Q: You said once that Republicans reach out to black voters only “60 days before an election.” Is this channel an attempt to remedy that?

A: I think that’s the problem with the Republican Party: They don’t take advantage of these venues enough. I would hope that both parties and people of all stripes would say, “Hey, here’s a resource and an asset.” I don’t think we want [to be] a venue for Republicans. Republicans have venues today, and they don’t use them.

AN INTERVIEW W/JC

J.C. WATTS TO LAUNCH AFRICAN-AMERICAN NEWS NETWORK

By Helena Andrews- 7/17/08

“There’s a whole lot more to the African-American community than entertainment and sports,” said J.C. Watts, the former Republican congressman from Oklahoma, who is switching gears from a newsmaker to a newsman. With the help of Comcast and DishNet, Watts plans to launch the first cable channel dedicated to the African-American perspective. (The only channels dedicated to African-American audiences today are BET and TV One, both of which have an entertainment focus.) The Black Television News Channel is scheduled to launch in early 2009. Just in time to inaugurate the first black president?

“Political news is just one facet of American life,” said Watts, who added that the channel will not have a partisan bent. So don’t worry — he has no plans to become the black Rupert Murdoch.

Read the entire INTERVIEW at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11806.html

OBAMA FOR SALE!

Barack Obama is selling access for contributions in his latest fundraising scheme. Like a rock star, Obama is auctioning himself off for $25 a chance. This may at first seem innocent, but if Obama is willing to sell access now, what happens when Barrick gets to the White House? Like his fellow Democrats- the Clintons- Obama may become famous for rewarding political donors with access. This scheme is likely illegal, but at the very best it's unethical. Someone from the McCain camp should be all over this.

~ Steve Fair

Going ‘Backstage with Barack
By Betsy Rothstein of THE HILL
Posted: 07/16/08 06:36 PM [ET]

He’s not boy-band extraordinaire Justin Timberlake, but Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, has backstage passes, too.

In a missive sent to Obama supporters Wednesday morning, fresh from the “mountain air” of Denver, the campaign offers voters the chance to contribute $25. In return, the supporter becomes eligible for an all-expense-paid trip to Denver for the last two days of the convention.
The campaign will select 10 lucky supporters from around the country; each can bring one guest.

The Obama campaign will provide airfare, accommodations and two days of convention activities — including a “private meeting with Barack before his historic speech.”

Donate $25 today, the note says, and you could go “Backstage with Barack.” The statement was sent from Steve Hildebrand, deputy campaign manager for Obama for America.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

THE SOLUTION MAY BE IN YOUR HIP POCKET!

by Steve Fair

Republicans and particularly conservative Republicans are generally defined by liberals as being rich, selfish, uncaring people. But the truth is conservative Republicans are the most generous and compassionate people in America.

Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, an admitted life long liberal, has written a book entitled Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. Brooks found that conservative Republicans who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject that notion the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans. Brooks says, "people who attend a house of worship give four times more money per year than people who don't." "For people who are deeply religious, there is the notion that religion or religious behavior and charity come from the same God-given impulse. In other words, God makes you charitable."

Kristi Hamrick, a spokeswoman for American Values, said Brooks' research is a breath of fresh air for conservatives tired of being lambasted by liberals as selfish. "Despite all the bad press that the liberals and elitists like to give people of faith," she said, "the truth is, that those Christian values of tithing, of helping the poor, of seeing the needy -- these things motivate the community of faith to give and to give generously and to give above and beyond the call."

Brooks was shocked himself at his findings. In the foreword of his book, he says, “These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving. I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book.” And its not just money that conservatives give more of. They give more of their time and donate more blood than liberals.

Syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell said of Brooks findings, “While both sides argue that their opponents are mistaken, those on the left have declared their opponents to be not merely in error but morally flawed as well. So the idea that liberals are more caring and compassionate goes with the territory, whether or not it fits the facts. Those on the left proclaimed their moral superiority in the 18th century and they continue to proclaim it in the 21st century. What is remarkable is how long it took for anyone to put that belief to the test — and how completely it failed that test.”

Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard says about Brooks’ findings, “His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least.” In effect liberals like to talk about compassion, but as former 4th district Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts says, “Republicans don’t measure compassion by how many people are on welfare, but by how few are on welfare.”

Liberals believe they are charitable because they advocate government redistribution of money in the name of social justice. They maintain conservatives are uncharitable because they oppose these policies. The key is understanding that liberals believe government spending is a form of charity. But its not really charity when its someone else’s money- the taxpayers money.
Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how important the social program is government spending is still the redistribution of wealth- the robbing of Peter to pay Paul.

Liberals like to think and act globally. It’s often hard to lay out a general solution to a problem when that problem is affected by local conditions. The large organizations necessary to keep track of these endeavors require many layers of management, which does nothing for those whom the organization is trying to help. This actually becomes counter-productive since these time consuming positions become paying jobs, which tap resources that could have gone to help someone.

Conservatives would rather help their fellow man than ask someone else to do it for them. You'll find conservatives giving at church to support local shelters and food banks. They'll be helping out at the soup kitchen or visiting inmates in jail. While at the prison, they will work towards making the inmates aware of their duties in society so that they can truly be useful and responsible citizens when they are released.

Conservatives think and act locally. They look for and try to solve problems in their own communities and let other communities look out for themselves. It’s a lot easier to see the extent of the problem when it’s in your own community. Its also easier to find a way to solve it when you know what local resources are at your disposal- many times right in your hip pocket.

DINNER FOR TWO!

Bob Cleveland has an interesting contest going on. You can win dinner for two if you are the first to correctly ID the person in the photograph. Access his blog at: http://thatsjustbob.blogspot.com/

LIBERALS ARE NOT GENEROUS WITH THEIR OWN MONEY!

Ananias and Sapphira Must Have Been Liberals

Topic: The Good of Affluence

This blog entry from Doug Wilson is excellent- well worth the read! Thanks to Rev. Jeremy Fair for sending me the link:

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=5642

Back in November of 2006, Steve Verdon wrote a column entitled Charitable Giving: Liberals vs. Conservatives. It is also worth a read. You can access it at: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/11/charitable_giving_liberals_vs_conservatives/

And one more- Frank Brieaddy of the Religion News Service wrote an article a couple of years ago on this same subject. You can access it at: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

"The bottom line is he wants to find the best person for the job and not rush into

what is going to be a very critical appointment." Gov. Henry spokesperson Paul Sund

THE ROAD NOT TAKEN!

By Steve Fair

Governor Brad Henry has appointed a southeast Oklahoma banker, Steve Burrage, as State Auditor. Blackjack made the announcement at a news conference this morning. Evidently Burrage had been sworn in before the Guv introduced him to the public.

Henry said, “Steve Burrage has impeccable credentials and a reputation above reproach. He is without question the best person to serve as auditor and restore public trust in that important position.”

Burrage said he did not expect to make any changes in the auditor's staff. Burrage said “My top priority is to restore public confidence in the auditor’s position and ensure that Oklahoma tax dollars are being used as efficiently and effectively as possible.” Burrage,56, contributed $4,000 to Henry's 2006 election campaign. This revives memories of former Governor David Walters' donations for jobs scheme. Who says campaign contributions don't pay dividends?

At the news conference announcing his appointment, Burrage said if he thought he was doing a good job, he would run for a full term for Auditor in 2010. Burrage is a long time banker and is a CPA. His resume qualifies him for the job, but several questions arise from this appointment?

(1) Did Henry really seek the most qualified person for the job as State Auditor? The job of state auditor is not just to perform accounting functions, but to root out corruption and fraud in government. NO ONE in Oklahoma has done that better than Gary Jones- period. A green-billed accountant may find some fraud if the books are cooked, but Jones has a knack for seeing something beyond the balance sheet. The State Auditor should be someone that has a nose for that type of thing. It doesn't appear Burrage has that skill. If he did, then why didn't he "blow the whistle" on what was happening in SE Oklahoma long before the feds got involved? One interesting note- Burrage's brother is one of the two attorneys representing former State Senator Gene Stipe in his competency hearing.

(2) Why did Steve Burrage take a job making substantially less than he currently earns? I know the classic answer is his unselfish willingness to serve the public, but that doesn't make sense and is usually all spin. Burrage is on the board of SE Oklahoma University, the Federal Reserve, and the Bankers Association. Why would he unselfishly give those influencial positions up to take the State Auditors job? The answer is- he wouldn't- Burrage is either ambitious and plans to seek a higher office or he has been appointed to make sure another skeleton doesn't fall out of the closet for the Democrats. Since Blackjack Henry's name was mentioned during the McMahon trial as having received "STRAW DONOR" contributions, perhaps the Governor wants someone in the SA&I job that is undeniably loyal.

(3) Why would Burrage say he will not make changes in the Auditor's office? I realize that is the classic line anytime there is change in an organization at the top, but if Burrage is truly going to "restore public confidence" in the Auditor's office, why would he make this statement knowing the turmoil and confusion that has surrounded the office. At the very least, the statement was one of poor judgement. We need change in the auditors office that may necessitate personnel change. Burrage should have simply kept his mouth shut about staff and possible organizational changes at the SA&I office.

(4) Does this leave any doubts about Brad Henry's true values? Repeatedly during this "search" process, Henry's spokesman has said that Henry was considering EVERYONE regardless of party affiliation. That statement was not true and with this appointment, it's clear Henry is nothing less than a party hack. Henry had a unique opportunity to right a wrong and show a non-partisan side by appointing the guy who was cheated out of the election- not once, but twice. Appointing Jones would have been a brilliant move politically. But Blackjack is a partisan and with this appointment, he showed his true partisan colors. His ambition to be US Senator from Oklahoma may have melted away with his unwillingness to be bi-partisian. Oklahomans vote Republican when it comes to our Congressional delegation. Henry had a "defining moment" and he proved proved he was nothing less than a party hack with this appointment.

Filling the State Auditor's position was a "CRITICAL APPOINTMENT" and by appointing Burrage Henry did the predictable, safe thing and appointed a fellow Democrat- a contributor- a supporter. It's not a surprising move, but it is a disappointing one because the Governor had an opportunity to take the road less traveled- one that could have made ALL THE DIFFERENCE in Oklahoma's future.

Robert Frost published a poem in 1916 entitled The Road not Taken (below). The poem illustrates how when we take the path of least resistance we miss out on MAKING A TRUE DIFFERENCE.

THE ROAD NOT TAKEN

by Robert Frost

TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

FISCAL ISSUES LOOM LARGE IN PREZ RACE!
by Steve Fair

Supply-side economics is better known to some as Reaganomics, or the "trickle-down" policy espoused by former U.S. president Ronald Reagan. He popularized the idea that greater tax cuts for investors and entrepreneurs provides incentives to save and invest and produce economic benefits that trickle down into the overall economy.

Reagan didn’t formulate the theory. Jean Baptiste Say, a French businessman and economist came up with the principle in the late 1700s. A central element of Say's Law was that prosperity was increased by stimulating production, not consumption. In Say's view, creation of more money simply resulted in inflation. More money demanding the same quantity of goods did not represent an increase in real demand. The only reason to have money, in Say's view, was to buy products. Say believed an economy should be viewed as a barter system.

In 1981, when Reagan, using Say’s principles, proposed cutting the personal income tax rate, critics said it would decrease the amount of revenue to operate government. In fact the opposite occurred. Receipts from individual income taxes rose to $446 billion in 1989 from just $286 billion in 1981 when Reagan was elected. Reagan wasn’t the first President to advocate supply side economics. President Kennedy cut taxes and the economy grew. Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy is a proven theory that has worked repeatedly in our country’s history.

In 2001 and 2003, President George W. Bush proposed and Congress passed a series of tax cuts to reinvigorate the economy and reduce the government’s burden on workers’ paychecks. Because of opposition to these measures from some in Congress, they were implemented as temporary tax cuts, all of which will expire by January 1, 2011. The uncertainty of their future has an effect on present-day spending by businesses and individuals, who know that they may have to pay higher taxes in the future.

Senator John McCain has proposed making the tax cuts permanent. McCain says, “I think it’s very important that we make the Bush tax cuts permanent. I voted to make them permanent twice already.… And if we don’t make the tax cuts permanent, then they will experience what amounts to a tax increase.” McCain has flip flopped on this issue and says he was wrong to vote against the Bush tax cuts initially.

Senator Barrack Obama is opposed to making the tax cuts permanent. On his web site, he states that he will reverse the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families. Under Obama’s and the Democrat’s plan, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. That’s not exactly the super rich, so Obama’s tax increases will impact the average family dramatically.

Predictably, the articulate Senator doesn’t hesitate to state he’s against paying taxes. During an appearance on “The View”, Obama stated, “first of all, I don't want higher taxes, I have to pay taxes, and it's no fun. You know I think sometimes there's this presumption that Democrats, we just love taxing people. No, I would prefer to keep taxes as low as possible."

Obama’s track record on voting against tax increases is non-existent. During his brief stint in the US Senate, Obama has voted at least ninety-four times for higher taxes. Obama has voted for a tax increase approximately once every five days since he was elected. Simply stated- Obama is an old fashioned tax and spend liberal. Cutting taxes is half of the equation- the other half is getting spending under control.

Senator McCain is a fiscal conservative. He has never taken an earmark for his state during his long tenure in the Senate. Earmarks, commonly referred to as pork, are corrosive in two ways. First, they detract attention and resources from truly national concerns. Second, once a member of Congress has his local bridge, bus stop, or museum included in the bill, he is expected to vote for the overall appropriations bill, regardless of how bloated it becomes.

The Arizona Republic said in a July 7th editorial, McCain has been a ceaseless and useful public scold on pork, corporate welfare and spending not related to truly national priorities.” McCain has said, "Give me the pen, and I'll veto every single pork barrel bill Congress sends me."

Spending discipline can only be imposed through the executive branch. It’s clear that Obama lacks the discipline or the willpower to allow us to keep our own money or to stop pork barrel spending. Straight talking John McCain has the iron rail up the shirttail to cut taxes and get our spending under control.

Perhaps in no area are the two candidates for President so differing in their message and track record than in fiscal issues. The fiscal implications in this election loom large. We can ill afford a tax and spend liberal as President with an undisciplined, clueless, spend thrift Democratic Congress in the majority.