Monday, May 5, 2008

Weekly Opinion/Editorial
by Steve Fair
Last Saturday, the State GOP held the annual state convention in Tulsa. 1035 delegates were there- the largest number in recent memory. A new National Committeeman and Committeewoman were elected. Lynn Windel and Bunny Chambers, the incumbents did not seek re-election. James Dunn, the 2006 Republican nominee for Attorney General, from Guthrie, and Dr. Carolyn McLarty of Woodward were elected to fill those slots.

Because of what happened at a couple of state GOP conventions - Missouri and Nevada - this year’s state convention was expected to be contentious and controversial. In those two states, a majority of the seated delegates were supporters of Congressman Ron Paul. In Missouri, the Paul supporters elected their “slate” of national delegates and rejected the “slate” recommended by the state executive committee. The Missouri delegates have allegedly pledged to violate party rules and state statues by not voting for the candidate who won the presidential primary in Missouri, Senator McCain. The Missouri delegates are saying they will go the national convention and vote for Ron Paul, not John McCain. The Nevada GOP convention was shut down because it appeared the same thing might happen. Neither of those two things happened at the Oklahoma convention because the coalition formed by Paul supporters, and two other groups, were outnumbered by long time party activists two to one.

Oklahoma has a total of 41 national delegates to the GOP convention. Any person serving as a national GOP delegate must sign an affidavit stating they will abide by party rules and state law by voting for whomever won a plurality of votes in the presidential primary by Congressional District and statewide. Senator McCain won 35 delegates, Governor Huckabee 6 on February 5th. Ron Paul got less than 4% of the votes cast in the 2/5 primary and no delegates. Fifteen of the national delegates are elected at the five district conventions. The remaining 26 delegates are elected “at large.” Three of the 26 slots are automatic slots- the state chairman, national committeeman and national committeewoman- and the other 23 slots are filled through a process of research and interviewing by the State GOP Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is composed of the State Chair, Vice Chair, National Committeeman and Committeewoman, the District Chairs and Vice Chairs and five appointees by the State Chair and five appointees by the State Vice Chair. I serve on the Executive Committee because I am the 4th District Chair. The committee is made up of conservative Christian grassroots activists that have been ELECTED to these positions because of their past activity and volunteer efforts on behalf of the party. They are not paid staffers- hirelings, consultants, elected officials, or rich donors. They look and reflect the values of Oklahoma. This executive committee is one of the most active and engaged of any in recent memory. There is no one on the committee with an agenda or who wants to remain "in control" by excluding new people.

This year, over 100 people applied to be considered as an “at large” delegate to the Republican Convention. Each applicant filled out an information sheet recapping their involvement in the party, and why they wanted to be a delegate to the national convention. The State GOP Executive Committee personally interviewed 78 of those people on Saturday April 19th in Oklahoma City. After three hours of interviews, a secret vote was taken. Twenty-one of the twenty-three delegates were elected on the first ballot. It took two additional ballots to fill the remaining two slots. The most qualified applicants were apparent as evidenced by the group’s continuity in voting. The process was fair, professional, ethical and above board. ANYONE WHO STATES OTHERWISE IS EITHER MISINFORMED OR DISHONEST!

At Saturday’s convention, a group calling themselves “The Liberty Coalition” distributed their own “slate” with the intent of having their slate selected instead of the executive committees. The Liberty Coalition is a combination of various groups. One arm of the coalition are the so-called ultra-conservatives. They believe the current leadership in the state party-, which includes me-, are moderates at best and liberals at worst. If these so-called ultra- conservatives knew just how conservative I am- theologically and philosophically- they would probably be trying to recruit me. Another arm of the coalition has been attempting to create a “shadow” state Republican Party for years. They have their own conventions; their own officers and they bill themselves as the “true” conservatives. Some in their ranks have been indicted for violating ethics rules.

The last group has the largest numbers, but have less experience in the political arena- the Ron Paul group. The Paul supporters are a strange demographic. They range from people with strong family values to those who want to legalize dope. Many have been registered Libertarians or conservative Democrats who have recently changed their party affiliation to Republican. Some have been "awakened" politically by Congressman Paul's message- which many int he Republican party agree with. But the leadership of this movement has said their stated strategy is to “steal” the Republican nomination for Ron Paul by electing national delegates, going to the national convention In Minneapolis and violating party rules and state laws. They are convinced only Paul can save America.

The real problem with the Liberty Coalition is their inconsistency. They bill themselves as principled, yet they employ unprincipled, deceptive, attack dog tactics against anyone who doesn’t agree 100% with their philosophy. They call themselves conservatives, yet they form unholy alliances with groups whose motives and actions are far from conservative. They call themselves honest and trustworthy, but they will partner with those who openly state they believe the end justifies the means. Truly principled, ethical people don’t engage, associate or form alliances with the unprincipled and unethical. I hope the principled people that are a part of any of the three groups recognize the inconsistency and the "win by any means" mentality of many in these group's leadership.
Situational ethics do not guide the principled. Principled people don't seek to tear down organizations because the organizations don't agree with them 100%. They work to change the organizations by working within the organizations. Principled people are Salt & Light (Matthew 5). They don't backbite, accuse, lie about people who they know are principled, honest people just because those people don't completely agree with them. Thankfully the majority of delegates at the state Republican convention on Saturday recognized the inconsistency of the Liberty Coalition and voted 2 to 1 for the Executive Committee’s slate- the real conservatives!


Lawton_Anime said...

Over the past day I have been getting information on how the events went down up there, was praying like crazy on Saturday that things would go over alright without many problems. Also I will see you on Saturday for the fishfry, let me know if you need me for volunteering at it and and I will be there early!

Kyle Heying

Steve Fair is a Jelly Salesman. said...


Thanks for your willingness to help at the FF- be there around 5pm and I'll put you to work.



Lawton_Anime said...

Alright I will be there sir. Also I have not yet sent out the update, but the CUCR will meet yet again in August, hopefully pick up some volunteers at that time!

Valeria Lindholm said...

Ok Lets talk fair. Topic: Globalism
Help Ron Paul Stop the SPP
No conspiracy theory, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is quite real, and it is NOT government by the people! Join Ron Paul today in the battle against this sovereignty-robbing boondoggle!by creator
Monday, April 28, 2008

♣ Security and Prosperity? For WHOM?

It seems that corporate and globalist interests are bent on merging the United States, Canada, and Mexico into a so-called "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America."

Ron Paul warned us about this years ago in his Texas Straight Talk column titled "A North American United Nations?"

"In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous." - Ron Paul

In their regular blog today, Downsize DC points out that it is the security and prosperity of major corporations like Wal-Mart, General Motors, General Electric, Home Depot, and others that is at stake.

A key reason for this mess is that congress has abdicated their legislative responsibility to bureaucrats and lobbyists from corporations and other special interests.

"I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States." - Ron Paul

I have done so. In mere minutes this morning, using Downsize DC's brilliant interface, I sent the following personalized message to Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and to Congressman Brian Bilbray:

"I want YOU, my representatives, to take responsibility by actually WRITING the laws you pass. If a law is important enough to affect me and all other Americans, it should be important enough for you to actually write.

If YOU wrote the laws and regulations, I wouldn't have to worry about irresponsible obscenities like the so-called "Security and Prosperity Partnership" that will line the pockets of the likes of Wal-Mart, GM, GE, Home Depot and others at the expense of MY safety, prosperity, and security."

You can fight the SPP too. Why not try the Downsize DC system like I just did? Invest five minutes today to sign up, and then from time to time you can help bombard congress and pressure them into doing the right thing.

And now, with their permission, I turn the floor over to Downsize DC:
Today's Downsizer Dispatch . . .

Subject: How to Stop the SPP

Last week, the Presidents of Mexico and the U.S. met with the Prime Minister of Canada to work on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The SPP is a working relationship between bureaucrats in all three countries to promote greater uniformity in economic and security matters. Here are two of the SPP's goals, from the SPP's own website:

* Safe Food & Products: Strengthen cooperation to better identify, assess and manage unsafe food and products before they enter North America, and collaborate to promote the compatibility of our related regulatory and inspection regimes;

* Energy and Environment: Develop projects under the newly signed Agreement on Science and Technology; and cooperate on moving new technologies to the marketplace, auto fuel efficiency and energy efficiency standards ;

What's the goal here? Simply, if something is manufactured in Mexico or Canada, it won't have to be inspected when entering the United States. In addition, if something is imported into Mexico or Canada, their inspections will be "good enough" and the goods can be trucked into the United States with no further inspections.

What is the driving force behind this integration? Not the people of the three countries. Congress had no say in the formation of the SPP. Instead, these government bureaucrats are working hand-in-hand with the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC). And who are the members of the NACC? Representatives from some of the largest companies on the continent, including Wal-Mart, General Motors, General Electric, Lockheed Martin, Merck, Chevron, New York Life, and Home Depot [see here].

For some strange reason, you weren't invited.

The SPP isn't government by the people, for the people, but rather government by bureaucrats, for Big Business. It seeks to harmonize regulations in the three countries to make it easier for the largest companies to do business. Whether or not these new regulations will benefit the people is beside the point. Whether or not these regulations would be good for small business is beside the point.

To preserve national sovereignty and representative government, we must put an end to the SPP. While we're at it, we must put an end to all cozy relationships between Big Business and bureaucratic regulators.'s Write the Laws Act (WTLA) will accomplish this. Under the WTLA, any law or regulation must be written by Congress itself, not by unelected bureaucrats. Regulatory agencies, instead of crafting policy, will be confined to investigating and prosecuting laws and regulations written and passed by Congress. The WTLA will put an end to the SPP because it will strip the Executive Branch of the power to implement its recommendations and regulations.

You can learn more about the Write the Laws Act here.

And please tell Congress to pass the Write the Laws Act. In your comments, tell them you oppose the SPP. Tell them you don't believe that bureaucrats working in concert with foreign counterparts and Big Business should be making policy. Tell them Congress should write every law and regulation. You can do so here.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of, Inc.
Downsize DC Foundation

CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project [here] sponsored by, Inc. a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.

You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.
Truth Realm encourages you to sign up with Downsize DC to further the cause of the Ron Paul rEVOLution!
Here are some more Truth Realm articles:
•Ron Paul, Wesley Snipes, and Other Tax Honesty Heroes
•Ron Paul's Boot Camp for NonTaxpayers
•Google "Pulls" Ron Paul Tax Article?
•Ron Paul Meetup Enlightens San Diego Tax Lemmings
•Jesus, Ron Paul, and the IRS
•Ron Paul Single-Handedly Abolishes the IRS!
•Ron Paul and Tax Terrorism
•Which Part of Ron Paul's "Eliminate the IRS" Didn't You Understand?
•McCain, Huckabee, Ron Paul - Whose Lips Are YOU Reading On Taxes?
•Does The Bible Condemn Tax Withholding?
•My Favorite Comments from Ron Paul Supporters

See the difference between a neo - con and a true republican and a real American yet Steve? Are you not the least bit worried about what you stand to lose? Well maybe not but then it will not be you, but your grandchildren who will have to live with the legacy we leave to them. Maybe the freedoms we were left by our founding fathers and the liberties are really dead like justice alito says. Maybe communism is what you like. Maybe you forget that we do not live in a democracy but a Republic. And just maybe you forget that freedom of speech is one of our rights , just like the right to vote without someone else telling us who we should vote for. Screw this party crap. I will vote for Ron Paul even if I have to write his name in. In my eyes he is much more of a leader than you ever have been or ever will be. John McCain sucks. So does Tom Cole. And frankly, so do you. Now how does it feel to be the one criticized because of who you think should be president? I am not alone in my thoughts of what we have to choose from isn't good as far as a president goes. Americans had better figure it out and pretty quickly too. This is not about Ron Paul becoming the president in case you have not figured it out yet. We are in a revolution. That is what the Ron Paul people are about. The people who support Ron Paul feel they are fighting to keep their country and their rights as left to us by our founding fathers. We cannot have a government who thinks they control us. And we don't need people like you trying to do the same thing. The Constitution is the LAW. I will fight for it and for my freedom as much and as long as I have to even if that means I have put some people in their place. Don't like it? Tough beans.

Lawton_Anime said...

Steve, it appears the Ron Paul fanatics are getting frantic, and that is most exemplary of the spam comment that has appeared here. Excited and exaggerated speech of a revolution to create greater equality on par with basically and not too lightly put libertarianism itself when they themselves throw idiotic and inflamatory statements that Republicans and conservative Republicans at that are somehow Communists in disguise which is one of the most absurd notions I have ever heard of in my life, a world of dread as they put it exists all around us and that simply because we all have different interpretations of something as essential of a framework for our system of government put forth by the Constitution, the taking of freedoms and rights, loud and annoying rants over taxation and the word evil, the forcing of their (RPS'ers) opinion on others when they (RPS groups) themselves claim that their opinion is always being yelled down and drowned out even when they are working to force others to support that insane Ron Paul revolution nonsense. "You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included." I read that part, and I was instantly reminded of what they usually do when you do not do as they bid you to do online, they will immediately atttack you, talk you down to nothingness because you are then in their eyes because you refused to pass it along and suddenly your a 'neo-con' as far as they are concerned unless you 'repent' and see the way of their (RPS) revolution nonsense. Furthermore, and this is directed at the crazed Ron Paul fanatic who posted to your blog Steve: lady or man which ever you are, this is one reason why you Ron Paul fanatics will never get anywhere with your crazed vision. Should you and your group continue to post to members of various origins on this community and others, in this very same spirit, on THEIR turf, its no wonder yall remain such a small group, albeit a rather loud one, basically put 'eskiegirl,' you annoy people when you proceed to create such comments on their blogs. It does nothing good for your cause. To tell that person that they suck, that their understanding of the Constitution is lacking, is well... nonsense and I would not be caught dead doing that to you oon your blog, or to spam your email with such things eskiegirl.

Steve, you can keep this comment of mine up if you want, or delete it, I just had to get out just what these people are capable of online in order to attempt to achieve their objectives. What is more is I had to deal with a similar one coming out of that guy Donkey Hayes, he wouldn't stop repeating himself and constantly stating that my understanding of the Constitution is lacking, that I and other Republicans would not amount to anything unless we converted to libertarianism, that our government is complete nonsense and many more things despite the fact I have repeatedly told him before that he may believe as much but I do not. I ended up having to delete the comments since they became rather numerous and annoying in that I had even told him not to continue sending them, ended up with having to ban him from my facebook. He even called it shameful to delete them... how odd that deleting spam comments of which were rather annoying and inflamatory would be considered shameful? That is the extent to which they will go.

Lawton_Anime said...

One final thing, and this is to that 'eskiegirl' person. "The Constitution is the LAW," true how very true. Yet do not forget that we each have our own interpretation of it! You have yours! I have mine! Ours may mirror the views of others and at times differ from the views of others, but if there is one thing I would never wish to see done and I am sure the founding fathers you so highly speak of would feel the same, do not shove that viewpoint into the face of another and expect and attempt to force them to convert to it or should they not convert to it, to continue laying in to them with inciteful and rude and annoyingly useless banter!

One Life said...

Something to consider.

The Ron Paul supporters, of which I am one, are primarily as you say inexperienced in political activism, Steve. We are learning the system as we are struggling against it. It isn't easy, and nearly all of us surely expected to be outnumbered, so Saturday wasn't surprising. Missouri delegates are of course wrong for disregarding the system and rules that they will later expect others to abide by, but they are not representative of the majority of us. I do not believe Oklahoma has had ANY delegates do anything but commit to voting for the candidate they are bound to, and we did as you know elect a few of our own on the district level.

As someone who has newly come to the political arena I am invigorated by the possibilities. Though I have always been interested in politics, until I saw a Constitutionalist run for president (it was like seeing an elephant fly), I maintained a moderate level of despair and apathy at the prospect of the USA turning around any time soon. Until I got involved for Ron Paul's campaign, no one in the party had ever reached out to me. I wasn't a democrat, I simply wasn't registered in Oklahoma because I didn't expect to care. I was much more ignorant than I now am. So why haven't Lawton's republicans done more to get the next generation involved?

On the matter of the Liberty Values Coalition, as it all ties in: A group as inexperienced as we are (and as you say, we mostly are) needed leadership to organize, inform, and just generally help shape our efforts into something effective. Had they told us the best thing to do was get involved in our local parties and make connections, building trust, I bet you would have seen a much more unified convention Saturday, rather than two solid, albeit misproportionate, voting blocs. Had more of the established GOP taken the time to make clear all the common ground we actually share, then it might have been different as well. In my opinion, the goal for 2012 within the GOP should be bridge building. Ron Paul's supporters need to see a way to support their local GOP without compromising their ideals. Our state platform is right on target in nearly every aspect, Constitutionally speaking, so I wouldn't be surprised to find many like-minded conservatives in our local and state-wide GOP. Not every state's platform is like that of course...not every local and state GOP party is as conservative as OK's. So its no wonder RP supporters and the established party both are more aggressive in other states.

I have managed to attend all but one of our county meetings since the Jan. 29th county meeting, as well as volunteering at and attending the BBQ with my wife. I don't see a lot of RP supporters there, which saddens me, but I have met some good people. The OK GOP hasn't been terrible to the new activists, which belies the common ground we would find if we were to begin reaching across the divide. By far we are not all fanatics. We are passionate, of course, because a lot of them are just like myself in the way I got involved. Despair turned to apathy turned to HOPE. That doesn't produce a calm, paced activist immediately. We feel a sense of urgency, and many come across "too" passionate, lacking the calm it takes to spark real debate or share ideas successfully.

It is simply blinding to see how many republicans still say George W. Bush has been a good president. This kind of occurrence disheartens and maddens me, for it appears so obvious that he has been anything but. Here we've got a larger government with a "conservative" President. How does that happen? War. Not even a declared war, and one that has been "over" for some years now. Gimme a break. Do we look that stupid? Does ANYONE look that stupid? Yet many seem to be, and that makes us "frantic" as Kyle so eloquently put it. To us, its as though we are living in Carrol's Wonderland, where nothing makes sense and we haven't the ability to change it. This produces desperation. How could so many people be so blind? Its unnerving and infuriating at the same time. Yet this level of passion is dangerous, as we are seeing. It inhibits our chances of successfully influencing anyone's perspective, thus risking our movement's potency.

It is necessary, as you said, to get involved with the party, make friends, build trust, and find that common ground. Even were the RPers successful in "taking over" the party, it would be a weakened party for the division. We can find a better solution.

I almost want to end on that note, but there is more I feel the need to write. I am not a Christian. I live what I would consider to be a moral, if not principled life. Our founders, some of them "Christians," some deists to my understanding, were not in the business of imposing their beliefs on other people. From what I've learned, their spirituality was very personal to most of them, and they considered their relationship to God a personal affair. Religion was never meant to be a criteria for election on any level, yet is has become so to varying degrees throughout the system. I spent the first 22 years of my life in Baptist churches and met more white-wash tombs than I cared to count, many of them in leadership positions. Religion in itself is simply an unreliable means of determining one's character. Integrity in politics is of much greater value than religous beliefs. Admirably, integrity for we OK republicans simply means sticking to our platform. Not so for other states, other platforms.

Finally, I want to say that I enjoy reading your blogs, and find your perspective to be balanced and refeshing. I do not agree on every point, but a huge majority anyway. Thanks for posting.

Best Regards,
Jeremy Rhymes

One Life said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
One Life said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lawton_Anime said...

Thank you sir for responding in a manner unlike those supporters of Ron paul I have delt with previously.
"We feel a sense of urgency, and many come across "too" passionate, lacking the calm it takes to spark real debate or share ideas successfully"
Well put sir, that better describes what has often appeared to me a frantic nature in many Ron Paul supporters. Still, in regards to continued support of Ron Paul, and with acknowledgement of common ground as you put it between the establishment and the newcomers to the GOP from Ron Paul's base and considering some suppoters are new to political activisim, there is a need to support the GOP's candidates, especially ours in state since many of them support those values you say we have in common. That being said when I have other Ron Paul supporters out there in my face telling me not to vote for my own candidates of whom I support and that if I knew and understood what was good for the country I would be in full support of Ron Paul, is no way for Ron Paul supporters new or well versed in political acitvisim to draw me in to the Ron Paul camp, and in fact due to that and a multitude of reasons I can never support the man. Now as to why some Ron Paul supporters have not been active much in GOP affairs, well one group of the RPS could simply be a bit frustrated with us not supporting Ron Paul, we all still support the Constitution and the pursuit of iberty and justice. However, there are differences in how, many of which are rather stark, for instance over 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution. Furthermore, of course Ron Paul supporters can't just... take over a political party, to me that doesn't even seem to be the objective. What does bother me though is how many of your fellow supporters of him will reverse (as they did in Missouri, Nevada, and here in Oklahoma) on their praises of the Constitution and of the virtues of an unswerving strict interpretation of Constitutional law, and turn right around to conduct the most mad attempt ever I have seen of trying to ensure that delegates would be chosen for the National Convention who even though they are mean't to vote the way the Republicans of the great state of Oklahoma voted in the closed party primary election, have stated on political blogs and elsewhere that they would instead be casting votes for Ron Paul should they be affirmed as delegates and skipping around the wishes of Oklahoma Republicans as a large majority (considering the small numbers Ron Paul recieved) to vote in McCain as their candidate come the National Convention. That sir, is the wing of your fellow supporters that concerns me greatly. Also sir this is no Carrol's Wonderland, welcome to reality.

Steve Fair is a Jelly Salesman. said...


Thanks for your thoughtful comments. While I disagreed with you on the theology of our founding fathers- they were PRIMARILY CHRISTIAN- you are right that we have more in common than we disagree on. Effective political activism starts at the local level- school board, munciplal, county and legislative races. If the RPs would dedicate as much time to the local "conservatives" as they have to the RP effort, we could move Oklahoma forward.

I hope you stay engaged, get involved in a campaign this cycle and understand the "old guard" is not as bad as you think we are.

See you Saturday night.

Steve Fair

One Life said...

Thank you both for responding so swiftly! I enjoy the debate and general discussion that an active forum/blog can entail.

Steve, I completely agree with you. My wife and I have made efforts to actually get involved with the party locally and have been welcomed at our county and district levels. The "old guard" around here has been very open to us, and we greatly appreciate it after hearing about other newcomers being treated badly and excluded in other parts of the country. As I pointed out before, we noticed the lack of interest in the party by other RP supporters, and that part of the movement will suffer for it. The focus for all RP supporters needs to shift, as it has for us, from Ron Paul to our platform values and working at the local level in order to see any change.

Kyle, I completely understand your bias against RP supporters, though of course I haven't had any of them in my face, lol. I've seen some examples of them performing the wrong brand of activism, and my wife and I do not support these people in their ignorance. I do believe everyone should honor the system they plan to utilize at any point in the future, and especially because our system is a well made one based upon a wonderfully crafted Constitution.

As far as members who are not bound delegates, I see no reason to support a man like McCain just because he will almost certainly be the nominee for our party. Not only is it everyone's right to openly oppose a candidate they do not support, but it is more so our obligation in order to keep our party on the right track. In addition, if we do not exercise our rights we will be at risk of losing them. I would have in ignorance voted for McCain against Bush in 2000 if he had gotten far enough in the race. Now that I know more about the man, I would never vote for him. I understand the GOP needing to stand unified in hopes of securing office in November, but I don't understand this sentiment of "follow the leader" towards a candidate with no head for economics in a time of recession. He wants to legalize all aliens within the US, a part of his platform he pushed until it was obviously not popular. Now that the nomination is essentially under his belt, he's getting soft on the issue once again. Bush Jr. won 44% of the Spanish vote in 2004, and McCain learned from that. Welcome to the re-run.

His somewhat infamous "100 years in Iraq" comment is enough for me. I am in no way a pacifist. Human nature denies any possibility of the pacifist dream culminating, though it should be said that peaceful resistance at the risk of one's freedom or life is more courageous by far than taking the easier, more common path of violence. Not to mention, that our lives and freedoms are usually less at risk when we exhaust our peaceful avenues of resistance first, which our leaders don't seem to have given half a chance in recent years. McCain has vowed not to sit down with dictators because he sees that as a form of validation, but the fact of the matter is that they are the valid leaders of those countries and it is necessary for us to interact with them diplomatically whether we agree with their form of government or not. To ignore this is very much asking for more premature, unnecessary violence.

That said, I agree with the belief that wars will happen. Always have and there's a reason for it. They are never a good thing, and waging them lightly or for dubious reasons as Bush has done and McCain has promised to perpetuate is absurdly and obviously criminal. It is not a coincidence, which groups have been making money off this war while the American people suffer record breaking amounts of debt and federal deficit. Do you think KBR runs nearly all of the civilian affairs in Iraq because they were the best in the world for the job? We will never know thanks to the closed bid they had for that massive contract. And is Cheney's old job as vice president of Haliburton irrelevant despite common sense?

My problem, and the difficulty a lot of Americans have with all of this, is that so many outrageous facts have been laid out for us to examine...putting 1 and 1 together has never been so hard for many other Americans somehow. Even Bush Jr. used to denouce nation building. Did he mean it when he said it?

It is in lieu of these circumstances that it becomes of the utmost importance that we as citizens not conform to a popular candidate for the sake of unity.

Lawton_Anime said...

Oh no no id o not mean all Ron Paul supporters, only those that have been rather forecful towards me in a way I completely disagree with, only them who when they are in one's face and even when they have been told to stop and that they are not accomplishing their goals with with one, only them I have the uptmost frustration with.

Oh but I will vote for McCain for not just one reason ;) for me its not just conformity to provide for party unity, but also that his beliefs, and his beliefs that have been known to change before, have changed almost accordingly with my own. Toward that reason and others I do support him.

The.Republican said...

"The most qualified applicants were apparent as evidenced by the group’s continuity in voting. The process was fair, professional, ethical and above board. ANYONE WHO STATES OTHERWISE IS EITHER MISINFORMED OR DISHONEST!"

One of the most qualified??????

Return to Story

Ethics is subject about receipt of District 2 e-mails

by: P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
8/1/2007 12:00 AM

Ethical questions are swirling around former city councilor Chris Medlock and his nearly yearlong receipt of council e-mails that were intended for his successor, Rick Westcott.

"What bothers me is that Chris continued to receive my e-mails for 10 months after he left office and never called to inform me that he was still getting them," Westcott said.

"In my opinion he has violated the privacy of all the constituents and officials that sent me an e-mail because he continued to get them and not tell anybody about it," Westcott said.

Don Burdick, a former campaign manager for Medlock when he ran for City Council, said he has some "serious concerns as to what happened."

"I agree with Rick that Chris' actions at the least was discourteous, at the most was criminal, and more than likely it certainly seems unethical," Burdick said.

Although Medlock gave an interview to a local television station, he refused to speak to the Tulsa World and requested that all questions be submitted in writing, to which he also has not responded.

Westcott said e-mail content was showing up in Medlock's personal Internet blog and during his political commentary as a guest on a morning talkshow on radio station KFAQ-1170 AM. Medlock is now one of the hosts of the show.

"His sources he claimed to have apparently came from my e-mails," Westcott said.

He also said that "sources are people you talk to. Intercepting e-mail messages from a City Council computer is not a source; that's an ethical violation."

Medlock told KRJH Channel 2 that it wasn't up to him to disable a feature that sent a blind copy of council e-mails to his personal e-mail address, it was up to the council staff to do it.

Council Administrator Don Cannon said a former employee should have audited Westcott's desktop computer and disabled the feature.

Because of the incident, increased security was installed on the council's computer system, which is a different system than the rest of city, Cannon said.

Burdick and Westcott both supported Medlock during a failed attempt to oust him from his council office in 2005. Medlock supported Westcott as his successor when he ran unsuccessfully for mayor.

"I would hope if somebody is getting e-mails addressed to someone else, regardless of who they are or the situation, that they would have the personal integrity to say something," Burdick said.

The e-mails were intercepted from April 2006 when Medlock left office until last February when the situation was detected, Westcott said.

The e-mail situation was detected after a council aide sent an e-mail with an attachment to Westcott's District 2 council e-mail address and then received a notice that the file was too big and could not be delivered to Medlock's personal e-mail address.

That triggered council staff to look into how Medlock got that e-mail.

Tulsa County District Attorney Tim Harris said he told Westcott that with the absence of a formal investigation it would be difficult to determine criminal intent.

Council Attorney Drew Rees agreed, adding that many of the e-mails would have been subject to an Open Records request, which Medlock could have sought through the proper channels.

Medlock madness
By David Arnett
Friday, 18 April 2008
It was an insulting, brutal, vicious, and personal attack delivered with threats of violence. The victim is Virginia Chrisco, one of the most beloved senior Republican Party workers in Tulsa history. The perpetrator was KFAQ radio personality Chris Medlock who is also an elected Oklahoma Republican State Committeeman representing Tulsa County.

Early Thursday morning April 3, Medlock began demanding information from forms submitted by republicans who were filing for election as Presidential Elector at the District Convention. Medlock called various party officials knowing that the information he sought was not released to the public prior to the morning of the Saturday, April 5 at the Republican District Convention.

As Chairperson of the Credentials Committee that received those Presidential Elector forms; Chrisco returned the call to Medlock, noting that the information he sought would not be available until the full committee opened each packet and vetted each application and followed procedures long established.

Chrisco said, “Medlock simply could not accept this answer because he said he was having a 3 PM meeting and he wanted those names and that information for that meeting.”

Steadfast holding to the rules, she refused – Medlock began to rant. “He said I couldn’t even pass an eighth grade civics class and all these things you know, but he never used profanity,” Chrisco added. “He was trying to bully and intimidate me.”

According to Chrisco, Medlock said, “I am the State Committeeman. I have the authority to have access. I’m on the Executive Committee; I have authority to have access to that information.”

Virginia ChriscoChrisco said, “Among other things, Medlock said that I was going to be the big story on his radio show the next morning. He threatened press coverage of our closed committee meeting and said I was going to be on the front page of the newspaper. This was not just a brief conversation. He said this was a deep conspiracy and I was corrupt and went on and on. Finally, Medlock said he was going to have 15 to 20 supporters at the committee meeting and asserted that they would have that information in their hands.”

“As the conversation ended, I told him that he would not be able to come to the meeting as it was an officially closed Credentials Committee Meeting. I hung up and got to thinking that if he showed up with a crowd, I would not be able to control those people and would be forced to call the police. That’s not a good thing is it,” Chrisco added.

After that phone call, Chris Medlock drove to the Tulsa County Republican Party Headquarters and demanded the information. He demanded the information from workers who had already received a call from Chrisco and had hidden the information.

Medlock personally searched the office for the information he was not authorized to even view prior to the convention.

“Chris Medlock did not show at the evening Credentials Meeting, but 7 or 8 of his supporters did. I explained to each one of them that this was a closed meeting and while their interest in the proceedings was appreciated, they would not be able to sit in on the meeting. Only one was antagonistic and refused to leave, but one of the men at the meeting sweet talked him out the door,” Chrisco said.

“I consider Chris Medlock in his position as a State Committeeman and a member of the Executive Committee as in the leadership of the Tulsa County Republican Party. I don’t believe that his actions are the proper way for a member of the leadership of the party to behave,” Chrisco said.

Chrisco has been active in the Tulsa County Republican Party since 1995. She has served as Credentials Chairman at county, district, and state conventions. She worked backstage at the 2000 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia in the Official Proceedings VIP Section, assisting speakers and presenters on the program.

Medlock is a former City Councilor who barely survived a recall effort launched because of his public and private behavior. The man who defended him in that recall effort, Rick Westcott was later elected to the District 2 City Council seat and with District 7 Councilor John Eagleton, publicly withdrew support for Medlock because of untrue and vicious statements Medlock made on public media during his unsuccessful campaign for Oklahoma House District 69 in 2006, which followed his unsuccessful campaign for mayor. Those two elected officials spoke on the record with Tulsa Today in 2006 and that interview remains available online (click here for “Dumping Chris Medlock”).

Chris MedlockAsked today if his opinion of Medlock has changed, Councilor Eagleton said, “He made a promise he did not keep on a matter of personal integrity. He said some things on the radio that could be construed as not flattering and when I spoke to him on the phone about it he said he would make a correction and an apology and I am still waiting. So Medlock and I are done – he broke his word to me and I will have no dealings with him.”

Medlock has attempted to leverage politics and media and was successful first as a co-host with KFAQ’s morning host Gwen Freeman until she would not submit to his demand to lead a conversation one morning so he swung a microphone which hit her. It is said that local blogger Michael D. Bates was witness to that event, but apparently the loyalty of self-interests between Bates and Medlock has prevented Bates from talking about the incident.

Saturday the Oklahoma Republican Party State Committee will vote on their candidates to the Republican National Convention. Medlock is campaigning for a position as a delegate or alternate delegate to the Convention. As the full committee votes, Tulsa County Republicans – other than Medlock – will remind those present that Medlock has lied to and about elected Republican officials on broadcast media, brutalized the most loyal Republican volunteers, and, in general, placed personal ambition over the good of the party – not exactly considered good form.

Medlock did not return calls for comment for this story nor did KFAQ General Manager Randy Bush. However, today was Chris Medlock’s final day as a morning talk show host. Beginning Monday, he will host an afternoon show on the same station – a far less important time slot.

Last Updated ( Friday, 18 April 2008 )

Steve Fair is a Jelly Salesman. said...


Regarding my comment that the most qualified candidates were selected by the Executive Committee, by your post, I assume you mean I was either wrong about Chris Medlock's qualifications or misinformed as to what Chris Medlock truly stands for.

First, my vote for National Delegate/Alternate/Elector in the Executive Committee meeting was based on the person's past involvement in the party, how much they had done to get LOCAL canddiates elected and the answers they gave to the questions posed at the interview. I did not take into account disagreements or grudges that people allegedly have or have had with one another. While I agree how a person reacts in stressful or confrontal situations reveals their temperment and their core values and character, I'm not sure that factor can be discerned in a enviroment such as the EC meeting.

Secondly, the two articles you cite are written with a definite bias against Chris Medlock. I don't know Chris that well, but as they say- there are two sides to every story. The articles only present one side. I do not excuse misbehavior and overreaction no matter who the person is. If Medlock misbehaved, tried to break rules or conducted himself in a less than honorable way, shame on him. If the writers of the articles are only trying to "stir it up" and trash Medlock to further their "cause," then shame on them.

Lastly, I stand by my statement the Executive Committee of the State Party is one of the most conservative EC's I have ever served on and the process to select delegates was fair as humanly possible. The most qualified candidates were selected.
They are conservatives, not liberals and to present them as such is dishonest and counterproductive to building our party and furthering our state.

Thanks for your comments and for reading my dribble.


LexSentry said...

Curses! Foiled again!
Evertime I attempt to read this collection of comments I make it no further than Lawton's statement;

"The Constitution is the LAW," true how very true. Yet do not forget that we each have our own interpretation of it! You have yours! I have mine!"

It is not quite that simple.
Do you mind me asking what you think of some of the mental contortionists who are interpreting us out of a 2nd amendment?

Here are words of Thomas Jefferson;
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."
Thomas Jefferson

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform
to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson
to William Johnson, 1823

And this one;
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408

Thats all.