Subscription Preferences:

We must not sacrifice consistent morality for political pragmatism


Listen to the 10 min audio

Read the transcript:                         

WORTHY IS THE (CONOR) LAMB? COLUMNIST THINKS SO

TOM LAMPRECHT: Harry will recognize the Scripture, “Worthy is the lamb who was slain.” That is also the title of a New York Times column by David Brooks that was published back on March the 15th, “Worthy is the Lamb.”

Unfortunately, he wasn’t looking at Easter; he was looking at a political event, particularly, Conor Lamb’s victory in Pennsylvania. Our listeners will likely remember that Conor Lamb beat Rick Saccone in that special election for Congress outside of Pittsburgh.

David Brooks looks at Conor Lamb’s victory and says, “This is a glimmer of home that the Democrats may go the way of morals and character.” He points out that Lamb was a military veteran; that Lamb was careful to put the problems of his district first — the opioid crisis, retirement, security, labor issues; he emerges from a serious moral tradition — he’s a Catholic and attended parochial school run by Christian brothers; he campaigned in a way designed to bridge divisions, not exacerbate them; and he opposed both Nancy Pelosi in Congressional leadership races.

Moral character, Brooks said, is always the same essential things: putting a higher love like nation over a lower love like party.

WHY USE SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT POLITICS?

DR. REEDER: Whenever someone takes a statement assigned in Scripture in singular glory to the God of glory, specifically to my Savior, as the phrase, “Worthy is the lamb,” which is declared in Heaven … The apostle, John, is on the isle of Patmos and he is overwhelmed with the question, “Who can open the seals of the redeeming work of Christ?” — the seven seals — and then he hears a voice saying, “Look, there is one who is worthy.” And then he says, “I looked and, behold, the Lamb of God, the Lion of Judah.” And so, the lion has become the lamb to redeem us from our sins and the lion who has become the lamb is worthy to open the seals.

I am immediately and pointedly adverse to any use of a statement attributed to God to be attributed anywhere else and about anything else, so I have to admit that the statement had me on the wrong foot to begin with because of its blasphemy.

FURTHERMORE, CONOR LAMB IS NOT MORALLY SERIOUS

David Brooks normally makes statements that have some weightiness to it and he has a number of insights that I have found helpful from time to time, but I have to say that this article evacuated almost all of that, at least momentarily.

Where he assigns all of this moral turpitude to Conor Lamb, well, the fact is, yes, he is a military veteran and I’m thankful for that. And, yes, he did say, “I’m concerned about the opioid epidemic and retirement and workers and all of those things.” He sounded the right notes and he said, “I’m just concerned about my people, not about the Democratic Party.”

Therefore, David Brooks says, “Here’s the Democratic wave of the future. Run to the center with moral seriousness, with moral sobriety.” In fact, he’ll end up his article with the interesting statement, “Conor Lamb may be wrong on a bunch of stuff, but he’s a breath of fresh air for the country because he is restoring character and shared moral norms that matter most. Policy is secondary.”

MORALITY DOES MATTER MOST, BUT ONLY CONSISTENT MORALITY

That’s right, morality matters most, policy is secondary and I agree with that, but Conor Lamb is not the poster child for this. He is said to be morally serious because of what he has said — well, the fact is he may say, “I’m running against Pelosi,” but the reality is he upholds every policy in the Democratic party, even the policy of putting to death the unborn, even the murder of the unborn.

Here is what he says — and, interesting, David Brooks applauds this meaningless statement of supposed character principle — “I am personally opposed to abortion, but I will not oppose political or legislative affirmations of the right of a woman to ‘human reproductive health’.”

That is not human reproductive health — that is human reproductive murder. And that statement tells you that Conor Lamb is not morally serious. It also tells you that David Brooks must not be morally serious if he declares such a candidate as a morally serious candidate.

If you are personally opposed to abortion, then you have to oppose it in policy. If you have the character to say abortion is the murder of unborn child, then you have the responsibility of character to oppose it politically and legislatively.

The reality is Conor Lamb marches in lock-step to the horrendous policies of the Democratic platform to kill babies in the womb. That is not moral seriousness — that is a vacuous moral posturing.

NOT JUST A WARNING FOR DEMOCRATS

And, by the way, let me go to the other side to Republicans. You’ve got to be able to see this same thing. For instance, as we’re working through this issue of the “Stormy Daniels,” alleged accusations that she’s been involved with President Trump — let me emphasize alleged — I understand of all that. I listened to portions of the interview with her and there’s nothing overwhelmingly convincing about evidence there and everybody has to have the evidence.

And people say to me, “Well, he paid the $130,000.00. Isn’t that an admission of guilt?” It may be. We need to find that out. It may also be, “Hey, the election’s two weeks around the corner. Let’s get rid of this and try to get through the election.” I don’t know, but I do know this: it matters to me whether or not my president is engaged in such activities. That is a character issue for me.

KEEP THIS MORALITY STANDARD IN MIND FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP

And it’s not enough for me that my president makes the right decisions politically. I am glad for that, I am glad that we have a Supreme Court justice that he nominated, I am glad that he is publicly opposed to Planned Parenthood, I am glad for many of the appointments that he has made that are of sound moral character and that are functioning evangelical Christians with a Christian world and life view — I am glad for all of that, but it still matters to me what the president does concerning his marriage vows. That matters to me.

I agree with David Brooks’ statement. Policy and pragmatic competency in a politician does not — pardon the pun — trump character for me. Character is crucial. It is the most essential thing in any leader.

I would say to all of the conservatives out there: you can’t say to Democrats who would excuse Bill Clinton’s sexual promiscuity and perversion on the basis that his policies were working and he’s a good and effective politician and then you turn around and excuse the behavior of your effective politician. You just can’t do that.

Mr. Brooks, I’m with you. Let’s have some moral seriousness but, Mr. Brooks, you’re dead wrong: the notion that I can be personally opposed to the murder of unborn children in the womb and not doing anything about it politically or legislatively and, on the contrary, I will embrace a platform that has a genocidal assault on the unborn, that foundational issue is what is leading to a culture of death, both at the beginning of life and at the end of life and now on the schoolyards and in the church buildings around the entire life of our culture. That’s not morally serious.

KEEP GOD IN POLITICAL STANDARDS, BUT DON’T PROFANE HIM BY PICKING AND CHOOSING

May I finally conclude by bringing, hopefully, reverence to the profane use of the headline “Worthy is the Lamb.” The Lamb is worthy. The Lamb who is worthy is the One who we celebrate who took our place on the cross — not the lambs of this world that cannot redeem us, but the Lamb of God Who has redeemed us and I want to bring His message.

To conservatives and my Republican friends, it is important that you do not sacrifice “Do not commit adultery” for political pragmatism and policy engagement. I love effective politics and I hate false allegations, but we must never become unserious about the ethical absolutes of God’s Law — “You shall not murder;” “You shall not commit adultery.” And if you’re willing to embrace that for political expediency whether you’re on the right or the left, that leads to nothing but the destruction of a society.

We need leaders who set the thermostat, not of perfection — we only get our perfection from the Lamb of God — “Worthy is the Lamb”. We also get His atoning death for our sins, but when you come to that Lamb, then you begin to desire a life that will honor Him. Even as the apostle Paul said, “I beseech you, walk in a manner worthy of your calling.”

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

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

1 hour ago

AL House Speaker Mac McCutcheon ‘can say for sure that you’ll see a lottery bill’ in 2019

With Mississippi recently adding sports betting to its legal gambling options, the pressure is on for Alabama to not only follow that lead, but to institute a state lottery as well.

While one prominent Republican state lawmaker already has predicted a sports gaming bill will be considered by the Alabama Legislature in 2019 yet be a long-shot to pass, Speaker of the House Mac McCutcheon (R-Monrovia) told WHNT that a lottery bill will definitely be on their agenda. However, its fate will be determined by the specifics of that now-hypothetical bill.

289

“I can say for sure that you’ll see a lottery bill in the first session coming up,” McCutcheon said. “Now, I can’t determine what the vote’s going to be because I’ve got to see the bill.”

A sizable part of the debate will revolve around where the lottery proceeds would go: to education, the general fund or a combination of the two.

“Could be both, it’s hard to say at this point,” McCutcheon advised.

State Sen. Arthur Orr (R-Decatur), who chairs the important senate appropriations committee entitled Finance and Taxation Education, echoed that specifics will shape a lottery’s case, adding that education should be a part of the equation.

“I do think if you’re going to have a lottery, earmarking money for educational purposes tends to generate a more successful lottery than monies just going to the government,” Orr explained.

While McCutcheon knows a lot of the details are yet to be determined on a proposed lottery, he outlined what could sink the bill-to-be.

“If we have a lottery bill out there, it must be clearly defined so that the people of Alabama have no doubt what the lottery issue is going to be,” McCutcheon emphasized. “We don’t want to confuse that bill with other gambling interests. If it’s going to be a lottery, let’s make it a statewide lottery, so the people can look at it, and then let’s make a determination on how we’re going to vote on it.”

The lottery would go to a referendum of the people as a constitutional amendment if it was passed by the state legislature. The governor has no power to sign or veto a lottery bill.

Sean Ross is a staff writer for Yellowhammer News. You can follow him on Twitter @sean_yhn

3 hours ago

VIDEO: Alabama Sen. Doug Jones’s easy out on Kavanaugh, Democrats must navigate state’s love of Trump, Alabama Socialist seek municipal office and more on Guerrilla Politics…

Radio talk show host Dale Jackson and Dr. Waymon Burke take you through this week’s biggest political stories, including:

— Will Judge Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed or not based on the he said/she said accusation?

— Does Sen. Doug Jones view his issues as a reason to vote against him or an excuse?

— How much does Alabama’s love of Trump effect Alabama Democrats’ chances?

46

Jackson and Burke are joined by Republican candidate for State House (District 3) Andrew Sorrell.

Jackson closes the show with a “parting shot” directed at those who judge Kavanaugh’s accuser as telling the truth with no evidence.

5 hours ago

Rep. Gary Palmer warns Brett Kavanaugh brouhaha threatens America’s ‘experiment in self-government’ — ‘I think this is going to have consequences for the Democrats’

On Friday’s broadcast of Alabama Public Television’s “Capitol Journal,” Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Hoover) expressed his skepticism over the sincerity of Senate Democrats regarding the sexual misconduct allegations aimed at U.S. Supreme Court associate justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Palmer warned that weaponizing a “scandal” in these situations may impact the country’s ability to self-govern.

“It looks to me like since the Democrats had this information as early as July, or maybe earlier than that, and they didn’t bring it forward — this was intended to derail the confirmation, not to do justice for an individual who claims to have been harmed,” he said. “And the thing that really concerns me about all of this, regardless of what side of the aisle you’re on, is how this impacts our ability to continue this experiment in self-government because when you weaponize scandal as a political weapon  — it’s very destructive to the process, not just the individuals involved, but the entire process.”

142

He added that ultimately, this could backfire on Democrats.

“I think this is going to have consequences for the Democrats,” Palmer added. “At some point, you can cry wolf too many times. And again, I think this is dangerous for people that have been harmed. It will get to the point where it’s just another claim. And at the same time, you’ve got Keith Ellison, who I serve with in the House, who has a claim against him by a woman who is being totally dismissed by the left, even though there’s more evidence there. There’s text messages, documentation from her doctor — you see where this is heading? I’m very concerned for our country and what we’re doing to ourselves. I think it has dire consequences down the road.”

@Jeff_Poor is a graduate of Auburn University and is the editor of Breitbart TV.

7 hours ago

Rep. Martha Roby: Tax reform 2.0 gains momentum

Less than a year ago, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to simplify our complicated tax code and lower rates for all Americans. Thanks to tax reform and other pro-growth policies, our economy is booming. You don’t just have to take my word for it – here are some numbers from the month of August:

–U.S. employers added more than 200,000 jobs as wages increased at the fastest year-on-year pace since June of 2009.

470

–Unemployment claims reached a 49-year low. The last time jobless claims fell to this point, it was December of 1969.

–Small business optimism hit a new record high.

–The number of individuals employed part-time who would prefer full-time work but could not find it has fallen to the lowest level since before the 2008-2009 recession.

–U.S. manufacturing grew at the fastest pace since May of 2004.

These numbers all serve as proof that the American people are better off now than they were just two years ago. I am eager to see this strong momentum continue, and I am glad to report that we aren’t slowing down our efforts to foster economic growth right here in the United States. Recently, the House Ways and Means Committee passed Tax Reform 2.0, a series of bills that would modify and build upon the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The first bill in the series, H.R. 6760, the Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018, would put in place several changes to the individual income tax rate. Since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions are set to expire at the end of 2025, perhaps the most important changes H.R. 6760 would implement are making the tax rate changes and the Child Tax Credit permanent.

According to a Tax Foundation study, making these individual income tax changes from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent would increase long-term Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2.2 percent and create 1.5 million new full-time equivalent jobs.

The second bill in the series, H.R. 6757, the Family Savings Act of 2018, includes a number of important reforms to retirement accounts. For example, individuals would be able to contribute up to $2,500 into a savings account annually, and any withdrawals would be tax free.

The third bill in the series, H.R. 6756, the American Innovation Act of 2018, would allow businesses to deduct their start-up costs. Businesses could either deduct the lesser of their start-up expenses, or for firms with more than $120,000 in expenses, deduct a flat amount of $20,000.

Our tax reform overhaul provides much needed relief to American families, creates jobs here in the United States, grows our economy, and allows hardworking taxpayers to keep more of their own money in their pocket. We now have a unique opportunity to continue delivering on our promise to give the American people more of the results they deserve.

Committee passage of Tax Reform 2.0 is just the first step in the legislative process to make parts of our tax overhaul permanent. I will continue to listen to the people I represent in Alabama’s Second District and work alongside my colleagues in Congress to improve this package of legislation as we move towards advancing these pro-growth policies to the House floor for a vote.

U.S. Rep. Martha Roby is a Republican from Montgomery.

8 hours ago

What you need to know about Alabama proposed constitutional amendments 3 & 4

On November 6, Alabamians will vote on four proposed statewide constitutional amendments. Although the first two amendments will likely receive the most attention (API’s analyses can be found on our website), amendments three and four deserve notice as well. They are, in fact, changes to the longest known constitution in the world.

We’ll start with Proposed Amendment Three, which addresses the University of Alabama’s Board of Trustees.

Currently, the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama System – which governs UAB and UAH in addition to the Tuscaloosa campus – is composed of three members from the seventh congressional district (which includes Tuscaloosa), two members from each of the other six congressional districts, the governor and the state superintendent of education.

426

If approved, this amendment would require that the Board continue to be made up of members of congressional districts as drawn on January 1, 2018. This means that, in the case that Alabama gains or, more likely, loses a congressional seat in 2020, the makeup of the board of trustees would not be affected nor thrown into disarray.

Additional stipulations include the removal of the state superintendent of education from automatic membership on the board and of the requirement that board members retire after their 70th birthday.

It is worth mentioning that the bill allowing this University of Alabama-specific amendment passed unanimously in both the State House and Senate.

Amendment Four, in contrast, will have a significantly wider impact if approved.

This amendment addresses something Alabamians have been hearing about for a while now–special elections. It is important to note on the front end, however, that it does not address special elections for the U.S. Congress like that of 2017. Instead, it impacts vacancies in the state legislature.

If accepted, legislative vacancies that occur on or after October 1 of the third year of a quadrennium (in other words, seats that become open only months before the final session of the legislature’s four-year term) would remain vacant until the next general election.

Currently, the governor is required to schedule a special election when state legislative vacancies occur. These elections cost the state money, create voter fatigue, and according to Senator Glover, the amendment’s sponsor, are “just bad government.”

In an interview with API, Senator Glover described one case where, thanks to a late special election, a legislator was sworn in on the last day of session. Cases like these, where relatively powerless legislators are added to the state payroll, will not occur if the amendment is approved.

The main purpose, according to Glover, is to “save some money and confusion.” He estimates that, if this language had been on the books earlier, the state would’ve saved “just under a million dollars” in 2018 alone. For example, this amendment would prohibit what will, come November, be four separate elections for Alabama’s 26 Senate seat in less than a year.

Additionally, the amendment received unanimous support when it passed the Senate and overwhelming support in the House earlier this year.

Although these two amendments are not as polarizing as amendments one and two, both are attempts to make the state better, and they should not be ignored.

Parker Snider is Manager of Policy Relations for the Alabama Policy Institute, an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and educational organization dedicated to strengthening free enterprise, defending limited government, and championing strong families.