LINE UP BEHIND ISRAEL

Weekly Opinion Editorial

LINE UP BEHIND ISRAEL!

 by Steve Fair

     On May 14, 1948, the United States, under President Harry Truman, became the first country to extend any form of recognition to the State of Israel.  A year later, the U.N. recognized Israel as a nation in a General Assembly vote.  The land modern day Israel currently occupies was once an area called Palestine.  For more than 1200 years the dominate population there was Arabic.  Starting in the late 1880s, steady stream of Jews from throughout the world begin to migrate to the area, buying up land from the Arabs.  After about 50 years, they formed a nation and petitioned the United Nations to be recognized by the world as a nation.  The United States led the battle to get Israel recognized.

Israel has long been America’s friend and the U.S. has had Israel’s back. 

     Throughout the years, no matter what political Party was in power in the U.S., Israel has been one of America’s strongest allies.  Presidents of both parties have welcomed the Prime Minister of Israel onto our soil as one an honored guest, but that day has gone.   Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in America and President Barrick Obama has no plans to meet with him.  Netanyahu addressed Congress yesterday at the invitiation of Speaker John Boehne, with Vice President Joe Biden and a number of Democrats boycotting the speech. 

     Netanyahu is concerned about a potential nuclear deal the Obama administration is working on with Iran.  He says the deal threatens the survival of Israel.  "Iran envelops the entire world with its tentacles of terror,” Netanyahu said.  He warned lawmakers that Iran would most certainly pursue Israel's destruction if it obtained a nuclear weapon.  “We must not let that happen,” he said.

     On Monday, Senator John McCain, (R-Ariz), said this is the worse he has ever seen the U.S.-Israel relationship in his tenure in the Senate.  Oklahoma U.S. Senator James Lankford, who serves on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said, “I am pleased that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address Congress and meet with a bipartisan group of Congressional leaders,” said Lankford. “America has no closer friend in the world than Israel. During a time of considerable unrest in the Middle East, we must work with and hear from our ally, Israel. Washington must strengthen our friendship with Israel, especially as our two countries work to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons.”

     Secretary of State John Kerry is opening a new round of talks with Iran in Switzerland on a possible deal on nuclear capability with Iran.  Susan Rice said the U.S. was seeking a deal that would cut off "every single pathway" Iran has to producing a nuclear weapon. She said President Obama is keeping all options on the table for blocking Tehran's pursuit of a bomb and declared that "a bad deal is worse than no deal." Three thought about this important subject:

     First, America better stop abandoning their friends.  America’s foreign policy is non-existent.  President Obama has destroyed any creditability America had in the world, by talking big and doing nothing.  No third world dictator takes his threats seriously and that puts our fighting men and women in damage.  You have to talk softly and carry a big stick as Teddy Roosevelt said.  The Middle East has always been a hotbed, but it has not been this hot in years and if you throw a nuke in the middle of that, we’re looking at WWIII.

     Second, why are we negotiating with a nation that sponsors terrorism?  And is a bad deal worse than no deal?  Those are timely questions. Iran has publically said they want to destroy America.  If they get nukes, they will use them.  Do we really think we can trust them in negotiations?  And a bad deal is very often worse than no deal.  To say something that naïve is mindboggling, particularly when it is coming from a senior administration official. 

      Third, America better stay on the side of Israel.  The Jews are God’s chosen nation.  It’s in the scripture.  Does Israel do everything right?  Not by a far sight, but Israel is going to survive and if America wants to survive, we better line up behind them.

It's Your Money!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

     State Representative Jason Nelson, (R-OKC), and State Senator Clark Jolley, (R-Edmond) have introduced legislation to create Education Saving Accounts in Oklahoma that would allow parents to provide state money to seek alternatives to a public school education for their children even if the children do not have disabilities.  If passed, the state would have to deposit money for a child into the ESA based on family income and on how much money the public schools currently get for the child attending a public school.  Money in the account could be used for accredited on-line education, private schools or home schooling.  The monies could also be used to pay for textbooks, tutoring, and achievement tests. Two states, Florida and Arizona, already have similar programs.

      Rep. Nelson said that parents should be the ones making the decision on how their kids should be educated.  “There are parents all over the state who are just as desperate for their child to have a future but their limit is the school where they live, or the opportunities within that school,” Nelson said.

     The Senate version of the bill-SB #609- passed the Senate Education committee last Monday and now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee, which Jolley chairs.  The Senate version would give parents a debit card with 80% of the amount that goes to the public schools on it.  Parents could use the money to home school their kids or to pay tuition to a private school.  If monies were left over, they could be applied toward the student’s college education. “It gives parents a choice rather than maintaining a monopoly,” Jolley said. 

     Not surprisingly, the public school community opposes the legislation.  Shawn Hime, Oklahoma State School Boards Association executive director said, “We are 100 percent opposed to it.  We spent a lot of time over the past decade talking about accountability and transparency of taxpayer dollars. This voucher proposal will also significantly decrease per pupil revenue for schools. They will pay for private and home school students that had never been a part of the public school funding system.  Now we want to set up a parallel system where taxpayer dollars can be spent for home school students and private school students that have no accountability.

    Linda Hampton, president of the Oklahoma Education Association, said “The problem is, if you take money away from the public school, even if you take one child out, you still have to pay the teacher, the electric bills, and run buses. You’ve still got all the expenses, but now you have less money. It may be called a savings account or a scholarship, but that’s putting lipstick on a pig,  It’s really just a school voucher program.”

    It’s time to give the people of Oklahoma true school choice.  Here are three reasons why.

    First, it’s their money.  It is not the legislature’s money.  It is not the public school’s money.  It is the taxpayer’s money.  In a poll conducted last July among 600 Republican voters statewide, 64% favored the creation of Education Saving Accounts.  That means that a clear majority of Oklahomans favor letting parents decide where their education dollar is spent.  In response to an inquiry from Capital Beat Oklahoma as to why she opposes Nelson’s bill, State Representative Ann Coody, (R-Lawton), who chairs the House Education Committee said, “I believe that tax dollars should fund public schools.  Tax dollars do not belong to legislators but to the citizens of Oklahoma.  We are charged with representing our constituents to the best of our ability and according to the principles in which we believe.” 

     Second, public education is not putting out a good product.  That doesn’t mean we have bad teachers or even bad administrators.  It just means we have an inefficient, antiquated education model  in Oklahoma.  We have too many school districts.  We have too many buses and buildings, and electric bills. No one- educators, legislators, school boards- want to confront the elephant in the room, but at some point, it has to be addressed.  Spending for common education in Oklahoma has steadily increased in the past twenty years with no discernible improvement in student test scores.  That is because Oklahoma spends 52 cents of every common education dollar on non-classroom related activities.      
     Third, neither of the bills would significantly impact the per pupil revenue funding for schools.  Property tax revenue would still go to the local school district.  What would change would be the total amount a district gets from the state.  That would present a hardship to school districts who want to do the same thing they have done since 1950, but giving parents control of where their education dollar is spent will produce a better public school that will have to compete in the education marketplace.  That is how it works in the real world.

JUST A LITTLE NUDGE!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

JUST A LITTLE NUDGE!

by Steve Fair

     The Keystone Pipeline is a project that involves a 875-mile pipeline that would run from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska. Building this northern link would allow over 800,000 barrels of oil per day to move from the Canada, to refineries on the Gulf Coast.  The opponents of the pipeline say it will increase greenhouse gas emissions and increase the risk of water pollution from spills.  Supporters say the pipeline is about national security and jobs.  The Obama administration has steadfastly opposed the pipeline since he was elected in 2008. 

      Last week, the U.S. Senate passed the Keystone Pipeline bill 62-36, with two Senators not voting, including Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who was reportedly fundraising in California.  Both Oklahoma Senators voted for the bill.  Nine Democrats joined 53 Republicans to vote for the bill. 

     Oklahoma U.S. Senator James Lankford released this statement about the bill; “The Keystone XL pipeline infrastructure project would infuse billions of dollars into our economy and it would support thousands of good-paying American jobs, all in an environmentally responsible way. The delay of this project has been far too long. Building a pipeline should not take an act of Congress. The Administration has blocked the pipeline for six years saying they are ‘studying’ the route. No other administration in history, of either party, has ever held up a private construction project like this Administration.”

     The U.S. House passed the Senate version on Wednesday, 270 to 152, with 10 members not voting.  All five Oklahoma Congressman voted for the bill. Twenty nine(29) Democrats joined 241 Republicans in the affirmative. 

     Congressman Tom Cole released this statement concerning Keystone: “While the president has stated his intention to veto this bipartisan, bicameral legislation, I hope that he reconsiders and chooses the way of the American people, rather than catering to environmental extremists.”

     President Obama has remained consistent and says he will veto Keystone when it reaches his desk.  It does not appear the GOP have the votes to overturn the veto.  They would need five more votes in the Senate and twenty more in the House.  Here are three reasons Keystone should be built:

     First, it is fundamentally Un-American for the government to block private business in a commercial act. Government regulations are one thing but if a president can stop private business from legally doing business, that is quite another.  No other president- in either party- has even attempted to stop legal commerce from being conducted by legal businesses.  This president has taken overreach to a new level.  If he is effective at stopping Keystone, it will establish a dangerous precedent for future leaders.    

     Second, building the pipeline will reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.  That speaks to America’s national security.  When we buy oil from counties that support terrorism, we are in effect doing business with the enemy. 

     Third, the America people clearly support completing the Pipeline.  In five polls conducted by liberal media organizations, only about 25% of those polls said they opposed construction of the Pipeline.  Yet the President is firm that he opposes.  According to deputy press secretary Eric Schultz,  “The president has announced that he would oppose and veto any legislative maneuvering to circumvent the State Department’s review process, so he will indeed be vetoing it.” In a representative form of government, we expect our leaders to listen to us.  We want our elected officials to support what we support and oppose what we oppose.   

     Oklahoma’s elected representatives are firmly in support of Keystone and lobbying them is not really necessary, but if you have friends and family in other states, tell them to contact their Congressman and U.S. Senators.  If those elected officials believe their political future is in jeopardy if they don’t support Keystone, then a veto override is very possible.  There are certainly enough conservative Democrats in the House and Senate to override.  They just need a little nudge from the people.

NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE COMPACT IS LOOSE!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

NPV COMPACT IS LOOSE!

By Steve Fair

     Once again the National Popular Vote Compact (NPV) has reared its ugly head in Oklahoma.  State Representative Lee Denney, (R-Cushing) has filed a bill to have Oklahoma join ten(10) states and the District of Columbia in an agreement to cast our presidential electoral votes for the candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote.   Former legislators Rob Johnson and Don Armes, both Republicans, are promoting it.  During their tenure in the legislature, both Armes and Johnson filed several bills promoting the NPV. 

     This week, Johnson released the results of a poll where he claims 79% of Oklahomans favor National Popular Vote.  The poll was supposedly taken January 19^th and 20^th by Public Policy Polling interviewing 893 people statewide across all party affiliation voters.   Johnson believes Oklahoma’s participation in the compact will result in the Sooner state getting more attention in the presidential race and that the Electoral College hurts turnout and is unfair because in four presidential races in American history the candidate that lost the popular vote won the electoral vote.  But there are more than just a few fishhooks in the NPV Compact.

     First and foremost, if Johnson’s proposal would have been in place in 2008 and 2012, Oklahoma’s electoral votes would have been counted for President Obama.  That’s right- the reddest state in the country would have cast 7 electoral votes for Obama even though the state voted overwhelmingly Republican.  How is that right?  It isn’t right and it doesn’t make any sense. 

     Second, let’s talk about the poll.  Polls are only as good as the pollster and Public Policy Polling is known for leaning Democrat and supporting progressive campaigns.  PPP is a North Carolina company founded by Dean Debham.  They are known for conducting unconventional polls like asking voters if they approve of God, and polling Republican voters asking if President Obama would be allowed to enter heaven if the rapture happened today.  It is a known fact that poll results can be manipulated and how polling questions are worded and presented can definitely skew the results.  There is no way that nearly 80% of Oklahomans approve of NPV, especially if those polled had been told if the system had been in place in 2012 Oklahoma’s electoral voters would have went to Obama.

     Third, why do we once again have to fight a battle over NPV in Oklahoma?  It seems every year some clueless Republican after a nice junket to a fancy resort will drink the NPV Kool aid and file a bill to align Oklahoma with the liberal states.  Opposition to the NPV has been in the OKGOP platform for years.  Why are Republicans promoting this?  Perhaps they are unaware the ten states in the compact are liberal.  California, New York, Washington and Illinois are among the ten- all large liberal states.   The Chairman of the organization behind National Popular invented the lottery scratch card and made a fortune promoting state lotteries.  The NPV crowd has plenty of money and that is why they can afford to hire former legislators to lobby their friends on NPV. 

     Fourth, NPV is a real threat.  It will not go away.  Each year, they make some progress toward that goal of 270 and when they hit it, Republicans will have no chance of winning a presidential election.  The ten states currently on board with the compact comprise 165 electoral votes or 30% of the total.  They need 270 votes for the compact to go into effect.  They are at 60% of their goal.

      America’s founding fathers put into place a system to indirectly elect the president using the Electoral College.  The brilliance of the plan is that it gives a disproportionate amount of influence to ‘small’ states in the union.  Oklahoma is a small state.  NPV would do exactly the opposite of what its advocates claim it would do.  It would dilute Oklahoma’s influence and make us completely irrelevant in the presidential election process.   Contact your state representative and state senator today and tell them to oppose the NPV compact bill.

Article Five Convention is a BAD IDEA!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

ARTICLE FIVE CONVENTION IS A BAD IDEA!

by Steve Fair

     Article Five of the U.S. Constitution describes the process the Constitution may be amended. There are two ways- first, by a supermajority of Congress and second, by two thirds (34) of the states calling for an Article Five convention.  The U.S. Constitution has never been amended by a state called convention.  All seventeen amendments to the founding document were done through the legislative process and then ratified by the states.

     Some well-known conservatives are calling for an Article Five constitutional convention for the purpose of dealing with two issues, a balanced budget amendment and term limits.  Former Oklahoma U.S. Senator Tom Coburn is on board for an Article Five convention.  He recently said, “I think [George] Mason was prophetic that we would devolve to where the federal government became too powerful, too big and too unwieldy. That’s why he put Article V in.  I think we ought to have a balanced budget amendment, I think we ought to have term limits. I think we ought to put a chokehold on regulation and re-establish the powers of the Congress,” Other prominent conservatives supporting an Article Five convention are Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, David Barton, Rick Green and Glenn Beck.   Conservative groups opposing an Article Five include Eagle Forum (Phyllis Schalfly) and the John Birch Society.

     It remains unclear if the 34 state threshold has been reached, but for sure it is close.  On January 6^th, very quietly, the U.S. House passed a rule starting an official process for tabulating the state applications for an Article Five convention.  The action wasn’t widely reported by the media, but the counting has begun. 

     Here in Oklahoma, State Representative Gary Banz, (R-Midwest City) has presented bills to have Oklahoma support an Article Five convention the last two sessions.  They have been defeated because of hard work from grassroots activists within the GOP. Here are three reasons to oppose an Article Five convention:

     First, George Soros supports it.  That’s right- all those prominent conservatives and a very prominent liberal support an Article Five.  And he is not the only liberal that supports it.    Soros understands the convention would likely spiral out of control and deal with a lot more issues than just ones conservatives want to deal with.   On their website, WolfPac, a Soros funded organization, writes they would like to have a convention so they can achieve, ‘their ultimate goal,’  which is to pass an amendment ending corporate personhood and ‘publicly’ financing all elections in the U.S.  That is socialism, pure and simple. When liberals like Soros are on board with an idea, conservatives should be especially leery. 

     Secondly and most importantly, how will the delegates to an Article Five be apportioned?  Will each state get one vote like in 1787 in Philadelphia or will it be according to population?  There is no provision in Article Five outlining the process, so if Congress is making the rules, it will likely be done by population.  That means the more populous areas of the US, which are more liberal, will control the convention and that is no good for conservatives.

     Third, there is no guarantee only term limits and the balanced budget amendment would be the only issues considered.  The convention itself would control the agenda, not Congress or the states.  If the apportionment is done by population, then other issues and amendments could be offered.  The result would be a runaway convention. 

     There are solid principled conservatives on both sides of the Article Five issue.  I have many friends who support an Article Five convention and the only places we disagree are where they are wrong!  An Article Five convention is not the answer.  Convening an untried, unproven constitutional convention in today’s modern times is just too risky.  The real answer is for the citizens of the U.S. to take equity in their government and put sufficient pressure on their federal representatives to do the right thing and pass the amendments with a 2/3 majority in Congress and then lobby to have ratified in their state.  If those promoting an Article Five had spent as much time and energy educating the general public on the current state of affairs as they have spent on promoting a never before tired method, perhaps Congress would have already done the right thing.  An Article Five convention is a bad idea!  Contact your Oklahoma state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose any proposal for Oklahoma to call for an Article Five convention.