destruction. He also demonstrated one of Aristotle’s principles of rhetoric; namely, a speaker who gains the trust of the audience can better persuade them. Aristotle called this “ethos,” and it means that we believe the speaker has our best interests at heart. Change is a threat, so unless we trust the persuader, all is for naught.

Jesus used the power of a bad example in a parable about prayer in Luke’s gospel.

He told about a judge who neither reverenced God nor cared about others. Today such a judge would be in danger of removal, as a neighboring county did last year when a judge was removed from the bench for dereliction of duty. Another judge in our state was accused of spousal abuse and faced immediate calls for removal. Nevertheless, this judge was firmly in power when a widow came to him for redress. The care of widows is a biblical principle that this man didn’t acknowledge. He ignored her pleas for a long time. Finally he grew weary that she bothered him so often and decided to grant her petition.

Jesus used this story to teach two lessons about a God who is so different from the unjust judge.

First, he said God is compassionate. Believers are his “elect,” which means they’re chosen by him and invited into his spiritual family. Because God is compassionate, it’s ludicrous to think he might grow weary when his children come to him with their needs. We cannot imagine God saying, “Here’s Bill again asking me to help his son. I’m so tired of this!” No, a compassionate God delights when we bring our needs to him.

Second, he taught the importance of persistence in prayer. The widow came to the judge continually. She didn’t file her complaint and walk away. She refused to give up.

One common failure in our prayer life is bringing requests to God and promptly forgetting them. This might indicate how little importance we attach to them. For this reason many Christians have found a prayer list helpful. It reminds us to pray daily for our needs and the needs of others, and also increases our faith when we see how God has responded to our requests.

We’re assured that the Great Eternal Judge both loves us and promises not to disregard our earnest prayers to him. -30-

“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.

The summer of 1974 in Washington, D.C. was a political bullfight; there was one bull, but a host of matadors, picadors and spectators galore just waiting to watch President Nixon in his last gasps of political power. Congressional hearings, articles of impeachment and an administration completely insular and unstable were all coming to a simultaneous head. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger metaphorically described this as the highest pinnacles of success descending into the deepest valleys of distress.

Over the course of the prior few years, President Nixon had won the largest landslide election victory to that point in history, successfully concluded American involvement in Vietnam, and achieved the monumental foreign policy objectives of detente with the USSR, stability in the Middle East, and rapprochement with China. But in August 1974, all these achievements were forgotten, and with an atmosphere of political intrigue thick with smiling hatred, the bull in the ring faced the final cut.

Almost everyone had deserted him as key members of his staff faced indictment, trials and prison. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled he had to provide tape recorded conversations to prosecutors, the House Judiciary Committee passed the first article of impeachment for obstruction of justice, and a group of key legislators informed him that he didn’t have the votes in the Senate to avoid removal from office. Nixon even called Alabama Governor George Wallace to enlist his support, but Wallace refused to intervene on his behalf with members of the Alabama congressional delegation and other Boll Weevil Democrats. After the call with Wallace, Nixon turned to chief of staff Alexander Haig and said, “Well, Al, there goes the presidency.” And so the true “man in the arena” faced the final curtain all alone.

The day before on national television, Nixon announced his intention to resign, and now, on the morning of August 9, in an impromptu moment, Nixon addressed the White House staff for the last time as president. In what has been described as rambling, unprepared, and certainly unscripted remarks, Nixon perhaps for the only time open his soul and summed up his life’s work. These off-the-cuff remarks were recorded, and for history’s sake, transcribed for all to see. In the midst of a rambling apology, Nixon reflected on his youth and his parents, and then, out of the blue and with no context, said:
Nobody will ever write a book, probably, about my mother. Well, I guess all of you would say this about your mother – my mother was a saint. And, I think of her, two boys dying of tuberculosis, nursing four others in order that she could take care of my older brother for three years in Arizona and seeing each of them die, and when they died, it was like one of her own. Yes, she will have no books written about her. But she was a saint.

An old saying, perhaps, said to comfort women in a different age and justify their sacrifices states: “the hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world.” So, Nixon’s mother, Hannah Milhous, at least for five-and-a-half years, ruled the world. No book has ever been written about her, but the life of Hannah Nixon and the impact she had on her son and his consequential role in American politics and international affairs is worth consideration.

Hannah Milhous was born in 1885 in Butlerville, Indiana, into a devout Quaker family of farmers. She was one of nine children; seven girls and two boys. Her father, Franklin, was an orchardist, who, seeing brighter days ahead, moved his entire family to California in 1897 to establish a tree nursery and orange grove with other Quakers in Whittier, California. While a “birthright” Quaker, Hannah’s branch of the faith expressed itself in a more evangelical bent, and at the age of 18, she had a religious experience that made her very devout and committed. Hannah was intelligent, and after completing high school, she attended Whittier College, where, by all accounts, she made good grades and was on the path to becoming a teacher.

No stranger to hard work, she helped her mother with various household tasks, assisted with her father’s farm, and stayed up late each night studying. Her life would be forever changed when, at a Quaker Valentine’s Day party, she met Frank Nixon. They feel in love and married four months later.

Hannah’s family never really approved of Frank and thought she had married beneath her. The fact that she married before finishing college was also a sore spot with Hannah’s family, who never seemed to warm up to Frank. But Hannah truly loved her husband, and, having completed her sophomore year of college, seemed ready to start her own family. Within a year of their marriage, Harold Nixon was born, followed by Richard in 1913. She had five sons in all, named after the early English kings; Richard, for the Richard the Lion Hearted.

By all accounts, Frank was uncouth, argumentative, and a tough father. Upon his marriage to Hannah, he converted to the Quaker faith but never truly left his Methodist roots. Hannah was the complete opposite – quiet and inclined to see both sides of an issue. She was also compassionate, and one area of disagreement with Frank was Hannah’s willingness to help the destitute. Frank wanted someone to work before receiving assistance, but Hannah would never turn away a tramp from the door and ran the household like a charitable operation. Even when the family had enough money to employ a “hired girl,” Hannah insisted that the servant eat with them at the table.

Hannah was religious and committed to her faith, but she was also had a deep sense of privacy and was not a show off when it came to piety. At night, she went into her closet to say her prayers. As was true of most Quakers, neither she nor Frank smoked, drank or cursed, and she expected that her children would accept these same restraints. Hannah’s influence was so pervasive that even years after her death, when forced to release transcripts of White House conversations, Nixon omitted all profanity and had inserted into its place “expletive deleted.” When asked about this later, Nixon said, “My mother would roll over in her grave if she knew I’d used such language.” But, such language was not unfamiliar to Hannah, and she even mentioned after Frank’s death that when frustrated and tense, Frank cursed like a sailor.

Having studied education, Hannah made sure her children had a good educational foundation; in Richard’s case, she taught him to read when he was five, and her piano playing gave him a love for music. While Richard wore hand-me-down clothes, contemporaries remember that his clothes were always spotlessly clean and neatly pressed. Hannah felt that cleanliness was next to Godliness and she made sure that her children looked nice, which earned the respect of her community and no doubt gave Richard a sense of security and confidence. Strangely enough, inasmuch as Hannah doted on her children, she was not very affectionate. She never hugged, kissed, or even told her children verbally that she loved them. She showed her love by doing loving things, and in her mind, her actions meant more than her words. When asked about this lack of maternal affection, Richard responded, “She did not need to tell me that she loved me. Her eyes expressed the love and warmth no words could possibly convey.” While psychologists have always pounced on this lack of motherly affection to explain Nixon’s inner soul, too much is often read into this. Kissinger jokingly referenced this and inferred that had Hannah Nixon been more emotive, Nixon would have been even more effective as a national leader.

She was also deeply committed to peace and was concerned about the victims of war. Hannah would accompany her mother, Almira, to the veterans’ hospital to visit with patients, read to them, and help them write letters home. Perhaps one of the hardest days in Nixon’s early life was after Pearl Harbor, when he decided to join the Navy. By this time, Nixon was married, in his mid-twenties, and had come to believe, against his Quaker upbringing, that opposing the war was aiding and abetting the enemy. He thought that the way to bring peace was to serve in the military. While his mother and grandmother had serious reservations, their Quaker faith allowed them to see his point, and while not directly blessing his military service, he felt there was at least tacit consent.

After several business failures, Frank Nixon, with the help of Hannah’s family, started a gas station, which was the only station on a stretch of road between Whittier and La Habra. The gas station became a family enterprise and grew to include a grocery store in which every member of the Nixon family worked. An excellent cook, Hannah sold cakes and pies at Nixon’s Market, getting up every morning at 4:00 to start the process. Richard worked in the store in various capacities, and when he was older, he would get up early each morning and drove to a farmers’ market to buy fresh produce to sell at the store. He also helped keep the records for the store, and in a small office would study and read until daylight. For most of Richard’s teenage life, the store was a constant presence. And while it was successful, there was always work to be done, and leisure time was infrequent, if not non-existent.

The store taught Nixon more than just the value of hard work, but also how small business worked. He observed the impact of governmental regulation and the terrors larger, bigger business could have on independent companies. The store also brought examples to him of customer relations and compassion. He observed his father giving credit to poorer laborers who became injured or out of work. And while Frank expected the objects of his charity to attempt to settle their accounts by working it off, Nixon felt the tension of balancing sound business practices with compassion. One story that especially influenced Nixon was Hannah’s handling of a shoplifter. Advised to prosecute the thief, Hannah opted to confront the lady and suggest that she repay the goods she had stolen over a period of time. Cornered, the shoplifter explained her dire situation, and Hannah agreed to a payment plan. While the shoplifter never came in the store again, she paid off her debt, and no one in the community ever knew of the incident.

Hannah was very strict and impressed upon her children truthfulness and honesty. Richard said and Edward echoed that as children, they much preferred a spanking to having their mother talk to them. Her lecture was stern and so emotionally draining that the confrontation left them ashamed, embarrassed, and determined not to repeat the experience or the offense. When Richard was caught eating grapes he’d picked on his way home from school, Hannah was appalled and make him take the pennies he had been saving to the vintner. Richard protested he had been saving his pennies for something special, but he nevertheless complied and presented the pennies to the farmer’s wife. Amid embarrassed protest, Richard made her accept his small penance.

Stealing was a significant offense and this incident, among others, impressed upon Richard the importance of financial honesty. In Nixon’s world view, taking something that was not yours constituted a major, cardinal sin. As a child, he had read about the Tea Pot Dome scandal that occurred under President Warren G. Harding and remarked to Hannah that he wanted to be a lawyer to help get rid of crooks. And from the Checkers speech to Watergate, it was important for him to stress that he was not a crook, he had not profited personally from his office, and he had not benefited financially. He considered the essence to violating the public trust was that an elected official got rich from the system; since Nixon never did this, he could not understand the impeachment process. How could he commit high crimes and misdemeanors when he had not taken a dime?

Tragedy struck twice in Hannah’s family with two events that forever changed her and, concomitantly, Richard. Seven-year-old Arthur contracted what was probably meningitis, and within a very short time was dead. Hannah was devastated by the loss and searched internally for strength to understand. She told a friend, “it is difficult at times to understand the ways of our Lord, but we know there is a plan and the best happens for each individual.” Frank came to believe that Arthur’s death was divine punishment for working too hard, trying to get ahead, and keeping the store open on Sunday. Never again would the market or gas station open on the Sabbath. Richard was greatly affected by the death, and it was the first time in his life – but certainly not the last – that he would face tragedy. For a time, he would simply sit and stare into space, silent and dry-eyed, internalizing the loss. Privately and away from others, he sobbed and thought of Arthur and how life would be for Hannah and the family had Arthur lived. This was the first time Nixon faced immortality, and in absorbing Arthur’s death, Nixon became distant and more immune to feelings and emotions.

Nixon’s older brother, Harold, had contracted tuberculosis several years before Arthur’s death. In an effort to assuage the effects of the disease, Hannah took Harold to Prescott, Arizona, where the dry climate and higher elevation was supposed to provide a cure. To reduce expenses, Hannah took in other patients and cared for them. For a period of three years, Hannah would be an infrequent part of Nixon’s life. While Frank would drive the 14-hour trip to Arizona for holidays and vacations, Hannah would not be available to provide maternal support to Richard and the other children. For two summers, Richard went to Arizona to help his mother care for Harold and worked at odds jobs to support his family. But, after a long battle, Harold died, and Richard’s emotions were again challenged. He once again became numb to his feelings and wholly unable to express his deep sense of loss. With the loss of two children, Hannah now focused all of her energy on Richard. It was as if all of her hopes and dreams for Arthur and Harold where transferred to Richard. She became his chief advocate and poured her life into encouraging and helping Richard. When Richard ran for President in 1960, a reporter asked Hannah if she would campaign for her son. She replied, “I’ve been campaigning for Richard for all of his life.” After the loss of her two sons, Richard’s success became Hannah’s struggle. She was committed to him and would provide the moral support he needed in all of his crises from that point on.

After finishing college, Nixon attended Duke Law School on a scholarship. Hannah would remark to a family friend that the letter advising Richard that he had not only been accepted, but would also receive a full scholarship made it the happiest day in her life; happier than the day of Nixon’s first vice presidential inauguration. Nixon, to this stage of his life, had lived with his parents, and perhaps the trip to North Carolina to attend school was a way to grow beyond his family and escape from both Hannah’s reach and the responsibilities of Frank Nixon’s Market. But, while Nixon completed law school, he was unable to find a suitable position with prominent firms in New York. At this point, Duke was a relatively new law school without the reputation and pedigree desired by national firms. In short, he had failed to transition himself from California to the East Coast. With his options limited, he returned home, and true to form, Hannah found a two-man law firm of family friends to offer Richard a job. But Richard was not willing to accept joining such a small practice, and much to Hannah’s dismay, took a month to respond to the offer of employment. With all of his options exhausted, he did accept, and the fact that he would now be closer to home was satisfying to Hannah.

While much has been written to insinuate that Pat Ryan was a rival to Hannah, this really was not the case. Shortly after meeting Pat, Nixon brought her to his home for the obligatory family visit. Hannah was a bit concerned as Pat was a teacher in a business college, fairly worldly, and very mature. In fact, Pat’s life somewhat mirrored Hannah’s. She was a hard worker and basically ran her family’s household after her mother died. So industrious was Pat that prior to marrying Richard, she would get up early in the morning to help Hannah bake cakes and pies for the store. This time of mother-in-law and daughter-in-law bonding cemented a relationship of great mutual respect and devotion to Richard. Agreeing to become a Quaker and have the wedding in the meeting house obviously helped the bond between Hannah and Pat. But small town life was not for Pat, and when Richard was offered the chance to work in Washington, DC, he left California in 1940 to join the Office of Price Administration. Once the war broke out, Nixon joined the Navy, working a desk job until finally seeing duty in the Pacific as an Air Transport Command officer. During this time, he had little interaction with Hannah other than to write occasionally. But given his mother’s Quaker pacifism and private emotions, it is hard to think that anything other than encouraging communications were exchanged.

As the legend goes, when Nixon was discharged from the Navy he was contacted by a group of business leaders to run for Congress against incumbent Democrat, Jerry Voorhis. Whether Hannah encouraged or discouraged Nixon’s initial run for office is unclear, but she was very proud of her son’s election and went to Washington to see him sworn in. Nixon’s rise to political prominence can only be described as meteoric, and it is hard to imagine that within just six years, he would rise from unknown private citizen to U.S. vice president.

As a freshman Congressman from California’s 12th District, receiving an appointment to the House Un-American Activities Committee was anything but a plush appointment. But from this committee, Nixon would be catapulted on the national scene in the fantastic matter of Alger Hiss and Whittaker Chambers. Initially when it appeared that Hiss would be vindicated and Chambers revealed to be deranged, Nixon stayed on the case. He was disquieted by Chamber’s adamance and was uncomfortable with Hiss’ smug demeanor. During this time, Hannah urged Richard to drop the matter. But Nixon outlined his belief that Chambers was telling the truth, and Hannah encouraged him to do what he believed was right. Had Nixon listened to his mother at the early stage of the Hiss-Chamber’s affair, history would have been vastly different and the angle of Nixon’s trajectory much lower.

Hannah does not appear to have played a prominent role in any of Nixon’s campaigns for Congress, Senate, or even vice president. She was certainly around, but more behind the scenes and providing moral support. She was a favorite with the Nixons’ daughters and frequently took care of them when Pat and Richard were traveling. No doubt she encouraged her friends and family in their support of her son, but there is no record of her comments on the campaigns other than to encourage her son and ask others to support him, based on her endorsement.

Nixon’s campaigns for Congress, Senate and vice president were difficult, to say the least, and created an impression that he would say anything to get elected. If the chief goal of a politician is to win office, then Nixon was wholly committed. His congressional and senatorial campaigns were California affairs, and in achieving success, he made a number of enemies who, in many instances, never forgave him. This was true not only of Democrats, but also of Republicans. So controversial was Nixon’s selection as vice president that many in the California delegation were appalled and worked against him. The sour taste Nixon left fomented a desire for revenge, and in an attempt to derail Nixon, information about a secret “slush” fund was leaked to the press. Having accepted nomination as Eisenhower’s vice president in July of 1952, only two months later Nixon faced a potential career-ending expose’. Enemies of Nixon leaked to the press a story that supporters had established a fund for Nixon’s personal use that contained thousands of dollars of improper payments. What started out as a third-rate, muckraking story grew to enormous proportions forcing Eisenhower and those around him to consider taking Nixon off of the ticket. To say the presidential campaign was in crisis was an understatement, and a poll of party regulars seemed to favor replacing Nixon. Even future Postmaster General Red Blount wrote Eisenhower a letter arguing that for the party to campaign on a platform on honesty and openness, Nixon needed to go. Hannah’s son was not about to give up without a fight. Thirty minutes of national television was purchased, and Nixon made the most crucial speech in his life. While Nixon always referred to it as the “Fund Speech” it became known forever as the “Checkers speech.” Addressing a national audience, Nixon reviewed his finances in detail and explained that he never benefited from the fund nor had contributors to the fund benefitted from Nixon. He ended by explaining that one supporter had sent his children a cocker spaniel named Checkers, and regardless of what anyone said, he was going to keep the dog. Without the approval or knowledge of Eisenhower, Nixon ended his speech by asking people to contact the Republican National Committee if they wanted him to stay on the ticket. The letters and telegrams came pouring in, and Nixon’s approval rating shot up, but now Eisenhower was confronted with a decision. At a political rally, Eisenhower joined Nixon and read this telegram to the crowd:

Dear General: I am trusting that the absolute truth may come out concerning the attack on Richard, and when it does, I am sure you will be guided right in your decision, to place implicit faith in his integrity and honestly. Best wishes from one who has known Richard longer than anyone else, His Mother.

To a roar of applause, Nixon was back on the ticket, perhaps not as a full partner, but no longer as a liability or concern. Hannah’s public endorsement of her son was her first time in the spotlight, and she would be a rallying point for Nixon supporters as an emotional touchstone to the 1952 election.

With the Fund crisis abated, the Republican ticket won big in November, and 39-year-old Richard Nixon began a journey which Sen. Bob Dole proclaimed as the start of “the Age of Nixon.” Hannah and Frank Nixon along with other members of the family made plans to witness Richard’s inauguration. In packing for the event, Hannah was careful to bring with her two ancient Milhous family Bibles, and it would be on these two Bibles that Richard would place his hand and take his oath of office. At a family dinner before the inaugural balls, Hannah gently pulled her now vice president son aside and out of sight of the others in attendance and placed a note in his hand. While he would not read it until after the conclusions of the evening’s festivities, he put the note in his wallet and carried it with him for the rest of his political life. The simple note read:

To Richard: You have gone far and we are proud of you always—I know that you will keep your relationship with your Maker as it should be for after all, that, as you must know, is the most important thing in this life. With love, Mother

Hannah’s role now was to support her son, and she was a frequent visitor to Washington. Other than her presence and attendance at several events only one story remains from Nixon’s time as vice president. Apparently, the stress and strain of Nixon’s political life took at great toll on Pat and the Nixon daughters. Knowing the importance of family and harking back to Hannah’s own life as a young mother and the role her mother played, Hannah became aware of tensions between Richard and Pat. She remarked to a family member that she was going to Washington to help out. When nudged to take sides between Richard and Pat, Hannah very matter of factly explained that her role was not to argue any one point of view but to simply to assist Pat. This she would do not as a searing mother-in-law but as a friend and grandmother adding stability to a busy, stressful household. Whatever the situation that temporarily alienated Pat and Richard, Hannah came to the rescue and in her quiet and simple manner brought peace and stability.

Compared to today, the process in 1960 of nominating a candidate was much more of a backroom, deal-making matter with party officials wielding most of the influence to the exclusion of ordinary voters. While there were several potential rivals to Nixon’s quest for the Republican nomination, none of them ever really materialized. So, on July 22, 1960, Richard Nixon received his party’s presidential nomination on the first ballot. Writing about this days later, Nixon commented that “Pat and I were happier then than we were ever to be in my political career.” And sharing this moment with Richard was Hannah, sitting in a special seat with her granddaughters and admiring this achievement.

Losing the race for president hurt and would have deterred others from even thinking of a political comeback, much less a comeback requiring a campaign for the inferior office of Governor of California. Encouraged by supporters, Nixon decided to run, but he simply didn’t have the heart, and instead of embarking on a comeback, another defeat was tallied. When he entered the race, polls showed him ahead by 16 points, but as the campaign continued, Nixon was challenged by the far-right wing of the party, which seethed over his disavowal of Sen. Joseph McCarthy in 1954. Some prominent California Republicans, still not trusting Nixon from inter-party feud days, even endorsed the Democrat. On election night, the man who had come within an eye lash of leading the free world, would lose hard. At 49 and now rejected twice by voters, Nixon refused to even give a concession speech, instead giving his infamous comment, skewering the press and advising them that they wouldn’t “have Nixon to kick around anymore” and vowing that he’d had his final press conference. Time magazine expressed the feelings of many when they opined that barring a miracle, Nixon’s political career was over.

The last conversation Richard had with Hannah was in 1965. She was in a hospital recovering from a very painful and serious operation. Unknown to Nixon at the time, she had just read an article from the Los Angeles Times concluding that because of his defeat in 1962 and his “last press conference” he had no political future. Sensing his mother was depressed, but thinking it was related to her medical condition, Nixon looked at her and said, “Mother, don’t give up.” At that, Hannah, even in pain, pulled herself up in bed, looked her son squarely in the eye and said, “Richard, don’t you give up. Don’t let anyone tell you you’re through!”

Hannah Nixon died on September 30, 1967 at age 82. She had been in a nursing home for two years, and in her last days, was unable to recognize or communicate with her family. She was buried in a simple ceremony from the Quaker meeting house that had been the scene of so many important events in the lives of the Milhouses and the Nixons. Completely overwhelmed by the finality of the event and seeing the graves of his father and brothers, Nixon, in one of his very rare shows of emotion, grabbed Billy Graham and wept on his shoulder.

Whether Hannah Nixon was a saint is for the judgment of history. Certainly the Quaker faith has no process for sainthood, but after Nixon’s resignation speech, a relative wrote to him as follows: “I don’t think of Hannah as a ‘saint.’ Saints I feel have a special pipeline to God which provides them fortitude not given ordinary mortals. Hannah was not ordinary; but she did what she did and was what she was through a strength and lovingness which welled up out of her good heart and own indomitable charter.”

It seems that to be a good saint, there must exist the opposing force of evil for what else but sin makes the saint’s work as prominent? It is probably not fair to assert that for every good saint there must be an equally bad sinner, but it sure makes a story more interesting. In the flat world of protestant Christianity, there are no gradations of virtue or vice, yet in the secular world, we tend to rank our leaders and take polls to find out who is the most respected, admired, effective, detested, etc. But this system fails for it relies on memory with no set criteria to ascribe rank to vice or virtue. Dante did a great job in his world of providing levels for Hell, Purgatory and Heaven based on the works and achievements – or lack thereof – for various personalities of his age. His criterion is interesting for it reflects gradations of sin and virtue based on his understanding of deadly sins and virtues. In Dante’s world, the worst of sins was treachery or personal betrayal to which he sentenced Judas Iscariot and Brutus to hell.

If we were to judge Nixon using Dante’s scheme and weigh him in the balance, contrary to the pundits, the sin of Watergate seems hardly a fit for a depth of Hell; and his life, when measured in full would allow some credit for his virtues and probably land him in a comfortable place in Purgatory. But the modern binary world only allows for good and evil, and references to Nixon carry the humiliation of Watergate and resignation. So if the good is interred in the bones of the departed, then forgotten are the foreign policy triumphs of arms limitation with Russia, normalizing relations with China, ending American involvement in Vietnam, stabilizing relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and eliminating almost all Soviet influence in the Middle East. In summing up his life, Nixon said of himself: “I have never lost sight of my destination – a world in which peace and freedom can live together. I have won some great victories and suffered some devastating defeats. But win or lose, I feel fortunate to have to come to a time in my life when I can finally enjoy what my Quaker grandmother would have called ‘peace at the center.’”

Hannah Nixon’s influence never faded.

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

Back in 2018, while I was serving as the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, I oversaw the creation of the USDA’s Rural Broadband Reconnect Program. The goal of this program was to do the same thing for internet connectivity that the rural electrification program did for electricity almost 100 years ago.

The reason for this is simple, for better or for worse, we now live in a connected world. Those who have access to high-speed internet are at a much greater advantage that those who do not. High-speed internet means access to better educational opportunities, tele-medicine to connect to experts on the other side of the country and the ability to create new businesses.

In the four years since the Reconnect Program began, it has had great success all across America, in Alabama, and specifically, in Alabama’s 4th Congressional District. Then Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue and President Trump were tremendously supportive of these efforts and began the task of implementing them. Several billion dollars have been invested in rural broadband and tens of thousands of people in the 4th district have finally been connected. For them, it means no more slow dial-up or the first generation slow satellite-based internet.

While there has been tremendous success, there is still more work to be done. This is why I recently convened a broadband symposium at Wallace State Community College in Hanceville. The idea was to look at the progress we have made so far, the work we still need to do and to look for cooperative ways to get the job done.

In attendance at the event were a who’s who of players in the internet service realm. We also brought in members of the Alabama House and Senate, because they are a major ally in these broadband efforts. Lt. Governor Will Ainsworth also attended. Ainsworth, as head of the Alabama Senate, has also been a major proponent of getting people in rural Alabama connected.

Under Secretary of the USDA for Rural Development, Xochitl Torres Small, served as our special guest and keynote speaker. Small is a former Congressional colleague of mine and is also from a rural area of New Mexico. So, she understands the importance of getting people in rural areas on an even footing with their big city neighbors.

Those in attendance at the event participated in breakout sessions with Small and myself. This was an opportunity to hear first-hand the successes we’ve seen and to find ways we can help navigate around any problems there might be in getting broadband to that last mile and into someone’s home or business.

As I mentioned above, cooperation is going to be key to achieve our goals of getting reliable high-speed service to everyone who wants it. And I’m talking about cooperation at a number of levels.

Internet has traditionally been supplied by cable companies and telephone companies. And they will continue to play a major role in meeting our goals. But there are also new players in the field, like local electricity suppliers.

Tombigbee Electric based in Hamilton was one of the first entities to request and receive ReConnect funds back in 2018. They have been rolling our their Freedom Fiber product in counties all over the western part of the district. More recently, the Cullman Electric Cooperative has also entered the internet sphere with their Sprout service reaching people not just in Cullman County but also Winston and soon Marshall Counties.

Our broadband meeting was also attended by representatives from Space X and Amazon. Both are entering the satellite-based internet realm. They seek to deliver high-speed service from a series of satellites in low earth orbit. These deliver much faster rates than current satellite-based services.

But whether it’s broadband from traditional sources, or from new players in the field, it’s going to take all of them to truly get everyone connected. It will also require cooperation from both the public and private sectors. I’m thankful we have so many state and local officials who share this goal, and that we have entrepreneurs at all levels who have joined this effort.

People who live in large cities benefit frequently from the investment in tax dollars. I have always fought for those in rural America to get their fair share as well, because they too are taxpayers. The investment of rural broadband dollars will pave the way to get internet down gravel roads, dirt roads and across pastures and chicken farms. Down roads that have names like Hog Jaw Road, Mud Creek Road or Possum Ridge Road. And roads that just have a number, like County Road 4.

My continuing goal is to have the fourth congressional district the best-connected rural district in America. We are closer than ever to making broadband possible for all those who want it. And now is not the time to let that momentum slow. I will continue the fight to get everyone connected.

U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt (AL-04) is a Republican from Haleyville.

We need more conservative fighters like Katie Britt in the U.S. Senate — leaders who defend our rights, stand strong for the rule of law, and put Americans first.

As senator for Arkansas, I’ve been fighting every day to hold Joe Biden’s incompetent White House accountable and secure our porous southern border. I need more fighters like Katie in the Senate. A lot of politicians can talk the talk, but Katie Britt walks the walk. She is a tough conservative fighter who will put hardworking American families first. Katie will work tirelessly with me to protect our values and to stop Democrats from permanently changing our country.

Katie has released a detailed policy paper outlining how she will crack down on illegal immigration and fight for American workers, including her support of the RAISE Act. She will stand up to the Chinese Communist Party, back the blue, and work to combat the crushing inflation caused by the left’s reckless spending and radical agenda.

I have no doubt that Katie is the best choice for Alabama conservatives, and I’m all in to help her win. The stakes are too high—I’m asking you to join me and rally behind Katie’s candidacy and send another conservative fighter to shake things up in Washington and put America first.

Together, we will save the country we know and love for our children and our children’s children. Let’s preserve the American Dream for generations to come.

Tom Cotton represents Arkansas in the U.S. Senate. He is a veteran of the U.S. Army. Cotton currently serves on the Senate Committees on Armed Services, Intelligence, and the Judiciary.

As Americans struggle to put gas in their cars (the national average is now over $5 a gallon), inflation is near a 40-year high, and our southern border continues to be overrun by illegal immigrants, Democrats in Washington are focused on creating drama in an attempt to distract everyday Americans from the real issues facing this country.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s ridiculous January 6 Select Committee is the most politicized and most illegitimate committee in our nation’s history. By refusing to seat any of Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy’s appointees to the committee, Speaker Pelosi has proven she does not care to identify the security breaches and leadership issues that allowed January 6 to happen. Instead, she is hell-bent on dividing the country and politicizing the events of that day.

Let’s be clear: the folks who rioted and damaged property at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 were in the wrong and should be punished appropriately. Republicans and Democrats had an opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner to ensure the Capitol is safe from this ever happening again and then moving forward as Americans. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi and her allies are using the events of January 6 to grab more power, infringe on the rights of private citizens, and try to distract us from the crises they have created. These actions have further divided our country while doing nothing to address the real issues facing Americans.

Every day when I travel south Alabama, I hear from struggling families and business owners who are dealing with the difficult impacts of skyrocketing fuel prices, runaway inflation, increasing crime and wide-open borders. These are the issues the vast majority of Americans care about – not Pelosi’s partisan witch hunt. Not once have I heard someone say they think Pelosi’s Select Committee should be a top priority for this country.

Congress owes it to the American people to cut out the drama and do the hard work to save this country from falling apart. Without some serious effort from both sides of the aisle, America is in trouble. We have been through tough times before, and we’ve always survived them by putting aside our differences and working together toward a common goal.

Our country has such bright days ahead, but we have some serious challenges to deal with right now. My Republican colleagues and I are laser-focused on unleashing American energy (we’ve introduced countless bills to do so) to bring down fuel prices, stopping the reckless spending that is contributing to record-high inflation, securing our southern border, strengthening our election integrity and supporting law enforcement. Despite these tough times, I’ll continue doing all I can to address these issues and work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this country a better place to live, work, and raise a family.

Jerry Carl represents Alabama’s First Congressional District. He lives in Mobile with his wife Tina.

When 77% of voting Alabamians passed a statewide amendment to improve our 21 state parks, they did us a favor. Of the $85-million bond approved, $80 million will go toward modernizing the parks and investing in infrastructure to improve them. The funding will make the parks more profitable and improve their position as premiere tourism destinations.

The other $5 million will help the Alabama Historical Commission maintain acquire and construct historical sites.

The amendment approved by voters May 31 originated from the passage of House Bill 565, which was sponsored by Reps. Nathaniel Ledbetter and Wes Kitchens. These legislators showed great foresight to recognize the tens of thousands of tourists the parks lure to our state each year and the need for the updates and renovations to keep the parks attractive.

The bond issue is truly an investment in our state’s future – both economically and environmentally. With interest rates so low, it was the perfect time to make such a move, financially speaking.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 97-1, and it passed the Senate by a vote of 29-0 on an amended version. The final version passed the House 98-0.

Thank you Reps. Ledbetter and Kitchens for finding a much-needed issue that the majority in both chambers could also agree upon – unanimously, a rarity in the Legislature.

Our state parks are a division of the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the 21 parks encompass approximately 50,000 acres of land and water in our state. They range from the Gulf Coast beaches to the Appalachian Mountains. They provide golf courses, hiking trails, restaurants, camping, fishing, conference centers, lodging and more.

The parks are beautiful wonders of nature and provide the best Alabama has to offer. They are found in the following cities: Bladon Springs, Clio, Grove Oak, Woodville, Delta, Auburn, Gallion, Ft. Payne, Florala, Opp, Gulf Shores, Rogersville, Guntersville, Coker, Eufaula, Spanish Fort, Huntsville, Pelham, Selma, Warrior, Camden and Alexander City.

For more information on these Alabama jewels of nature, visit www.alapark.com.

Beth Chapman is Alabama’s former State Auditor and 51st Secretary of State. She now owns and operates Beth Chapman & Associates, LLC. This is her weekly column, “Around the Capitol” published in newspapers and blogs across the state. She can be reached at Beth@bethchapman.com.

Dr. Martin Luther King argued that the arc of the moral universe is long and bends toward justice. This geometry lesson was used to illustrate a belief that history is pulled gravitationally towards freedom.

One of the early “moral arcs” occurred 807 years ago this month when the Magna Carta was signed at Runnymede. This critical event would set in motion several important concepts now ingrained in our system of government. Perhaps the most important ideas acknowledged by the Magna Carter were that the British monarchs were not above the law, and their powers were neither limitless nor were they able to impose rules that violated established legal customs.

One custom that seems to attract universal interest is the power to tax and exploit from others their property to benefit the prevailing concept of the common good. Even in 1215 people had a tolerance for an acceptable level of taxation, but they also had a concept of excessive taxation, which was always a source of acrimony between the governed and civil authority.

While the Magna Carta addressed several issues, arbitrary taxation set in motion a fundamental concept that would be refined over time to require a process allowing taxpayers to consent or otherwise participate in the approval of any new taxes.

To curtail the King’s power to tax was significant. The King, like any sovereign, depended on taxes to support his palace, prerogatives, and policies. Indeed, one hallmark of absolutism is the ability to squeeze as much revenue from as many people to create a government directed solely by the monarch and accountable to no one.

Limiting the purse of the ruler was a mark along the road to greater liberty and freedom. It would be a stretch to argue that the Barons who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta were the first economic supply-siders. They were merely tired of funding royal initiatives that offered no local benefit while siphoning money and commodities out of their community.

The effect of the Magna Carta was a step toward limiting the government and allowing communities to retain their crops, gold, and property. Kings, like any other authority, chaff at having their financial plans approved by others. In King John’s case, he reluctantly signed the Magna Carta and later repudiated it, which started a war with his nobles. This civil war ended only after his successor, King Henry III, agreed to confirm the terms of the Magna Carta and reissued it to show royal assent.

The Magna Carta, by requiring some form of consent to levy and collect tax, indirectly created the need for a parliament to approve the King’s explanation of what taxes were necessary and why. Few societies in the 13th Century had any notion of assembling people together so the King could confirm his limited power by asking his subjects for taxes.

The uniqueness of this system would create an expectation of a relationship to balance the interests of the government and the governed. As the arc of history moved forward with Parliament, the powers of the King eroded, and greater power was ceded to a representative body.

While Parliament grew in authority, later, it too would come under scrutiny when it abused power and failed to recognize that it no longer represented the governed.

With the industrial revolution and the growth of a middle class, the power in Parliament became more reflective of an elite class with little attention to changes in the country. And so it was that 190 years ago this month, the Great Reform Act was passed to correct how members of Parliament were elected.

As Parliament developed, there was no uniformity in what constituted a district to elect a representative. In some cases, districts might be relatively small with limited land and population, while other districts would be much larger. In the same token, there was no set requirement of just who was eligible to vote in a district. Qualifications varied, which allowed the hierarchy to control both the voting district and the voters.

So, in the 1830s, rather than a voice of the people, Parliament had become more like King John in 1215 and lost touch with the population. It now abused its power by imposing laws, taxes, and a system that had no accountability to an industrialized country. Like the nobles, the growing middle class wanted a say in how government impacted their lives.

Proving once again the dynamic of the English system, Parliament reformed itself. In an appeal to liberty and the good will of all citizens, and believing in representative government, in 1832, Parliament accomplished two critical things in bending the arc of history toward justice.

First, the act changed how districts were allocated within cities and counties. Gone were the abusive boroughs controlled by an elite, and in their place were districts with similar populations and interests. Though not even remotely approaching the concept of “one man, one vote,” it still served as the genesis of voting districts with proportional representation.

Second, the franchise was expanded to allow a lower threshold of property ownership for eligibility to vote. This increased the eligible voting population more than 55%. While women were not allowed to vote and lower classes continued to be excluded, in the march toward greater participation in government, it was a clear step toward justice.

The act also created an objective system of voter registration that was the primary responsibility of local government. Additionally, boards were established to hear appeals for disputes about qualifications to vote, which further established a notion of due process by defusing power to allow a review of voting eligibility by a higher authority.

Both the Magna Carta in 1215 and the 1832 Reform Act continued a process to allow greater liberty, more freedom, and expanded justice, and these two initiatives served as bright beacons along the arc of history moving civilization towards greater self-determination.

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

Our popular high steppin’ pistol totin’ Governor Kay Ivey won a very impressive reelection victory for governor on May 24.

Ivey turned back eight GOP primary challengers to win the Republican gubernatorial nomination without a runoff. She garnered an amazing 54% of the vote and carried every county in Alabama. That is a feat not often accomplished, especially considering she had eight folks running against her.

However, her popularity is probably the reason she had no serious thoroughbreds challenge her in the gubernatorial derby.

Any knowledgeable political pro could look at the odds of defeating one of the most popular incumbent governors in the nation with plenty of campaign resources and walk away from that uphill battle.

After all she had beaten a more impressive field in 2018, which included Huntsville Mayor Tommy Battle, without the need for a runoff.

Six of her male opponents were “also ran” unknown and still unknown candidates. The seventh male in the race, Tim James, whose claim to fame is that his daddy was governor, is becoming a perennial candidate. He has run three times and finished third three times. He got a respectable 15%, but he spent $5.7 million to get that amount. If he tries again, he will be considered in the Shorty Price category.

The only female in the race was first time candidate, Lindy Blanchard. She finished second to Kay Ivey with 18%. Therefore, the two females running for governor finished first and second. However, there is a world of difference in getting 54% and 18%. Lindy is a nice lady. If you meet her, you cannot help but like her. She spent an amazing $11 million of her own money. That equates into about $100 per vote. That may be a new record. That should tell her that she just might not be cut out for politics. She nor Tim James never got any traction or resonated.

The fact that Blanchard and James spent most of their $16 million combined on negative ads, and I might add disingenuous ads against Governor Ivey, is even more of a testament of how popular and resilient Ivey remains.

I said from the get-go that Ivey would win without a runoff and felt that way to the end. I have to admit that the night of the election when it appeared that the turnout was going to be lighter than expected, I wondered privately if she might dip below 50%. However, she outperformed and got about 54%.

Kay and her team ran a flawless campaign. Her TV ads were folksy and effective. She did not take anything for granted. She never said a bad word about any of her opponents. In fact, she never acknowledged them or called their name. Even in her victory speech, she said we have got to keep running hard against our Democratic opponent. Even though winning a statewide gubernatorial race as a Democrat is extremely unlikely. Winning the GOP primary for governor in the Heart of Dixie is tantamount to election.

Kay Ivey’s 2022 reelection victory is almost as remarkable as her mentor and idol and our only other female governor, Lurleen Wallace’s 1966 landslide victory.

There are several other constitutional offices that will be decided on June 21. The secretary of state runoff race will be the closest to watch. State Representative Wes Allen and two-term State Auditor Jim Zeigler are notched in a dead heat. Both got about 40%. Zeigler has name identification having run a dozen times statewide. Wes Allen has the qualifications. He has been a probate judge for over a decade prior to his House term. This one will be close and interesting.

The state auditor’s job will be filled by either Florence State Representative Andrew Sorrell or Kimberly preacher Stan Cooke. The Reverend Cooke did benefit from having run for this job before, and he also received a significant hometown vote from Jefferson County.

Our two incumbent conservative PSC members, Chip Beeker and Jeremy Oden, have liberal green leaning opponents in the June 21 runoff.

Greg Cook won an impressive 55-45 victory over Anniston Circuit Judge Debra Jones for Place 5 on the Alabama Supreme Court. He will fit in well with our current conservative and well-credentialed state high court.

Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.

I met her at a conference where we were assigned to the same table. She was bubbling with excitement about her church.

“It’s changed my life and my family’s life,” she said. “We can’t wait ‘til Sundays come!”

Her enthusiasm was refreshing to hear. But then she puzzled me when she told me where she lived and where her church was. The church is some 50 miles from her home, and three counties away.

Many of us were schooled differently.

I remember the Church Covenant that was frequently displayed on the walls of churches, right next to the attendance board. The covenant was common to missionary Baptist churches in the day and is traceable to John Newton Brown who included it in his “Baptist Church Manual” in 1853. The last line reads, “We moreover engage that, when we remove from this place, we will as soon as possible unite with some other church where we can carry out the spirit of this covenant and the principles of God’s Word.”

Many modern churches don’t display the covenant, and it’s true some church members, like the lady I met, don’t practice it. The idea is that we should belong to local churches in order to be involved in their ministries in local communities.

My mother-in-law listens to gospel music produced by a Southern preacher and played on his cable channel. I watched one day and heard him read the names of new church members, many of whom were from other states. This is an interesting phenomenon. I assume they worship through cyberspace and mail offerings, but again the question is how do they participate in their church’s ministry in the local community?

I’ve seen similar situations in some of the rural churches in our state who include members on their rolls from other places. These grew up in those churches but decided not to move their memberships—this would be almost like abandoning their culture, I’ve heard it said. Sometimes these far-away folk return for the annual homecoming service, and, of course, everyone is happy to see them. But the basic question remains: how do they participate in their church’s ministry in the local community?

I know we can’t be rigid about how far is too far. I’ve known people who’ve driven across their cities to attend churches on the other side of town. And I’ve heard it said, “It’s not the church nearest; it’s the church dearest.” But the basic premise of church membership remains that not only are we called to support our churches financially, but also to help them make a difference for God in local communities.

As Jesus said, the work begins in our own “Jerusalem” (Acts 1:8). -30-

“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.

For decades, Alabama workers have been at the forefront of supporting American warfighters. In January of this year, our support expanded as Lockheed Martin and Airbus announced the LMXT strategic tanker aircraft will be partly manufactured in Mobile, Alabama. It is exciting to know that Alabamians would play a key role in building this aircraft, which would support both military and humanitarian missions around the globe.

Introduced in September 2021, the LMXT is Lockheed Martin’s offering for the U.S. Air Force’s KC-Y “Bridge Tanker” program competition. The KC-Y competition would open the door for a superior refueling tanker to replace the Air Force’s fleet of aging KC-135 tankers and the Air Force could decide who will build the next round of tankers in late 2024 or early 2025, with deliveries starting in 2029. As James Taiclet, president and CEO of Lockheed Martin said at the announcement in January, “Establishing this production work in Alabama confirms Lockheed Martin’s commitment that the LMXT will be built in America, by Americans, for Americans.”

The LMXT would be built on the already successful Airbus A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) platform, which is currently in service with 13 U.S. allies across the globe. Once fully constructed, the LMXT will have the greatest flight range and carry the most fuel of any aerial tanker in the world. The manufacture of the baseline Airbus A330 aircraft would move to a new $400 million facility at the Mobile Aeroplex at Brookley. This facility would employ more than three hundred direct workers but this investment in our economy hinges on the Air Force moving forward with a fair and open competition for the tanker.

For Alabama, the LMXT is an opportunity to strengthen job growth and manufacturing by drawing on the experience and talents of a high-tech Alabama workforce that has proven itself as a leader in aviation.

Alabamians are the hardest working folks in the country. From Huntsville to Mobile, our workers produce world class products that strengthen national security and ensure that our men and women in uniform are prepared for every mission. Alabama knows aerospace. The LMXT is another opportunity for our workforce to demonstrate its many talents and dedication to providing the best for our men and women in uniform.

I applaud the members of our congressional delegation for working together to get this project off the ground. We are counting on our elected leaders at the federal level to continue pushing for a fair and open competition for the next aerial refueling tanker.

John H. Merrill is currently serving as Alabama’s 53rd secretary of state

Like many of you, I grew up around guns and was taught to respect them and always treat them safely. I believe I got my first gun when I was 8, and I’ve been a collector ever since.

As a young boy and later as a teenager, I spent much of my time after school or work in the woods hunting, fishing, learning about nature and learning how to safely handle a firearm. Many folks today might think it’s crazy for a boy to own a gun at that age, but I was taught to respect the gun and respect life. I did not have an easy childhood, and the older I get, the more I realize that gun and those woods were what kept me sane and out of trouble.

Unfortunately, times have changed since I was a boy growing up in the Alabama woods. Many of our young men grow up in homes where they are not taught that life has value, and this breeds a lack of discipline and respect for the people around us. Everywhere in our society we can see this change – whether it’s the violence coming out of Hollywood, and movies, too much social media, absent parents or the left’s push for abortion on demand – we are seeing an overall breakdown of society and no longer have a culture that values human life.

So many kids today are not taught to value life, and instead of socializing and playing outdoors, they sit inside scrolling through social media while watching violent movies and playing violent video games for hours on end. All of us who have kids understand how impressionable kids are at a young age, and we’ve got to do better about monitoring what our kids are watching and playing. When young kids see violence on their screens over and over, they can very easily become desensitized to killing. This is why it’s so important for parents to be present in the lives of their kids and instill good values in them.

Every time a mass shooting happens in the United States, the left immediately calls for gun control while ignoring the real underlying issue. Guns are not the problem. The people pulling the trigger are the problem, and infringing on the rights of law-abiding Americans does absolutely nothing to keep bad people from doing bad things. We will continue to see violence and crime rise until we get serious about addressing mental health issues in this country and push back on movies and video games that are poisoning the minds of our kids.

We have a real problem in his country, but gun control is not the answer and will not fix our real problems. The Constitution is clear that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and I will never back down from defending our constitutional right to protect ourselves and our families from harm.

Jerry Carl represents Alabama’s First Congressional District. He lives in Mobile with his wife Tina.

It takes money, moxie and muscle to defeat an incumbent. If you run against one, you’d better beat them. It happens fewer times than not, but here are eight exceptions to that rule.

Susan DuBose defeated Rep. Dickie Drake in House District 45 which encompasses portions of Jefferson and Shelby Counties. DuBose is a former banker and is active in multiple Republican organizations in Shelby County. She will be the first Hoover resident to win a seat in the Alabama Legislature until Mike Shaw wins House District 47 and he will join her.

Jerry Starnes defeated Rep. Will Dismukes in House District 88 in Autauga and Elmore Counties. Starnes is Prattville City Council president. He works for the State Board of Pardons and Paroles and serves as a Lt. Col. in the Army National Guard.

Jennifer Fidler defeated Rep. Joe Faust in House District 94 which is in Baldwin County. Fidler is a business owner and a seventh-generation Baldwin Countian. She has served the county both personally and professionally over the years in numerous ways.

Mike Kirkland defeated Rep. Tommy Hanes in House District 23 which is in Dekalb and Jackson Counties. Kirkland worked for Vulcan Materials for over 30 years in various roles. He has been active in multiple civic and charitable organizations in his district.

Ernie Yarbrough defeated Rep. Proncey Robertson in House District 7, which is in portions of Franklin, Lawrence, Morgan and Winston Counties. Yarbrough is a self-employed electrical engineer. He and his wife also own a health and wellness business.

Curtis Travis defeated Rep. Ralph Howard in House District 72, which is in parts of Bibb, Greene, Hale, Marengo and Perry Counties. Travis is an assistant pastor, builder, retired field representative and manager. He has served on numerous boards and commissions in his community.

Former Rep. Mack Butler defeated Rep. Gil Isbell who represents House District 28, which is in Etowah County. Butler is an electrical contractor and develops, owns and manages real estate investments.

Jay Hovey defeated Sen. Tom Whatley in Senate District 27, which encompasses Lee, Russell and Tallapoosa counties. Hovey is a banker in Lee County and an Auburn City councilman. He participates in multiple civic and charitable organizations in his community.

These are the eight newcomers who have defeated incumbents and will be joining the Legislature in 2023. They’re hard-working and determined folks. Again, it’s hard to beat an incumbent. It takes lots of money, moxie and muscle. These folks have flexed all three to show they have what it takes to win. Congratulations to them all.

Beth Chapman is Alabama’s former State Auditor and 51st Secretary of State. She now owns and operates Beth Chapman & Associates, LLC. This is her weekly column, “Around the Capitol” published in newspapers and blogs across the state. She can be reached at Beth@bethchapman.com.

The killing of 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, has outraged Americans. The malfeasance of law enforcement during the tragedy is highly disturbing and demands reforms.

Police officers reportedly waited outside the classroom for over an hour. The commanding officer evaluated the situation as a “barricaded shooter,” not an “active shooter” calling for immediate entry.

A Border Patrol SWAT team finally entered and killed the assailant. Quicker action might have saved some victims. Economics counsels that there are no solutions in this world, only tradeoffs.

Ideally no one would ever try to kill children at a school. Unfortunately, evil exists. We can only manage, not eliminate, school shooting risk.

Let’s start with the frequency of school shootings. One frequently cited database tracks all school gun violence, like students getting in an argument and shots being fired. Such events differ enormously from Columbine, Newton or Uvalde.

Bradley Thompson of Clemson University has compiled a list I will use. While school shootings seemingly happen all the time, Professor Thompson counts 14 events and 109 deaths since 1997.

Can we reduce this further, perhaps with better anger management? Over the past 25 years, over 100 million people have gone through high school (not all graduated). 16 individuals perpetrated the 14 shootings, or one out of 6 million students. The overwhelming majority of young people learn to control their anger.

Hardening schools is another possibility. America has 100,000 public and 30,000 private schools, so only one in 10,000 schools has experienced a mass shooting in 25 years. Many hardened schools will never face an armed intrusion. A teacher reportedly propped open the door the Robb Elementary shooter entered.

Locked doors will inconvenience teachers and students thousands of times for every intruder stopped. The infrequency of shootings challenges the human capacity for diligence.

The Uvalde assailant, like many school shooters, had no criminal record and no reported mental health incidents. Most shooters are not juvenile delinquents. I doubt psychologists can identify the one in six million in advance.

America has over 400 million guns, far more per capita than any other nation. Given all these guns, other countries’ gun control laws will work differently here. Even if we repeal the Second Amendment, Americans wishing to do evil will likely obtain guns. We likely must react to these rare events.

Experts stress the need for an immediate response by the first officers on the scene. Unfortunately, the dawdling at Uvalde was not unprecedented. The delay was 47 minutes at Columbine in 1997 and 58 minutes at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida in 2018.

After earlier shootings, experts recommended putting police officers in schools. An officer offers a chance to stop an incident before it starts. Not perfect protection: an officer will not always prevail against a well-armed assailant. Yet delaying a perpetrator might enable locking school doors and arrival of other officers.

Taxpayers paid for officers for schools. But at Douglas High the officer stayed safely in the school parking lot and Robb Elementary’s officer failed to engage the assailant. Taxpayers, I think, expected police officers to try to stop school shooters.

Can we expect better? Writing at Reason.com, J.D. Tuccile thinks not because, “officers are regular people working a unionized public-sector job” and have “no stake in the situation and families waiting at home.”

I think most police officers take their responsibility to “protect and serve” very seriously. Ours is a government of the people. Police officers ultimately work for us.

Detailed rules of engagement should be crafted by experts and not voters, but we set the broad parameters. If we want school shooters engaged immediately, we can and should insist on this.

We need a timely armed response to school shooters. Security guards at banks routinely engage bank robbers. If America’s police forces will not step up, we could cut police budgets and hire private security for our schools.

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

It used to be said that we had more Baptists than kudzu in Alabama. Now there are a few less since I bade farewell to three on the same day.

A Baptist girl whom I had baptized, along with her mother, had a Roman Catholic wedding a few days ago. She took the faith of her husband. It was a gorgeous worship place and a beautiful wedding. In the realm of “it’s a small world,” Paul and Jan came over to say “hi” after the ceremony. Jan is a friend of the groom’s mother, and I was pleasantly surprised to see them at the event. I performed their wedding in Selma, Ala. many years ago—they reminded me it had been 30 years. This formerly Baptist couple told me they were “recovering Baptists,” now attending a PCA church.

Studies show that not only are people moving to different churches within their own denominations with greater frequency today, but many are moving to and fro among various denominations. They’re moving away from the churches of their childhood, or what Episcopalians call their “cradle church.” The denominational label takes a back seat to children’s programs, youth programs, worship styles, friendships, ministries, location and other factors.

I’m not sure what to make of this other than to recognize it’s a societal change about which we have little control. The fire marshal won’t let us lock them in!

But evangelicals teach that our young people shouldn’t marry outside their faith. This doesn’t mean outside their denomination; it means marrying someone with no faith. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers.” Paul’s counsel was in accord with the Old Testament exhortation to Israel not to marry Canaanites who didn’t share their faith.

Of course one of the great stories in the Old Testament is about Ruth, a Moabite, who accepted Hebrew faith and became the great-grandmother of King David. But idol-worshipping Canaanites were not normally to be in the prospect pool for Hebrew marriages.

I spent 15 years at a Christian college. One day a student told me about her friend, devout in her faith, who was dating a “callow fellow” (as Tom Jones used to sing). I expressed surprise at her choice of dating material.

“Oh, she’s missionary dating,” the student told me.

Apparently, this concept means to date a ruffian with the intention of bringing him to Christ. I’ve always had doubts about the efficacy of this. The movie, “Grease,” demonstrated that the ruffian can bring the good girl low.

As far as marriage is concerned, the old adage is true: if a child of God marries a child of the devil, she will have trouble with her father-in-law.

“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.