Monday, February 25, 2008

By Steve Fair

Oklahoma State Senate Co-President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee- R, Oklahoma City has three bills that will be voted on this session that will work to streamline and modernize Oklahoma government. Senate Bill 1865 would create the Office of Accountability and Innovation within the Legislative Service Bureau. This office would conduct regular performance audits of agencies, recommend best practices to improve efficiencies in government, review the effectiveness of tax incentives, and bring new innovations to government to make it more effective for taxpayers. Now there’s a unique thought- innovation in government. In Oklahoma, the government is the state’s largest employer, so innovation and accountability is long overdue in the bloated bureaucracy.

Another bill Coffee was able to get past committee was Senate Bill 1698 which would merge the Criminal Justice Resource Center into the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. The OCJRC is a division of the Legislative Service Bureau with its director appointed by the Oklahoma Sentencing Commission (OSC). Its primary responsibility is to provide crime statistics for local, state and federal agencies. The agency itself is less than twenty years old, and only has about twenty employees. Coffee’s proposal to merge the agency into the state’s crime agency is both efficient and logical. To have a crime statistics agency reporting to the legislature doesn’t make any sense since the Republicans took control of the House (ha ha).

A third bill that Coffee has presented is Senate Bill 1709 that would merge the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner into the OSBI. According to their website, the mission of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner is “to protect the public health and safety of Oklahomans through the scientific investigation of deaths as defined by state statutes. This process involves scene investigation and medicolegal autopsy (including radiology, toxicology, histology, and microbiology) complementing the activities of law enforcement agencies, district attorneys and public health officials.” The agency is about forty years old, has a board of directors and about a hundred employees. Many states have their ME office under the jurisdiction of state law enforcement agencies, but watch for a fight on this proposal.

When you consider that Oklahoma state and local government is outpacing the private sector in growth by a two to one margin, it’s time we get a handle on state agencies. According to a report by the University of Central Oklahoma’s Policy Institute, from 1992-2002 Oklahoma state tax revenues increased by 60.75%, slightly less than the growth in personal income. Using the ratio of tax revenue growth to personal income growth, that ranked Oklahoma as the 19th fastest growing state government in the nation.

When was the last time you heard about a state agency having a layoff or downsizing or shutting down? It doesn’t happen, yet in the private sector, companies that are not viable close their doors everyday- they lay off people- they reorganize. That just doesn’t happen in government- at any level. Why? Because in the private sector, an employee has to produce a good or service at a cost that will return a profit to his employer. His employer has to stay competitive in the free market economy, but in government, the agency just cries and whines to elected officials until they get the budget they had last year increased and we the taxpayers write the check. Ronald Reagan said, “the closest thing to eternal life on the earth is a governmental agency.”

If Coffee wants to take his accountability/efficiency crusade to the next level, he should consider zero-based budgeting. That is a method of budgeting in which all expenses must be justified each new period. Zero based budgeting starts from a –0- base and every function within an agency or organization is analyzed for its needs and costs. Budgets are then built around what is needed for the year, regardless of whether the budget is higher or lower than last years. Most agency heads don’t subscribe to zero based budgeting. They contend the whole process would be too time consuming and cumbersome and take time away from their Solitare and Free Cell games, but it’s our money and they should have to justify every nickel.

The biggest problem with America today is that the government is too large- at all levels, but particularly at federal and state level. With an ever-growing appetite, government leaves us with increasingly complex rules and regulations that are virtually impossible to understand. And then it raises our taxes so that it has enough money to keep on growing.

Think about this: “The Lord’s(model) Prayer" is only sixty six words and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is just 286 words and the entire Declaration of Independence is just 1,322 words. But the government regulations on the sale of cabbage total 26,911. That’s a lot of cabbage and you and I are writing the check.

Sunday, February 24, 2008


I have not endorsed either James Dunn or Steve Curry in the National Committeeman race. I understand there is a rumor to the contrary going around the state in GOP circles. If you have heard it, it is inaccurate. If you have questions, you can contact me, but I have no intentions to "endorse" in this race. Let the best man win!

Steve Fair

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

You have to see this video- a State Senator from Texas who is an Obama backer can't list one legislative accomplishment of Barrick, citing instead HIS INSPIRING MESSAGE. Chris Matthews is a "Hillary" guy, but he won't let the guy off the hook. A must see:

Is Dr. Holmes going to comment on Lloyd Field's drunken stunt?
By Steve Fair

In 2006, former five term State Representative Lloyd Fields, aided by some Republicans who were mad at Brenda Reneau, was elected Labor Commissioner. No one in their right mind believes the state is better off having a Democrat in the Labor Commissioner slot. Until Reneau was elected, the Labor Department was an office controlled by organized labor. In fact, Reneau exposed organized labor's attempts to use the office for their own personal gain during her first term. But as they say- No good deal goes unpunished.
Due a number of factors, including Reneau's own missteps, the office was handed back to the Dems in 2006. To Lloyd Fields credit, he ran a grassroots campaign that was headed by now Democrat State Party Chairman Ivan Holmes. Homes is a journalist by profession and has an earned PhD from Tulsa University. In over his head from day one, Holmes has been an attack dog on Republican corruption. In fact, many of his remarks concerning corruption in government have been over the top. Take for example his attack on former Speaker of the House Lance Cargill for not filing his tax returns on time. Cargill's mistake did not cost the taxpayers of Oklahoma ONE RED CENT unlike the Jeff McMahan scandal.
But Ivan has been unwilling to go after Jeff McMahan or the three Democrat lawmakers who filed their tax returns late. To anyone paying attention, the inconsistency was very apparent, but now scandal hits closer to home- it's IVAN'S candidate- his friend who is accused of stealing a guitar while drunk and generally displaying behavior that is more appropriate at a frat house than in a public restaurant. And it appears Fields was given preferential treatment by the cops during this incident- at least the OKC police are looking into that possibility. But where is IVAN? Why is he not talking about this moral corruption? I seriously doubt that Holmes has the courage to condemn either Fields or McMahan. If that's the case, then EVERY time there is a corruption scandal in Oklahoma, no matter what side of the aisle is involved, Dr. Holmes should sit down and shut up. His inconsistency has undermined his creditability and creditability is the first thing a journalist learns is important.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

There is an online petition to draft J.C. Watts for John McCain's Vice President. Access it at


Lloyd Fields, Oklahoma's DEMOCRAT Labor Commissioner allegedly stole a bull riders guitar while drunk and was held ten hours in a drunk tank. That's according to Read the entire story at

Are Consumers willing to pay more for food to be energy independent?
by Steve Fair

In the December 14th edition of The Economist, the cover story was “The End of Cheap Food.” The article cited rising incomes in Asia and the ethanol subsidies in the U.S. as a reason American consumers are paying more for food. Large emerging markets like China and India have increasing per capita incomes and the first thing people start buying when their income increases is better food. We really don’t appreciate how good we have it in the U.S. when it comes to food.

In 1970, the average American family spent 13.8% of their income on food, but almost two decades later; the average American family spends less than 10% of their income on food. When you consider that in poor countries, over half of their income is spent on food, Americans have it pretty good. U.S. consumers can thank American farmers and ranchers and efficient food processors, in large part, for that bargain.
According to Brent Searle of the Oregon Department of Ag, "There are few other places in the world where you can get the diversity and the amount of food for the dollar you spend than the United States.” But that may be changing.

"The world eats more than it produces currently, and over the last five or six years that is reflected in the decline in stocks and storage levels. That cannot go on, and exhaustion of stocks will be reached soon," Joachim von Braun of the International Food Policy Research Institute said a recent conference in Beijing. Von Braun predicts the end of cheap food. He says, "The days of falling food prices may be over." "Surging demand for food, feed and fuel have recently led to drastic price increases.” What’s fueling these increases?

What most consumers don’t know is that food consumption and prices are determined by the complex interaction of supply and demand. In the short run, supplies are relatively fixed and inflexible, and prices adjust so products clear the market. What is produced is consumed. When supplies go up, price goes down and consumers buy more. Conversely, smaller supplies bring higher prices and smaller purchases. In the long run, farmers and ranchers adjust production in response to market prices, producing more of higher priced goods and less of lower priced goods.

With oil prices hovering around $90 a barrel, this is bad news for the poor, who have already suffered major impacts from a tripling in wheat prices and near doubling in rice prices since 2000. And it’s not just wheat and rice. In the past year, soybean oil, peanuts, mustard seed, and eggs have doubled in price. Part of the problem is the government’s interference into the free market system.

As The Economist article states, “the rise in prices is also the self-inflicted result of America's reckless ethanol subsidies. This year biofuels will take a third of America's (record) maize harvest. That affects food markets directly: fill up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol and you have used enough maize to feed a person for a year.” Maize is pressed and refined to produce high frutose corn sweetner that is in virtually every food product that is sweet. Are Americans willing to pay more for their favorite carbonated beverage or cereal in order to become energy independent as a country? Perhaps, but unfortuntely most don’t know they are footing the bill.
The reason we have higher prices at the grocers shelf is partially due to the farm subsidities program, which supplements over two dozen crops at a price tag of $16 billion annually to American taxpayers. Proponents of subsidity programs argue that over production results in lower prices at the grocery shelf, but if the government were to subsidize car manufacturers, there would be more cars than buyers, and the price would come down, but it would be the taxpayers who would be funding the price reduction. A free market system where a manufacturer simply lowers their price until they are at a point of maximum profitability is better than propping up a segment of the economy with taxpayer money. The government needs to get out of the subsidity business and allow the free market to work. It’s the most fair and equitable way for both the buyer and the seller.

Are consumers willing to pay more for their food in order to have alternative fuels such as ethanol? The politicians believe that to be the case and have bet your wallet on their hunch. Of course, it’s not like they are taking food out of your mouth.

Friday, February 15, 2008

Congressman Cole withdraws name for Approps seat- assured he will be on committee in '09
Boehner tells Rep. Tom Cole: Your turn next
By Jackie Kucinich

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has assured Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) that he will support the House campaign chairman’s bid for a seat on the Appropriations Committee next year. In a Thursday evening statement issued after Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) was selected to replace ex-Rep. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) on the spending panel, Cole said he withdrew his name “shortly before the [House Republican] Steering Committee meeting.” Cole and Boehner clashed last year as Boehner pressed for staff changes at the cash-strapped National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). Cole balked and no staff changes were made.

In an interview with The Hill last month, Cole praised Boehner but stressed that as NRCC chairman, he makes the final calls at the campaign committee. Cole’s bid for the appropriations seat was a sensitive topic. GOP members and aides privately criticized his decision, noting that he was running against two politically vulnerable members. Read entire article at:

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Posted with the author's permission
Letter to the Editor
The Lawton Constitution

Infant Execution (Abortion) is The Issue

There is only one most important issue this election year; and it is not the War on Terrorism or the Economy. The issue is “infant execution”, commonly known as abortion.

Recently, a few of our local Republican legislators let it be known that they voted for John McCain in the recent Oklahoma Primary. Some that voted for McCain are known to be Christians. One local Republican stated that one major reason he is a Republican is because of his pro-life beliefs. So why does he turn around and vote for “anti-life”, pro-abortion for the nation, John McCain? I don’t know.

Many have said, “infant execution” (abortion) is an important issue, but it is not the only issue to consider. Many then go on to say that the War on Terrorism and the Economy are important also. The fact is, they then make the War and the Economy the most important issues, and seem to forget “infant execution” (abortion) even exists.

For instance, only one Republican candidate for President, Mike Huckabee, supports a national Human Life Amendment. None of the others (Guliani, McCain, Paul, Romney, Thompson) support this pro-life, anti-infant execution amendment. None of the Democrat candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) support a national Human Life Amendment. Think about it, nine Presidential candidates, and only one against “infant execution” (abortion). There is only one current candidate against the killing of over 50 million Americans since 1973. Two million of which have died since 9/11.

The historical fact about elections in America is that our Presidential elections have almost always been about one major issue. From 1850 to 1870 that one major issue was slavery. Our job, especially as Christians, is to decide what is the most important issue, then fight for it. Of the three issues I have outlined above, the most important issue is “Infant Execution” (abortion).
The War on Terrorism has killed about 7,000 Americans; counting 9/11 and the subsequent war. “Infant Execution” (abortion) kills more than 7,000 Americans weekly. In the 332 weeks since 9/11/2007, seven thousand Americans have died in the War on Terrorism. During the same time (332 weeks), over 2,184,000 Americans have died form “Infant Execution” (abortion). What do you think God is more displeased with our nation about?
Frederick Douglas and Francis Grinkie, suggested a way for Christians to vote “righteously.” That way was to look to Proverbs 14:34 before voting. Proverbs 14:34 reads, “Righteousness exalted a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” The sin of “infant execution” (abortion) is truly a reproach to America. Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of our Declaration of Independence, considered himself to be a “Christocrat” before any party affiliation. All Christian legislators and voters should do the same. The major issue in America is “infant execution” (abortion).

Let’s find a Christian to vote for. Proverbs 29:2 reads, “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”

By the way, of the five Presidential candidates left (Huckabee, McCain, Paul, Clinton, and Obama), only Huckabee supports a Federal Marriage Amendment and a national Human Life Amendment.
Steve Wilkinson

Monday, February 11, 2008



As of today, Monday February 11, 2008, I am withdrawing from the National Committeeman race in Oklahoma. While my level of activism at the county and district level will not diminish, I believe the rigors of the National Committeeman office would take away from important areas in my life that I neglect already. The duties of the National Committeeman added to my already full schedule would take away time that I should properly be investing in my family.

My son and his family, including my three grandsons, are moving to Arlington, Texas this week. They have been living in southern Alabama- a 16-hour drive from Oklahoma. God has been so gracious to me by giving me a great wife, two children, their spouses and three grandchildren. They are the reason I am actively involved in the political process. I believe it’s crucial we “stand in the gap” and leave our children and grandchildren something worth leaving as a country and as a society. That said, I don’t want my son, daughter or grandchild to stand at the head of my casket and only be able to say- STEVE WAS A GOOD REPUBLICAN. I want them to also be able to add I was a good husband, father, and grandfather.

That coupled with the fact that we still have a lot to do in Stephens County and the 4th District. In the county, I want to see our two incumbent Republican legislators reelected and our candidate for HD #51 win. I want our Sheriff's candidate to win and break the Democrat stronghold on the Stephens County courthouse. In the 4th district, I want to develop a network of training and encouragement within the 16 county GOP organizations that will provide the tools to get principled Republicans elected to office.

I so appreciate the support and encouragement of so many people that I received after my announcement. You can rest assured my involvement in the party will not wane in the coming months and years. God bless you all.

Steve Fair

405.990.7449- cell

Hillary's campaign manager quits
Barrick leads delegate count by three
Barrick rocking- McCain rolling
Obama a CULT figure to some supporters!


by Steve Fair

A year ago, who would have thought that Republicans would know who their presidential nominee for the 2008 race before the Democrats? But that appears to be the case. Senator John McCain, R-AZ, has a huge delegate lead in the GOP race over former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. On the Democrat side, the race is still too close to call with only a handful of delegates separating Senators Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-IL. For Huckabee to knock off the maverick McCain, he would have to win 85% of the remaining delegates, which is not likely to happen. But the Democrats have a very real possibility of going to their national convention without a chosen nominee. The last brokered convention the Democrats had was in 1952 when Adlai Stevenson was nominated by the Dems, but lost in the general election. The last open convention the Republicans held was in 1948 when Thomas Dewey as selected to be the nominee. The modern national political convention is more of a coronation than a true part of the selection process, but that could very well change with the Democrats this year.

Fellow blogger Mark Hutchinson says that brokered conventions are more fun. In his blog The Hutch Report, Hutchinson said, “A brokered convention is fun to watch because none of the traditional power players are in control of events. While party professionals love to show a party united going into and out of a national convention, most people watching at home would like to see a little bit of competition in the system.”

One crucial change among Democrats came in 1982, when the party introduced superdelegates. By official act, all congressmen, governors, and a number of party officials were dubbed superdelegates and given a single vote at the convention, to be counted with the votes of the regular delegates that had been assigned by the state primaries. The influence of superdelegates became apparent almost immediately. In June 1984, at the end of primary season, Walter Mondale found himself just short of a majority in the delegate count. He picked up the phone, made a few calls, held a few meetings, and by the time the convention rolled around in July, he had won enough superdelegates to pitch the decision in his favor. The convention was not brokered as in 1952, but the primaries had certainly left the issue of nominating a candidate unresolved. Lobbying the Democrat superdelegates appears to be the strategy of the Clinton camp where she holds a substantial lead over Obama.

While a majority of Democrat superdelegates are elected officials, some are not. Take for example, former Oklahoma US Senator, Walters native and one-time presidential candidate Fred Harris. According to The Albuquerque Tribune, the former DNC Chair is Obama's only superdelegate voter in New Mexico. "I'll be (for) Obama for as long as he's in the race," Harris said. "Unless he withdraws, which I don't expect."

Because superdelegates make up twenty percent of the Dems delegate total and are not locked to presidential primary or caucus results, they are a huge factor in the Dems process and can in effect nominate someone that was not the clear choice of the people. That’s not likely to happen because as Alex Knapp from Outside the Beltway concludes, “Let’s get one thing straight–Hillary Clinton is no fool. She has to know that a Democratic convention where Obama has the majority of pledged delegates, but she wins the nomination by virtue of superdelegates is a convention that she does not want. It would alienate a substantial portion of her own party”

Watching the Democrat primary has been surprisingly entertaining since everyone- including Hillary- thought she would have the nomination sewed up by now. 2008 may well turn out to be the year of the second choice. John Edwards has just sixty-two delegates and both Clinton and Obama are lobbying him for an endorsement because while his delegate count is small, it might just be the difference in winning and losing.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have their challenges in coming to grips with a likely nominee that has many times been on the liberal side of issues. Some call him a maverick- others the name of a related four footed beast of burden, but if John McCain wins the presidency he must unite the party. One of the worst things he can do is to ignore the Christian right and their voting impact. McCain’s mother flatly stated the conservative Christian base of the Republican Party would have to “ hold their nose and vote for John.” Mom is wrong- they don’t have to do that. While they will not compromise their convictions and vote for a liberal candidate, they can stay home. They stayed home in 2006 and Republicans lost control of the U.S. House. I'm hoping most of my fellow conservatives will wear nose plugs(see above), go into the booth and vote for McCain- the RINO(Republican in Name Only) that he is. The $64 dollar question is- will there be enough that will take my counsel?

Four things the McCain people need to quit doing:
(1) Quit telling us he is a true conservative.
(2) Quit telling us to get over it and vote for him FOR THE GOOD OF THE PARTY.
(3) Quit trying to spin his record like a disc jockey.
(4) Quit writting his speeches to include the phase My friends twenty times.

Three things the McCain people need to start doing:
(1) Start empahsizing McCain's stellar support for the military.
(2) Start listening to the Christian right on how to energize the base.
(3) Start talking about the economy and how they plan to kickstart it.

Free advise- worth what it cost!

Friday, February 8, 2008


McCain's efforts to get the conservative votes hit a snag after Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson endorsed former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. McCain's speech to C-PAC may have helped his cause, but true conservative are still unconvinced that he has the conservative credentials to be the GOP nominee.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

No boos, but applause greet frontrunner from conservatives!


.............My Friends..............

"Like you, I believe liberty is a right conferred by our creator, not by government. I am very proud to have come to public office as a Reagan footsoldier." "My record- taken as a whole- over the past 25 years prove that I am a true conservative." " I campaigned against big government and mandated health care." "I have worked to make the Bush tax cuts permanent." "I have proudly defended my 24 year pro-life record." "I will offer Americans a clearly conservative approach to governing." "I will stand on my conservative convictions and that conservative principles still appeal to conservative Republicans and conservative Reagan Democrats." " I will not sign a bill with ANY earmarks in it and I can assure you that Senator Coburn will hold me to it." "Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will raise your taxes- I will lower them. I will start by making the Bush tax cuts permanent."

Boos were heard throughout the room when McCain mentioned immigration. He paused and said he has pledged that securing our borders first is top priority. The loudest applause came when he spoke of his unwavering support for the war. Chants of JOHN MCCAIN were heard throughout the hall. As McCain concluded his remarks and was walking off the stage, Dr. Coburn told him "Well Done- well done."

How about a McCain-Coburn ticket?
McCain abandons "Reagan" introduction!


~Senator Tom Coburn about Senator McCain in his introduction at C-PAC

The Oklahoma Gazette has a story on Senator Inhofe in today's (February 7, 2008) edition. The normally very liberal Gazette is free and can be found at various eating establishments in the OKC area. The article is certainly slanted left, but it will give conservative Republicans an idea of how the liberal left intends to attack Inhofe in 2008.
You can log onto Fox and follow the conference by video feed. Senator Jim DeMint, R-SC and Congressmen Jeff Flake, R-Arizona and Thad McCotter, R-Michigan join Senator Tom Coburn in a panel discussing the subject- IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LOST?
The agenda for the C-PAC conference can be accessed by clicking on the link below.
Richard Viguerie, emceed the panel said that he has received dozens of emails saying we need Tom Coburn as President.
"We have lost the leadership principles that have made this country great." "We(the Republican Party) are lost, but we are well on our way to being found again."
~Senator Tom Coburn- R, Oklahoma at the C-PAC conference
Why did Mitt Romney's well funded, well organized campaign fail? He is an attractive candidate, a principled candidate and a very qualified businessperson, however early in his campaign, he held town-hall type meetings that were billed ASK MITT ANYTHING. I attended one of those at the OU Health Science Center. When it became apparent that Romney was not going to address the two issues that were on people's minds- his flip flop on abortion and his Mormon faith, the crowd begin to thin out. He later addressed both of those issues, but for many it was too late and they had moved to the second tier candidacy of Mike Huckabee. I regret that Mitt Romney did not have the confidence in himself and the faith in conservatives to discuss the obvious early in the campaign. If he would have, he would be the party's nominee.
HILLARY CLINTON 228,425 54.77%
BARACK OBAMA 130,087 31.19%
JOHN EDWARDS 42,717 10.24%
JIM ROGERS 3,902 .94%

JOHN McCAIN 122,748 36.64%
MIKE HUCKABEE 111,865 33.39%
MITT ROMNEY 83,018 24.78%
RON PAUL 11,179 3.34%
JERRY R. CURRY 387 .12%
ALAN L. KEYES 817 .24%
FRED THOMPSON 1,924 .57%
Written by a Democrat, everyone should read this article
Hillary’s Crocodile Tears in Connecticut
AIM Column By Jerry Zeifman February 5, 2008
I have just seen Hillary Clinton and her former Yale law professor both in tears at a campaign rally here in my home state of Connecticut. Her tearful professor said how proud he was that his former student was likely to become our next President. Hillary responded in tears. My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations. Hillary as I knew her in 1974 at the time of Watergate I had overall supervisory authority over the House Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Inquiry staff that included Hillary Rodham-who was later to become First Lady in the Clinton White House.

During that period I kept a private diary of the behind the scenes congressional activities. My original tape recordings of the diary and other materials related to the Nixon impeachment provided the basis for my prior book Without Honor and are now available for inspection in the George Washington University Library. After President Nixon's resignation a young lawyer, who shared an office with Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel-as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon. In my diary of August 12, 1974 I noted the following: John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied to me [to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics.] Labovitz said, "That came from Yale." I said, "You mean Burke Marshall [Senator Ted Kennedy's chief political strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] Labovitz said, "Yes." His apology was significant to me, not because it was a revelation but because of his contrition. At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.

Her patron, Burke Marshal, had previously been Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Robert Kennedy. During the Kennedy administration Washington insiders jokingly characterized him as the Chief counsel to the Irish Mafia. After becoming a Yale professor he also became Senator Ted Kennedy's lawyer at the time of Chappaquidick-as well as Kennedy's chief political strategist. As a result, some of his colleagues often described him as the Attorney General in waiting of the Camelot government in exile. In addition to getting Hillary a job on the Nixon impeachment inquiry staff, Kennedy and Marshall had also persuaded Rodino to place two other close friends of Marshall in top positions on our staff. One was John Doar; who had been Marshall's deputy in the Justice Department-whom Rodino appointed to head the impeachment inquiry staff. The other was Bernard Nussbaum, who had served as Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York-who was placed in charge of conducting the actual investigation of Nixon's malfeasance.

Marshall, Doar, Nussbaum, and Rodham had two hidden objectives regarding the conduct of the impeachment proceedings. First, in order to enhance the prospect of Senator Kennedy or another liberal Democrat being elected president in 1976 they hoped to keep Nixon in office "twisting in the wind" for as long as possible. This would prevent then-Vice President Jerry Ford from becoming President and restoring moral authority to the Republican Party.

As was later quoted in the biography of Tip O'Neill (by John Farrell), a liberal Democrat would have become a "shoe in for the presidency in 1976" if Nixon had been kept in office until the end of his term. However, both Tip O'Neill and I-as well as most Democrats-regarded it to be in the national interest to replace Nixon with Ford as soon as possible. As a result, as described by O'Neill, we coordinated our efforts to "keep Rodino's feet to the fire."

A second objective of the strategy of delay was to avoid a Senate impeachment trial, in which as a defense Nixon might assert that Kennedy had authorized far worse abuses of power than Nixon's effort to "cover up" the Watergate burglary (which Nixon had not authorized or known about in advance). In short, the crimes of Kennedy included the use of the Mafia to attempt to assassinate Castro, as well as the successful assassinations of Diem in Vietnam and Lumumba in the Congo.

After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O'Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O'Neill's statement that: "To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series."

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee's then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff-where they were no longer accessible to the public.

Hillary had also made other ethically flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with-or take depositions of-any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Department's special Watergate prosecutor.

Only a few far-left Democrats supported Hillary's recommendations. A majority of the committee agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This recommendation was voted down by the full House. The committee also rejected her proposal that we leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow impeachment-inquiry staffers.

It was not until two months after Nixon's resignation that I first learned of still another questionable role of Hillary. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman Rodino to look into "a troubling set of events." That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked "that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon." And, while "no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use," Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been conducted-at committee expense-by a team of professors who completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff well in advance of our public hearings.

The report was kept secret from members of Congress. But after the impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially and sold in book stores. Wiggins wrote: "I am especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed essential by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course our investigation." He was also concerned that staff members may have unlawfully received royalties from the book's publisher.

On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: "Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-inquiry staff coordinated the work. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form." No effort was ever made to ascertain whether or not Hillary or any other person on the committee staff received royalties. Two decades later Bill Clinton became President. As was later to be described in the Wall Street Journal by Henry Ruth-the lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor-"The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party."
A group of country friends from the Cottonwood Baptist Church wanted to get together on a regular basis, socialize, and play games. The lady of the house was to prepare the meal. When it came time for Al and Janet to be the hosts, Janet wanted to outdo all the others. Janet decided to have mushroom-smothered steak. But mushrooms are expensive. She then told her husband, "No mushrooms. They are too high." He said, "Why don't you go down in the pasture and pick some of those mushrooms? There are plenty in the creek bed." She said, "No, some wild mushrooms are poison." He said, "Well, I see varmints eating them and they're OK." So Janet decided to give it a try. She picked a bunch, washed, sliced, and diced them for her smothered steak. Then she went out on the back porch and gave Ol' Rover (the yard dog) a double handful. Ol' Rover ate every bite. All morning long, Janet watched Ol' Rover and the wild mushrooms didn't seem to affect him, so she decided to use them. The meal was a great success, and Janet even hired a helper lady from town to help her serve. She had on a white apron and a fancy little cap on her head. After everyone had finished, they relaxed, socialized, and played 42 and dominoes. About then, the helper lady from town came in and whispered in Janet's ear. She said, "Mrs. Williams, Ol' Rover just died." Janet went into hysterics. After she finally calmed down, she called the doctor and told him what had happened. The doctor said, "That's bad, but I think we can take care of it. I will call for an ambulance and I will be there as quick as possible. We'll give everyone enemas and we will pump out everyone's stomach. Everything will be fine. Just keep them calm." Soon they could hear the siren as the ambulance was coming down the road. The EMT's and the doctor had their suitcases, syringes, and a stomach pump. One by one, they took each person into the bathroom, gave them an enema, and pumped out their stomach. After the last one was finished, the doctor came out and said, "I think everything will be fine now." and he left. They were all looking pretty weak sitting around the living room and about this time the helper lady came in and said, "You know, that fellow that ran over Ol' Rover never even stopped.
It pays to wait until you have ALL the facts before you make a decision.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008


According to news reports, Senator McCain is thinking about using a video of Ronald Reagan to introduce him at the C-PAC event in D.C. tomorrow. McCain should re-think this strategy. While he needs to reach out to conservatives in the party, invoking Reagan is not a good plan. As Lloyd Benson said about Dan Quayle- You're no John Kennedy- MCCAIN IS NO REAGAN! If McCain pulls this stunt, it looks like a stunt because it is a stunt. The C-PAC crowd loves Reagan because he was their hero. McCain has questionable credentials as a conservative- he needs to show more class and court this crowd- not try to fool them.
BORN 2/6/11

Tuesday, February 5, 2008


I just got home from the Stephens County election board where I viewed the results in our county. Stephens County turnout was 37%- excellent for a primary. Only 19 votes seperated former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee(1172) and Senator John McCain (1191) in county voting. Mitt Romney finished a distance third. On the Democrat side, Senator Clinton (3671) beat Senator Obama (1351).
In local races, Councilman Carl Bowers easily won reelection over two challengers winning 56.5% of the vote. Angela Wolfe beat incumbent Wayne Fish in the Empire Office #3 School Board race by 26 votes. Congratulations to both of those individuals.
Statewide Senator McCain beat Governor Huckabee by a mere four percentage points- 37% to 33%. Senator Tom Coburn's surprise endorsement of McCain was the difference in the race in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma GOP allocates 15 of their national delegates by Congressional District, so it will be tomorrow before it's clear who those delegates will be pledged to. The 26 At-Large delegates will go to McCain.
Super Tuesday 2008 is the closest our country has ever had to a national primary. It takes 1191 delegates to win the Republican nomination. Most so called experts are projecting that McCain will emerge from tonight with around 525 delegates(almost half of what he needs to be nominated), with Huckabee and Romney having 150 each. Romney spent the week urging Huckabee to get out of the race because Huckabee was taking "his" voters and Huckabee didn't have a chance to win. Ironically Huckabee did much better tonight than Romney nationally. A case could be made by the Huckabee camp that Romney should have been the one who got out of the race because he was hurting Huckabee's candidacy.
Nationally- Fox News has projected the following:

CLINTON: Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Arizona, Calfornia
OBAMA: Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Connecticut,Utah, Colorado, Delaware, Alabama, Alaska, Missouri

MCCAIN: Oklahoma, Arizona, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Missouri, Calfornia
ROMNEY: Utah, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Colorado
HUCKABEE West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee


"We got a little closer tonight to being able to have mothers tell their children in Arizona that someday you can grow up to be President of the United States." ~Senator John McCain

"Our time has come." "We are not a collection of just red states and blue states- we are the United States." "This race is different because of you." "We are the hope of the future."
~Senator Barrack Obama

One year ago, the front runners for their party nominations were Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton. After a rough start, it now appears the two are now the front runners for their parties nomination. McCain won ALL the WINNER TAKE ALL STATES! While Senator Clinton did not win as many states as Obama, she won the BIG STATES and more delegates overall.

Turnout was very lopsided nationally- Democrats turned out almost two to one vs. Republicans. In only two states was the Republican turnout higher than the Democrat turnout- Utah and Georgia. Karl Rove says that, "The war is a unifying factor for Republicans." "Americans don't like losing wars." "The Republican nominee must energize the base and there are volunteers that worked in 2000 and 2004 that is waiting to be tapped."

Twenty one percent of the people who voted for McCain tonight were influenced by Rudy's endorsement of McCain. McCain also won the last minute decision maker- 25% of McCain voters made their mind up in the last week.

Monday, February 4, 2008

by Steve Fair

Oklahoma has a new Speaker of the House. He is State Representative Chris Benge- R-Tulsa. Benge is forty-five years old, married and has two sons. He graduated from Daniel Webster High School in Tulsa and Oklahoma State University. Benge was a Sales Representative for Cintas Corp., a uniform company, for two years before he ran for the State House. For sixteen years prior to that, he worked in his families paint business. In his 2006 re-election, Benge racked up seventy-eight percent of the vote in the district. After that win, Benge was quoted in the Tulsa World as saying, “I’m very honored that people have put their faith in me to continue representing them at the Capitol.” Gracious and quiet, Benge has served for the past three years as Chairman of the powerful House Appropriations and Budget Committee. He has said he will name someone else to chair that committee. He was elected to the post of speaker on Monday by acclamation after Minority Leader Danny Morgan, D-Prague withdrew his name.

“Today is a new day in the House of Representatives,” Benge said. “We have much to do, and today marks a return to policy debates and discussions here at the Capitol.” “Instead of throwing stones and pointing fingers, we must move past the partisan bickering that often takes hold here at the Capitol, especially in election years.” Benge concluded.

Benge ascended to the speakers post after former speaker Lance Cargill resigned last week. He was initially not one of those who sought the top spot, but after Representative Gus Blackwell- R, Blackwell, withdrew his name, he agreed to run. Blackwell allegedly has paid his property tax chronically late. Cargill resigned after it was reported he had not filed his state income tax return for two years and also paid his property tax late.

Always ready to make a tempest in a teapot, the Democrats have turned this irresponsibility issue into one of integrity. “The rank and file public out there are mad as hornets, and they should be,” said Danny Morgan, the minority leader of the house. The rank and file should be "disappointed" in the Republicans but they should be “mad” about the conduct of the Democrats. Morgan has been strangely quite on the Jeff McMahon/Mike Mass/Gene Stipe indictments. Instead of partisan grenade throwing, Morgan should be policing his own ranks where it appears some ethical lapses of Democrat House members are looming. Some Little Dixie Democrats are allegedly using volunteer fire departments to sponsor fundraisers for their reelection campaigns, which is a clear violation of ethics rules. Misbehavior by an elected official must never be excused no matter what party affiliation, but when the Democrats in Oklahoma jump up and preach ethics, they should look in their own pews first. Now back to the new speaker. There are several attributes of Benge that Oklahomans should appreciate.

First, he didn’t actively seek the speakership as soon as the post became available. The others in the race made no secret of their ambition. They wanted the job and were actively campaigning for it behind the scenes even before it became apparent Cargill was going to step down. Ambition in and of itself is not a bad thing, but competence and ability are more effective leadership attributes than ambition. Anyone can aspire to a position, but being effective once in the position is the key to true leadership. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow said of ambition, “Most people would succeed in small things if they were not troubled with great ambitions.” Edmund Burke said, “Ambition can creep as well as soar.” Many times ambition can impede progress, not facilitate it.

Second, Benge is a businessman. His father operates a painting company in Tulsa. The new Speaker will identify with small business in the state. When you consider there are over 24.5 million small businesses in America and that seventy three percent of the goods/services provided in this country are with small businesses, small business is an important contributor to our state and nation. Over one half million new small businesses are started up in America each year and Oklahoma needs small business to prosper. Benge is not an attorney- his roots are in business. Oklahoma needs a speaker who understands how business operates and how to foster a more business friendly environment.

Third, Benge will be termed out in 2010. That means he doesn’t have a lot of time. He will need to establish his vision for Oklahoma, form a strategy to communicate that vision and work to implement it. Benge will be familar with a coating known as lacquer painters use in their work. It’s a clear coating that dries by evaporation and it produces a hard durable finish. Hopefully Benge will provide the lacquer Oklahoma needs- leadership that is durable and transparent.

by Steve Fair
Chris Benge won the Speaker's post after a runoff with Representative Dale Dewitt. Benge will be termed out in 2010. Who is Chris Benge? Below is his official bio from the State House Website. Benge is 45 years old- graduated from Daniel Webster High School in Tulsa in 1980 and went to OSU. He received a degree in Business from OSU. He was a sales rep for Cintas Corporation(a uniform company) for two years before he ran for State Representative in 1998. For 16 years before that he worked in his families painting business. Two good things- he isn't an attorney and he appears to come from a true blue-collar background. The painting business is hard word and not very sexy, so obviously Speaker Benge will identify more with small business than previous speakers.
Representative Chris Benge is a native Tulsan. He was born and raised in southwest Tulsa and currently resides in the community of Berryhill with his wife Allison and their two children, Garrett, age 13 and Hayden, age 11.
Graduated from Oklahoma State University with a degree in Business.
Southwest Tulsa Chamber of Commerce, Sand Springs Rotary Club, Board of Directors for Goodwill Industries, NCSL Budget and Revenue Committee, Grand River Dam Authority Task Force, Berryhill Drug Education Council, American Legislative Exchange Council, and View Acres Baptist Church (Southern Baptist Church).
House of Representatives, 47th Legislature to present
Now it's time for the Oklahoma legislature to start doing the people's business. I'm optimistic concerning Benge's leadership. He certainly has an impressive resume, but his roots appear to be humble. Unless he breathed too much lacquer in the family business, the 2008 session should be a productive one. Good choice- Republicans!

Friday, February 1, 2008

by Steve Fair

I spoke with Paul Jacob this morning for about thirty minutes concerning the charges that have been lodged against him by Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson. I have never met Mr. Jacob and while I enjoyed the conversation, I was puzzled and remain so as to why he would call me. He said he wanted me to keep my readers informed on why he and two others were charged with conspiracy to defraud the state on the matter of hiring out-of-state petitioners. They have all pled not guilty to the charges. Jacob was involved in the TABOR petition- TAXPAYERS BILL OF RIGHTS PETITION that was struck down because of the allegedly improper way the signatures were gathered.

Jacob claims the petition's organizers had sought, and received, approval for using "immediate" citiznes of Oklahoma from the Oklahoma Secretary of State. The maximum fine for their alleged crime is $25,000, and the maximum sentence is ten years in prison. Mr. Jacob's account of the facts are:

They(the petition leaders) were told that anyone who comes to Oklahoma can declare themself to be a citizen immediately upon arrival. I don't know if that's the case, but I plan to research it and find out. Jacob said the TABOR petition circulators were told that citizenship was immediate BEFORE they started the petition drive using people who were "moving" to Oklahoma. Evidently there is a group of people who follow the petition drives (collecting signature) like migrant workers picking fruit. They get so much per signature and then move to the next state and do it again. Virtually every iniative petition drive uses paid gatherers and many times they use people who "follow" the petitions. It's a common practice, but in Oklahoma two things impede the process- (1) You have to use citizens of Oklahoma to gather the signatures- (2) You have to do it in 90 days. That means you have little or no time for training, so most drives use those who follow the petition "harvest."
Mr. Jacob flatly denied he and the two others were guilty of violating the state law prohibiting using out of state people to gather signatures on a petition. He maintains that Oklahoma has immediate citizenship and they did not use anyone who was not a citizen of Oklahoma.

But who is Paul Jacob? I googled him and here is what Wikipedia says he is:

Paul Jacob (1960 - ) is an activist, organizer, and advocate for legislative term limits, initiative and referendum rights, and limited government in the United States. He writes a weekly column for and his short radio commentary feature, "Common Sense," is syndicated by the Sam Adams Alliance on over 120 radio stations around the U.S. He has held positions with the Libertarian Pary (United States, U.S. Term Limits, Americans for Limited Government, Citizens In Charge and the Sam Adams Foundation. Wikipedia says he was a "draft resister,"who went to prision because he wouldn't register for the draft. Congressman Ron Paul testified on his behalf.

On his Citizens in Charge website, the following is posted:
The indictment of our president, Paul Jacob, by the Oklahoma Attorney General on purely political grounds is unwarranted and wrong. It is no secret that some politicians do not like initiative and referendum. In recent years, state legislatures have attempted to dismantle the initiative and referendum process by imposing pay-per-signature restrictions and residency requirements for petition gatherers. Neither idea makes any sense, but anti-initiative politicians rarely make sense. The attack on Paul Jacob is the first time a politically motivated Attorney General has threatened someone's freedom for helping people petition their government. Paul Jacob is facing a prison sentence for facilitating Oklahomans right to sign a piece of paper. Paul did not collect signatures from outside of Oklahoma to change Oklahoma law. Paul did not sign the petition to change Oklahoma law. Paul assisted a campaign which hired people, some of whom moved to Oklahoma to make petition signing more accessible to Oklahomans. For allowing more Oklahoma citizens to have a say in their government, Paul is being punished. It is obvious what Mr. Edmondson is doing. He may not want Paul Jacob in prison but he wants Paul to think long and hard about ever becoming politically active in Oklahoma again. Mr. Edmondson's intentions are clear - unless you want to spend thousands or millions on a legal defense you had better keep your nose out of Oklahoma politics. Drew Edmondson is nothing more than a school yard bully and we applaud Paul Jacob for standing up to him.

Paul Jacob appears to be a man that believes in what he is doing. He wants less government, and wants the people to have recourse against government if elected officials will not do anything (initiative petition). However, I believe Mr. Jacob and the others in the TABOR petition drive did at least two things wrong:
(1) Not using the grassroots to gather the needed signatures for TABOR. We have in Stephens County a gentlemen who was instrumental in getting TABOR passed in Colorado. George wanted to be involved. He was passionate about it. He would have done anything to be involved. I had a tough time getting him a petiition to circurlate. The State Senator who was spearheading the "petition drive" slowplayed me like an 80 year old man in a par 3 fairway. I asked for a petition repeatedly. I went to the HQ of the petition and found it closed. I was puzzled by their unwillingness to use "willing activists" and save money. There was broad based support for TABOR and an organized grassroots effort could have collected the signatures in the ninty days if they would have only embraced the grassroots and used resources already in place. That's the problem with politics today- no one thinks anyone knows anything except the experts and the consultants.
(2) If the Oklahoma law says that whoever comes to Oklahoma and says they want to stay can immediately be called a citizen, then that should be changed. That's illogical and doesn't make any sense. Most states have a residence requirment and I will be surprized if one doesn't exist for Oklahoma. Using people who are "following" the petition crop may not violate the letter of the law, but in my mind it certainly violates the spirit of it. This all goes back to my point of HOW we do things is as important and WHAT we finally accomplish. The end never justifies the means.
Do I think Drew Edmondson is prosecuting these three people unfairly and unjustly? Absolutely! He has zero principles and hates the iniative petition process. It is selective enforcement at best. Jacob has a website that gives updates on the charges and encourages people to contact Edmondson and their legislators to help him with his case.
I told Paul Jacob I would pray for him and the situation he is in, however I still remind puzzled as to why a Republican legislator would partner with a Liberatian on the TABOR drive and why Jacob would contact me for support.