Reeder on Tuesday’s elections: ‘To see this as a referendum on Trump is overstating it’


 

Listen to the 10-min audio:

 

Read the transcript:

TOM LAMPRECHT:  Harry, I want to take a look back to last Tuesday’s election. Interesting how a number of outlets are now saying that this was a referendum and a rejection of Donald Trump’s politics. The New York Times actually came out and called itself “the center,” while declaring the election “a rejection of Trump’s hateful politics.”

They pointed to the defeat of Ed Gillespie down in Virginia, the election of a new Democratic governor in New Jersey. Also, media outlets are pointing to two candidates that were elected to state governments who are transgenders. People are calling this a historic moment.

DR. REEDER: I think it is a historic moment. Let’s take a look at this election. People said, “Well, New Jersey likes to elect moderate Republicans as governor.” That was the thesis. Well, I would suggest that’s not quite accurate.

First of all, New Jersey’s very much like the rest of America and there is a tendency that, after someone serves a couple of terms, the opposition party usually gets the nod in many states, and New Jersey is not a state that goes for moderate Republicans or conservative Republicans.

Chris Christie, who had many conservative policies, was really a blip on the screen because he was following a Democratic governor who was guilty of gross corruption. Well, he’s had his own issues in the governorship and he’s had his own legal issues and so the fact that it flipped to Democrat is really not that surprising at all.

And New Jersey is in this northeast conglomeration of progressive politics. Any election of anyone with any tendencies toward conservatism is really almost an aberration and very unique.

The individual running for governor actually is to the left of the Democratic party and what would be called “mainstream Democrats,” promoting and advocating multiple issues from legalization of marijuana, to socialism, to healthcare socialism, etc.

But the more interesting case is Virginia, in which you had the establishment Republican who is a conservative but he is an establishment Republican, Ed Gillespie. If you laid out the counties of Virginia, what you’re going to see is almost a blanket red vote for Ed Gillespie, but where you’re going to see the blue is in northern Virginia and also in the Richmond Proper area.

Outside of that, you’re pretty much going to see red throughout the state of Virginia. Its population in northern Virginia that lives off of increased governmental resources and power because so many people who work in Washington live in northern Virginia and they have a vested interest in progressivism and socialism and the burgeoning Socialistic Movement in our country. You’re seeing almost a blanket vote and I think Gillespie’s probably going to end up with 30 percent or so of that vote at most.

But, to see this as a referendum on Trump is, I think, overstating it. I think what you’ve got is the millennial vote, the government vote, the progressive vote, the liberal vote and you have that coalition coming together in specific heavily populated areas.

That’s why I believe this is a bellwether state because what you’ve got in the United States is the flyover country that is almost all red with counties and states that vote Republican and the East Coast and the West Coast which are the highly dense population areas.

A perfect example is the mayoral election candidate handily reelected, who was an avowed socialist: Mayor Deblasio. This is a guy who declares communist dictators as his hero. And even though the things that have happened in New York under his initial tenure have been horrendous, he is handily reelected.

And then Ed Gillespie was articulating conservative policies, which would line up with a number of things that Trump is promoting, but, he clearly distanced himself in the previous presidential election and during the gubernatorial election.

He distanced himself, so it’s hard to see this as a referendum on Trump when Gillespie had already done his own referendum: I don’t want the President. I don’t want him here campaigning for me. He did not associate himself with President Trump and, therefore, whoever would be heavily committed to Trump would have taken offense, likely, and not voted for Gillespie.

One of the things that President Trump did was he was able to pull together general religious right, evangelicals, the Tea Party, conservatives, some established Republicans such as Reince Priebus and others and his coalition got him over the top and through the finish line.

Ed Gillespie left out much of that coalition, which could be explanatory as to why, when he ran away from Trump, that means many with Trump would run away from voting from him.

TOM LAMPRECHT: Do you see anything from last Tuesday’s election pointing to the election of 2018?

DR. REEDER: We’re a divided nation, there’s no doubt about it and you’ve basically got the flyover states and then you have the coastal votes – the East Coast, and the West Coast, and the major metropolitan areas like Chicago, Cleveland, Milwaukee, etc.

That’s what I see in place and I don’t see anything happening that is going to deny that analysis. And then the question becomes turnout, and then the question becomes motivation.

I know that a lot of people are saying, “This is an indicator of a Democratic sweep.” I am not sure of that at all. The elections that are going to take place on a Congressional basis will be in those states where counties matter, not major metropolitan areas.

I think you’re going to continue to see the representation from those large numbers of counties and the flyover states are going to keep sending the more conservative, while the major metropolitan areas are going to send the more, quote, “progressive liberals and socialists.”

The socialist movement in America is clearly hardening, as well as the sexual revolution. You see the election of transgender candidates, which is something that would never have happened except people are now sending a message and the loss of conviction concerning the created order of male and female and the created order of sexuality within marriage.

All of that is now disappearing in terms of what people determine as important in their elected officials and the policies of the elected officials. The left is hardening and, to some degree, expanding.

I think the right continues as it has, so I don’t see it as portending any gigantic sweep, but it is going to be a heavily contested election in 2018. Be engaged in the area of the public square and public policy.

Every election is a reflection of the worldview of that electorate. Thus, we now know something about Virginia and New York and New Jersey because it is a reflection of worldview.

Remember, the worldview change we long to see is a bottom-up, inside-out worldview change and that’s a Gospel movement of sharing the Gospel and discipling men, and women, and their lives and their families in Christ in which we think with sanity, and we live with temperance and we function with the sacred embraced in our life.

And that’s how we treat people and that’s how we treat policy because we desire to honor the Lord in all that we say and do.

Dr. Harry L. Reeder III is the Senior Pastor of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.

This podcast was transcribed by Jessica Havin. Jessica is editorial assistant for Yellowhammer News. Jessica has transcribed some of the top podcasts in the country and her work has been featured in a New York Times Bestseller.

4 hours ago

State Sen. Allen opposes Alabama Memorial Preservation Act repeal — Says it is ‘important’ to protect history

Last month, State Sen. Gerald Allen (R-Tuscaloosa) said he anticipated efforts to change the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act, which he had sponsored in 2017.

The law has been in the news as of late given the rise of the so-called Black Lives Matter protest movement, responding to the death of George Floyd while in custody of the Minneapolis police. The cities of Birmingham and Mobile moved to take down Confederate memorials, in violation of the law.

During an appearance on Alabama Public Television’s “Capitol Journal,” Allen echoed his expectations but said he was opposed to any efforts to repeal the law outright.

346

“Just like I said in the past, it is so important, and it is something that we need to be careful with and to protect it,” Allen explained. “It is what it is, and there are some things that took place in history that are shameful, and ugly, and disgraceful — but it is what it is and tells a story about who we are and where we come from. In fact, so many events have taken place here in Alabama and across this great country that represents some major, major policy changes. Some of those events took place in this great state. Certainly, I just think for our generation and generations to follow each of us and for four or five generations down the line, for you to be able to tell the complete story on what exactly took place and how we got to where we are — to be able to tell that story I think is very important.”

“If you start removing things and start saying that things shouldn’t exist — I think we need to be of open mind and about how important it is to project history,” he added. “It is a real issue to some. Certainly, I understand that. But it is history.”

APTV host Don Dailey asked Allen if he was open to “tweaks” but opposed a full repeal, which Allen warned a repeal would have consequences.

“I think we’ll be doing a great disjustice to history to go that far with it and to put it in such a way where currently if there is a mechanism in place, and it is a very good process in which individuals must go through, and it is one of those kinds of steps that we put in place to guarantee how we’re going to observe history and protect history as well,” he said.

@Jeff_Poor is a graduate of Auburn University and the University of South Alabama, the editor of Breitbart TV, a columnist for Mobile’s Lagniappe Weekly, and host of Mobile’s “The Jeff Poor Show” from 9 a.m.-12 p.m. on FM Talk 106.5.

5 hours ago

U.S. Rep. Aderholt: Donald Trump, Mo Brooks remarks didn’t rise to the level of inciting violence — U.S. Capitol riot was ‘premeditated’

President Donald Trump and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Huntsville) are facing threats of repercussions for speaking at a rally in the lead-up to the riots on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. earlier this month.

Trump has since been impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, and Brooks is facing threats of a censure resolution by the same body.

However, during an interview with Alabama Public Television, Brooks’ colleague U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Haleyville), a “no” vote on impeachment, said while they may have been ill-advised, neither of their remarks rose to the level of inciting violence.

584

“I don’t think it was an impeachable offense,” he said of Trump. “If you look at what he said, and I looked at them, they were not I don’t think would nearly rise to that level. Obviously, he, like so many Americans, were concerned about the outcome of the election that occurred back in November — not just the outcome but the way it was handled, and the way the laws were not really in compliance with — and a lot of this really dealt with COVID-19 and the way the states were doing things. We could talk about that for an hour but let me just say that I don’t think that his actions were something that would rise to impeachment. If you look at the actions of those that were rioting in the Capitol, they were there and had a plan well before Donald Trump spoke to the people there for the Electoral College vote. They wouldn’t have had time for them to leave there, get the necessary equipment that some of them had — like the ties we’ve seen in the photos, several other objects that they had. That was something that had to be premeditated.”

He added the “vast majority” of the people at the protest event in Washington, D.C. that day were not a part of the rioting at the U.S. Capitol.

“I’ve looked at the words the president used that day and he in no way from the words that I have seen in the transcripts, that he in any way tried to incite any riots. I think those that would say so are just looking for some reason to try to fail the president.”

“Capitol Journal” anchor Don Dailey then asked Aderholt about Brooks, who Aderholt described as being “very passionate” but not responsible for the U.S. Capitol violence.

“If you know Congressman Brooks, he’s very passionate,” Aderholt added. “But again, I don’t think that what he said caused the rioters to go in. Again, they had to have had a plan well before Congressman Brooks spoke. I think looking back, his words could have been chosen differently. I think he could have made his point without using some of the words he did. But I don’t think it rose to the level of inciting the violence that did occur. Hindsight is always 20/20, and I know that he’s been very committed in what his comments were, I think perhaps he would have chosen those words differently had he known the outcome. But obviously, if you know Congressman Brooks, he’s very passionate on whatever issue he works on, and I think that was part of the day there that he was concerned like many of us were — that the electoral votes that were going to be counted — there were a lot of questions. We can’t move forward in this country if we have a lot of people questioning going to the ballot and making sure their vote is counted. If we start down that path, then I think it’s the end of our democracy as we know it because people have got to have the confidence when their vote is cast, their vote is not going to be put in with votes that are not credible and that are questionable.”

@Jeff_Poor is a graduate of Auburn University and the University of South Alabama, the editor of Breitbart TV, a columnist for Mobile’s Lagniappe Weekly, and host of Mobile’s “The Jeff Poor Show” from 9 a.m.-12 p.m. on FM Talk 106.5.

18 hours ago

NASA successfully ignites engines on Huntsville-managed SLS core stage, collects valuable data

NASA on Saturday conducted a hot fire of the core stage for the agency’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that is scheduled to launch the Artemis I mission to the moon later this year.

The hot fire was the final test of the eight-part, 12-month Green Run series, conducted at Mississippi’s Stennis Space Center.

SLS is the world’s most powerful ever rocket that will power America’s next-generation moon missions and subsequent crewed missions to Mars. Alabama’s aerospace industry has led the effort to build the SLS, which stands 212 feet high and 27.6 feet in diameter.

Boeing is the core stage lead contractor, and Aerojet Rocketdyne is the RS-25 engines lead contractor. The SLS program is managed out of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, while Boeing’s Huntsville-based Space and Launch division manages the company’s SLS work.

485

The hot fire test plan called for the rocket’s four RS-25 engines to fire for a little more than eight minutes – the same amount of time it will take to send the rocket to space following launch.

The team successfully completed the countdown and ignited the engines, however the engines shut down a little more than one minute into the hot fire. Teams are assessing the data to determine what caused the early shutdown and will determine a path forward, per a release from NASA.

During the test, the core stage generated 1.6 million pounds of thrust while anchored in the historic B-2 Test Stand. The hot fire included loading 733,000 pounds of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen – mirroring the launch countdown procedure.

“Saturday’s test was an important step forward to ensure that the core stage of the SLS rocket is ready for the Artemis I mission, and to carry crew on future missions,” stated NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, who attended the test. “Although the engines did not fire for the full duration, the team successfully worked through the countdown, ignited the engines, and gained valuable data to inform our path forward.”

Support teams across the Stennis test complex reportedly provided high-pressure gases to the test stand, delivered all operational electrical power, supplied more than 330,000 gallons of water per minute to protect the test stand flame deflector and ensure the structural integrity of the core stage, and captured data needed to evaluate the core stage performance.

“Seeing all four engines ignite for the first time during the core stage hot fire test was a big milestone for the Space Launch System team” said John Honeycutt, the SLS program manager at Marshall. “We will analyze the data, and what we learned from today’s test will help us plan the right path forward for verifying this new core stage is ready for flight on the Artemis I mission.”

Overall, the hot fire represented a milestone for American space exploration.

“Stennis has not witnessed this level of power since the testing of Saturn V stages in the 1960s,” commented Stennis Center Director Rick Gilbrech. “Stennis is the premier rocket propulsion facility that tested the Saturn V first and second stages that carried humans to the Moon during the Apollo Program, and now, this hot fire is exactly why we test like we fly and fly like we test. We will learn from today’s early shutdown, identify any corrections if needed, and move forward.”

You can watch the hot fire here.

Under the Artemis program, NASA is working to land the first woman and the next man on the moon in 2024 through Artemis III.

Artemis I will be the first integrated flight test of SLS and the Orion spacecraft. This will be an uncrewed test flight. Artemis II is slated to be the first crewed flight for the program.

Sean Ross is the editor of Yellowhammer News. You can follow him on Twitter @sean_yhn

19 hours ago

USDA, Alabama sign historic agreement to improve forests on public, private lands

U.S. Department of Agriculture Under Secretary James Hubbard and Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a shared stewardship agreement Jan. 12 to ensure the long-term sustainability of public and private lands in the state.

The agreement signed in an online ceremony is among USDA’s Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the Alabama Forestry Commission.

Shared Stewardship agreements establish a framework for federal and state agencies to collaborate better, focus on accomplishing mutual goals, further common interests and effectively respond to the increasing ecological challenges and natural resource concerns.

“Shared stewardship provides an incredible opportunity to work with the state of Alabama to set stewardship priorities together,” Hubbard said. “We will combine our mutual skills and assets to achieve cross-boundary outcomes desired by all.”

200

This agreement centers on USDA’s commitment to work with states and other partners to use the best available science to identify high-priority forests that need treatment.

“From our rolling mountains to our sparkling coast, the world can understand why they call it ‘Alabama the Beautiful,’” Ivey said. “I am pleased that we can build on the conservation efforts already happening through these strong federal and state partnerships. I look forward to our state continually working for the good of the people as well as our natural resources and to preserve our beautiful state for generations to come.”

Alabama becomes the seventh state in the South and 23rd in the nation to sign such an agreement to strengthen partnerships to increase the scope and scale of critical forest treatments that support communities and improve forest conditions.

“We look forward to continuing to work together with our partner agencies under this shared stewardship agreement,” said ADCNR Commissioner Chris Blankenship. “This agreement memorializes a lot of the good work we have already been doing together to manage the resources and enhance our beautiful state, and it adds new areas where we can grow our partnerships.”

The agreement can be found at https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/shared-stewardship.

(Courtesy of Alabama NewsCenter)

19 hours ago

VIDEO: Trump’s second impeachment moves forward, Mo Brooks faces targeting in D.C., Alabama’s vaccine rollout is too slow and more on Alabama Politics This Week …

Radio talk show host Dale Jackson and Alabama Democratic Party Executive Committee member Lisa Handback take you through Alabama’s biggest political stories, including:

— President Donald Trump has now been impeached again, but will Democrats actually follow through in the Senate?

— Is U.S. Representative Mo Brooks (R-Huntsville) really in danger of censure, expulsion and/or prosecution in Washington, D.C.?

— Where is Alabama’s vaccine rollout in comparison to other states?

87

Jackson and Handback are joined by State Senator Sam Givhan (R-Huntsville) to discuss the U.S. Capitol riots and their fallout, the next legislative session and whether it will be shortened or not.

Jackson closes the show with a “Parting Shot” at those who believe threats of violence actually help their cause in spite of all the evidence that shows otherwise.

Dale Jackson is a contributing writer to Yellowhammer News and hosts a talk show from 7-11 AM weekdays on WVNN.