Monday, June 29, 2009

by Steve Fair

The U.S. House on Friday passed a historic bill on Climate Change aka the Cap and Trade bill. Passage of the bill gave Speaker Pelosi (D-Calf.) one of her biggest victories ever. The bill squeaked by on a vote of 219-212. Eight cowardly Republicans joined 211 Dems for this massive tax increase bill marketed as a bill to protect the environment. Forty-four courageous Democrats did vote no, in spite of unbelievable pressure from their leadership.

Democrats even flew Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) back from drug and alcohol rehab to vote because 217 votes were needed for passage and it looked as if the party boy’s vote might be the difference maker. During the 15 minute vote, Pelosi had to sneak to the back of the House chamber and persuade two “undecideds” to vote yes.

The Speaker had last-minute conversations in the rear of the chamber with Reps. Joe Baca (D-Calif.) and Henry Cuellar (D-Texas). Cuellar had even turned down President Obama in a one-one-one phone call Thursday, but obviously the Speaker was more persuasive. Cullellar will pay the price in 2010 by voting yes. He represents a southern congressional Texas district heavily dependent on oil and gas exploration. His constituents will remember this vote.

After passage, Pelosi walked into a press conference holding an "easy button" from the Staples store advertisements and said, “That was easy.” "No matter how long our colleagues want to delay, they couldn't hold off the future," Pelosi said. Pelosi’s flippant attitude showed she is either clueless or uncaring on how Cap/Trade will impact the American consumer.

According to a study from the Marshall Institute, “the cap-and-trade approach is the equivalent of a permanent tax increase for the average American household, which was estimated to be $1,100 in 2008, would rise to $1,437 by 2015, to $1,979 in 2030, and $2,979 in 2050.” The report also said, “The price for energy paid by the American consumer also will rise. The studies reviewed showed electricity prices jumping 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50% by 2015, and gasoline prices up 9-145% by 2015. As an illustration, gasoline would suffer a 16 cent price increase per gallon at the low end of the estimates to a $2.58 penalty at the high end (using the January 2009 reported retail price of $1.78 per gallon).”

Pelosi called the bill one about "jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs." She is right about that, but not with the result she is taunting. The Marshall Institute concluded that estimates of job losses attributable to cap-and-trade would range in the hundreds of thousands, most going out of the country.

Using his privilege as minority leader to speak for an unlimited time on the House floor, John Boehner (R-Ohio) spent an hour reading a 309-page amendment at three in the morning right after the amendment was filed. When asked why he did it, he responded, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t." Pelosi's office declined to comment on Boehner's jab. But one Democratic aide quipped, "What do you expect from a guy who thinks global warming is caused by cow manure?" But cows are the source of global warming according to the UN.

The United Nations released a report that identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organization, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are mostly to blame. Livestock are responsible for eighteen per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. Evidently the political parasite(aka aide) was absent the day the report came out.

Boehner said, “Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax is a bureaucratic nightmare that will cost families more than ever for electricity, gasoline, food, and other products, and cost millions of American workers their jobs. This is a tax on anyone who drives a car, buys an American-made product, or flips on a light switch.”

Cap and Trade must not make it into law for two very simple reasons. First, it creates a “permanent” tax on energy products that will hurt America families for years to come. As the Marshall report pointed out, the impact on working families will be substantial in prices at the pump, on their electric bill and on heating fuel. Second, Cap/Trade will cost us jobs in Oklahoma. Capital is a coward and will flee a hostile environment to one where it can flourish. Cap/Trade is hostile to oil and gas producers and therefore to the consumer. Democrats don't understand businesses do not "absorb" tax increases, but pass them on to the consumer.

Boehner’s description of this bill was somewhat course and lacked eloquence, but he was right!

Friday, June 26, 2009

fiddle-faddle: trifling talk or action
A hodgepodge of some of the events of the week with comments from Steve Fair
Steve's comment in bold RED
U.S. House Democrats on Friday answered President Obama's call for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system, unveiling a bill that they said would cover 95 percent of Americans. But they said they did not know how much it would cost and had not decided how to pay for it. The proposal would establish a new public health insurance plan to compete with private plans. House Republicans and insurance companies strenuously oppose such an entity, saying it could lead to a government takeover of health care. The draft bill would require all Americans to carry health insurance. Most employers would have to provide coverage to employees or pay a fee equivalent to 8 percent of their payroll. The plan would also end many insurance company practices that deny coverage or charge higher premiums to sick people.
WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS? The government has NO money except what it extracts from our pockets. This is asinine! The Democrats ego is writing checks that we have to cover.
SUNDAY JUNE 21, 2009:

The overwhelming majority of Americans support substantial changes to the country's health care system, including a government-run health insurance option, a new opinion poll found. The survey by The New York Times and CBS News also indicated most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance.

Eighty-five percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, according to the poll. In addition, the survey found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan -- something like Medicare for those under 65 -- that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.
When asked which party was more likely to improve health care, 18 percent of said the Republicans while 57 percent picked the Democrats. Even one of four Republicans said the Democrats would do better. However, half of those who identified themselves as Republicans said they would support a public plan, along with nearly three-fourths of independents and almost nine in 10 Democrats, according to the poll.

No one disagrees that health care needs reforming, but the twenty percent who oppose the Democrat’s plan ARE THE ONES THAT WILL FOOT THE BILL! We have morphed into a welfare state that is doomed to fall if we do not get a handle on this out of control spending!

MONDAY JUNE 22, 2009:

Human rights and open government advocates were heartened by President Barack Obama's pledge during his first week in office to create "an unprecedented level of openness in government" and "establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration". But now, well into Obama's second 100 days in office, many are expressing outrage and disappointment that many of the president's decisions have followed the path of his predecessor, President George W. Bush.

The Obama administration has invoked the "state secrets" privilege several times to prevent lawsuits dealing with "extraordinary renditions" and warrantless wiretapping from ever being heard in court. Justice Department lawyers have argued that detainees at Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan have no right to challenge their detention.

The government has also caved to Democrats and Republicans in Congress to keep any of the Guantanamo Bay detainees from ever entering the U.S., even though the Defense Department has cleared these men for release and declared that they present no threat to U.S. national security.

Reliable reports suggest that Obama is considering "indefinite detention" for GITMO detainees who cannot be tried in U.S. courts because the evidence against them was obtained through torture. From

The inconsistency this President has manifest is amazing, yet the media still sings his praises. At some point, it may end, but if a Republican would have been in the White House, the honeymoon would have long since been over.

TUESDAY JUNE 23, 2009:

The Pentagon will adopt a new strategy that for the first time orders the military to anticipate that future conflicts will include a complex mix of conventional, set-piece battles and campaigns against shadowy insurgents and terrorists, according to senior officials. The shift is intended to assure that the military is prepared to deal with a spectrum of possible threats, including computer network attacks, attempts to blind satellite positioning systems, strikes by precision missiles and roadside bombs, and propaganda campaigns waged on television and the Internet. The new strategy has broad implications for training, troop deployment, weapons procurement and other aspects of military planning. New York Times

The American military is stretched thin and with Democrats in control of Congress and the White House, the next few years could be challenging years for funding. Americans should be insist that defense funding be at the top of the list in the budget. The new strategy is great, but only if it results in protecting our borders- something most politicians are unwilling to deal with.


Frustrated Americans have long complained that their insurance companies valued the all-mighty buck over their health care. Today, a retired insurance executive confirmed their suspicions, arguing that the industry that once employed him regularly rips off its policyholders. "[T]hey confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors," former Cigna senior executive Wendell Potter said in remarks prepared for a hearing on health insurance today before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Potter, who has more than 20 years of experience working in public relations for insurance companies Cigna and Humana, said companies routinely drop seriously ill policyholders so they can meet "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

"They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment," Potter said. "&(D)umping a small number of enrollees can have a big effect on the bottom line." ABC News

First, insurance companies are in business to make money and some of those in that industry are unethical, but pre-existing conditions cost them profit and they are not going to willingly insure someone that is going to long-term be unprofitable. ABC is broadcasting an informerical for socialized medicine from inside the White House, so their reporting on this subject should be taken with a grain of salt.

In Oklahoma City, a woman pleaded no contest last week to prostitution charges, accused of agreeing to be paid for services with a box of chips by a man who said he was a Frito Lay employee.

This type of story certainly doesn’t enhance Oklahoma’s image. The question is- Did she get to keep the chips? It’s still in dispute as to whether the “john” was saying he worked for Frito lay or was using Fritos to get a lay.


South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, a Republican held a news conference to address his “prolonged” absence from the Capital. His staff had told reporters that he was hiking, when he was in fact bedded down with some woman in Argentina. The news conference included the following statement. You are read the entire transcript at:

But I am -- I am here because if you were to look at God's laws, there are in every instance designed to protect people from themselves. I think that that is the bottom line with God's law -- that it's not a moral, rigid list of dos and don'ts just for the heck of dos and don'ts. It is indeed to protect us from ourselves. And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self. That sin is in fact grounded in this notion of what is it that I want, as opposed to somebody else.
And in this regard, let me throw one more apology out there, and that is to people of faith across South Carolina, or for that matter, across the nation, because I think that one of the big disappointments when, believe it or not, I've been a person of faith all my life, if somebody falls within the -- the fellowship of believers or the walk of faith, I think it makes it that much harder for believers to say, "Well, where was that person coming from?" Or folks that weren't believers to say, "Where, indeed, was that person coming from?" So one more apology in there.

But I -- I guess where I'm trying to go with this is that there are moral absolutes, and that God's law indeed is there to protect you from yourself. And there are consequences if you breach that. This press conference is a consequence.
And so the bottom line is this, I -- I've been unfaithful to my wife. I developed a relationship with a -- which started out as a dear, dear friend from Argentina. It began very innocently, as I suspect many of these things do, in just a casual e-mail back and forth, in advice on one's life there and advice here.

But here recently over this last year it developed into something much more than that. And as a consequence, I hurt her. I hurt you all. I hurt my wife. I hurt my boys. I hurt friends like Tom Davis. I hurt a lot of different folks. And all I can say is that I apologize. I -- I -- I would ask for your -- I guess I'm not deserving of indulgence, but indulgence not for me, but for Jenny and the boys. You know, there are a team of cameras and crews and all those sorts of things camped out down at Sullivan's Island. And I would just ask for a zone of privacy, if not for me, for her and the boys.

The “other woman" is a 43 year old food ingredient salesperson. Evidently Sanford has been having an affair with her since 2008. This comes on the heels of another Republican up and comer Senator John Ensign’s admission of an affair with a staffer. That was just last week! Sanford was supposed to be a “contender” for the 2012 Republican nomination for President.
Sanford is no theologian. Galatians 3:24 tell us the reason for God’s law: Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

God's law isn’t about “protecting us from ourselves.” It serves as a mirror that reveals who we are- Sanford should be looking into his soul through the mirror of God’s law.

Charles Spurgeon preached an excellent message on this text entitled The Stern Pedagogue. It can be read in its entirety at:

FRIDAY JUNE 19, 2009:

House Democrats narrowly won a key test vote Friday on sweeping legislation to combat global warming and usher in a new era of cleaner energy. Republicans said the bill included "the largest tax increase in American history."

The vote was 217-205 to advance the White House-backed legislation to the floor, and 30 Democrats defected, a reflection of the controversy the bill sparked. The legislation would impose limits for the first time on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution from power plants, factories and refineries. It also would force a shift from coal and other fossil fuels to renewable and more efficient forms of energy. Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs, but disagreed widely on the impact on consumers.

President Barack Obama has made the measure a top priority of his first year in office. The president, along with White House aides and House Democratic leaders, scrambled for the votes to assure passage. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has pledged to get the legislation passed before lawmakers leave on their July 4 vacation.

The Senate has yet to act on the measure, and a major struggle is expected.
In the House, the bill's fate depended on the decisions of a few dozen fence-sitting Democrats, mainly conservatives and moderates from contested districts who feared the political ramifications of siding with the White House and their leadership on the measure.

This bill would hurt Oklahoma and every other energy producing state AND IT WILL COST CONSUMERS TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!

Monday, June 22, 2009

Weekly Opinion/Editorial
by Steve Fair

Since President Obama has been elected, gun and ammunition sales have doubled. Gun and ammunition manufacturers are unable to keep up with the increased demand for their products. Scott Hoffman, a Connecticut resident sums up the feelings of a lot of Americans. He says, "it's a fact that the liberal Democrats that now control all three branches of our government do not like guns. They want us out of business." They don't want the average American to have a right to defend themselves."

Do gun owners in the U.S. have reason to be concerned? It would seem so. In a 1999 article in a Chicago newspaper then-Illinois state senator Obama promoted a plan to increase federal taxes by 500 percent on the sales of firearms and ammunition. When Obama ran for the Illinois state senate seat the political group, Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI), asked him if he supported a “ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” The then future President responded yes. Realizing how damaging this could prove in the general election, his presidential campaign denied Obama ever held this view, blaming it instead on a staffer from his state senate race.

But Obama was on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation, a liberal group that opposes private handgun ownership. Before he was elected to the U.S. Senate, he was very transparent about his position on gun ownership- he believed the American public should not have access to handguns. His Presidential campaign website only recognized two legitimate purposes for civilian ownership of guns: “hunting and target shooting.”

Although a lively debate has raged over the purpose of the Second Amendment, the nation's courts--federal and state alike--have been in basic agreement on this subject for as long as judicial judgments have been made on contentions that the Second Amendment establishes a personal right to have firearms, free from government regulation. Such decisions of the courts go back more than 100 years. Politicians have attempted for years to circumvent the 2nd amendment by imposing restrictions on what type of weapons citizens could own and establishing background checks and waiting periods for buying guns.

In 2001, a Gallup poll showed that 54 percent of Americans favored stricter gun laws. In 2007, that number was 50 percent. In a poll conducted by CNN in April 2009, only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws. The poll also showed that gun laws followed political party lines. Nationally, sixty percent of Democrats favor gun control laws, compared with only twenty percent of Republicans and thirty three percent of Independents.

Recently, the National Rifle Association reported they have received several calls from NRA members in border states- Texas, Arizona, New Mexico- who have been visited or called by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. On their website, the NRA posted the following account of what the BATFE is doing. “In some cases, agents have asked to enter these people's homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess. In each case, the agents were making inquiries based on the number of firearms these NRA members had recently bought, and in some cases the agents said they were asking because the members had bought types of guns that are frequently recovered in Mexico.”

Evidently, some of the federal agents have been less than professional in their tactics. One reportedly demanded that a gun owner return home early from a business trip, while another threatened to "report" an NRA member for refusing to cooperate. If these tactics are the actions of a few rogue agents, then gun owners in America have little to fear, but if these tactics being directed “from the top,” then the average citizen better be prepared to stand up for their constitutional rights.

During the presidential general election campaign, Obama said he, "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns." While that statement sounds good, does it match his actions?

Political commentator, Dr. Charles Krauthammer says, “Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan & Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

From all indications, Obama is the most anti-gun President we have ever had. The BATFE will not be criticized for their actions by this president. It is critical that Americans understand the true purpose of the second amendment and work to insure this guaranteed right is not eroded any further. Contact your Congressman and US Senator to express your support of the second amendment.

Friday, June 19, 2009

fiddle-faddle: trifling talk or action
A hodgepodge of some of the events of the week with comments from Steve Fair

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) augments his salary by taking $20,000 in a side business capitalizing on his career as a Hall of Fame pitcher. Bunning accepts the salary through the Jim Bunning Foundation, which charges baseball memorabilia companies for the senator's appearances. Bunning is not able to charge for autographs himself, because of ethics rules, but the money can go to a foundation. "It's probably legal, but I think it's really questionable," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "He created a charity to allow himself to do what he otherwise couldn't do, which is taking money for signing baseballs." – From The Hill

Bunning has said he will run for a third term in 2010, but his relationship with fellow Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell has chilled in recent months. He is expected to have a Republican primary opponent- Secretary of State Trey Grayson. I met Grayson at the 2008 Republican National Convention. We were both bloggers for Fox News. He is a tall, good looking young man with a impressive resume, however he struck me as a person with little life experience. Bunning has been very critical of McConnell because of the lack of leadership he has provided during tough times for Republicans. BUNNING IS RIGHT! Senate and House Republican leadership has shown little vision and no connection with the base of our Party. The baseball-signing scheme is foolish and doesn’t show good judgment. Bunning should quit signing baseballs for money until he is out of office. - Steve
SUNDAY JUNE 14, 2009:

In the United States, Flag Day is celebrated on June 14th . It commemorates the adoption of the flag of the US, which happened that day by resolution of the 2nd Continental Congress in 1777. Flag Day is not an official federal holiday, as if federal employees needed another paid holiday. While Flag Day was officially created by Congress in 1916, it is at the President's discretion to proclaim officially the observance.
Washington attorney Francis Scott Key penned the song of our nation at a dramatic moment during the War of 1812. On the night of September 13, 1814, Key watched as the British navy at Fort McHenry attacked our country. After watching the rockets’ red glare and bombs bursting in air throughout the night, dawn broke. Key was expecting to find Baltimore firmly under British control, but was stunned to see a battered but still flying American flag waving in the sunrise. So inspired was Key that he wrote the poem, “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Set to a tune attributed to John Stafford Smith, “To Anacreon in Heaven,” it became America's national anthem in 1931.

The National Anthem project is an organization dedicated to having music educators (my wife is one) to teach public school students the National Anthem. They want the kids to know the story behind the song and the flag. An ABC survey showed that 61% of adults did not know the words to the National Anthem and/or the Pledge of Allegiance. Of those that did know them, they learned them in school. It’s time we reemphasized that in school. Are your kids being taught them in your public school? - Steve

MONDAY JUNE 15, 2009:

Roger Simon at Politico has a well-written article on seven things Sarah Palin should do if she wants to be the 2012 nominee. Simon is right on- particularly about surrounding herself with sharp people. Too often elected officials give important positions to their most loyal campaign volunteers. Major mistake. You can access the story at: Steve

TUESDAY JUNE 16, 2009:

President Barack Obama’s 27-year-old half-brother, George Obama, who lives in Kenya is writing a book tentatively titled “Homeland,” is set to be published by Simon & Schuster in January 2010. George is the youngest of the seven children by Obama's father and is about 20 years younger than the president. His book will tell the story of his fall into crime and poverty as a teenager and his eventual embrace of COMMUNITY ORGANIZING and ADVOCACY FOR THE POOR. Supposedly, he is going to make six figures for writing this literary masterpiece.

Can you say Billy Carter or Roger Clinton?


The New York Times is saying the National Security Agency has been exceeding its legal authority by sweeping up troves of e-mails and phone calls from Americans.
Chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein (D-Calf) says, “Everything that I know so far indicates that the thrust of the story, that there are flagrant actions essentially, to collect content…just simply is not true to the best of my knowledge.” FEINSTEIN LEFT HERSELF A LITTLE WIGGLE ROOM WITH THAT STATEMENT, but Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn was more definitive. Coburn said, “I will assure you that there are inaccuracies in that report.” “ The assumption that the report is accurate is an erroneous assumption,” Coburn concluded.

It is widely known that what is sent into cyberspace is accessible- now or later- to the Federal government- all under the guises of “protecting us.” Rest assured, BIG BROTHER is watching or has the ability, power, authority and legal right to do so. While Dr. Coburn is the most conservative, principled, and ethical elected representative in Washington, what he is being told may not always be the whole story.

Senator John Ensign (R-NV) resigned his leadership role as Republican Policy Committee Chair after it was disclosed he had an affair with a staffer. Rumors abound that Ensign had previous affairs. Supposedly he was being blackmailed and all kinds of other tawdry juicy details were being leaked to the press. This is the third Republican Senator to have issues with self-control. Larry, tap three times, Craig (R-ID), and David, how much for a quickie, Vitter (R-LA) both have encountered sex scandals in the past two years. All three of these guys counted on the support of the Christian right to get elected. Ensign was gearing up to run for President.

While anyone has the natural inherent sin nature capacity to fail in the face of temptation, in the case of all three of those cited, there appears to be a pattern of behavior. When are GOP activists who are Christians going to learn? We are often pandered to, lied to, used and abused by political insiders and big money to help get someone elected to later find out their “faith” was phony.

FRIDAY JUNE 19, 2009:

A former Oklahoma state-employed auditor Roger Melson, 55 has been accused of embezzling over a million dollars from a state agency that manages land for the financial benefit of common education in Oklahoma. Supposedly Melson doesn’t have any of the money left- the Indian casinos got it all. His attorney says he has a gambling problem- YOU THINK? Once again the state has been bilked by a crook and little is done.

In another bizarre story, a Muskogee Oklahoma woman and her friend, have been accused of killing and skinning a puppy because he was a gift from the woman’s ex-female lover. The 7-week-old puppy’s hide was supposedly going to be used to make a belt for the woman. Of course, that story made the front page of the paper, but the killing of an innocent child in the womb is never mentioned. I’m not excusing the act of cruelty on an animal and these two should be prosecuted, but consider the irony when the public is outraged over the death of an innocent animal and not over the death of an innocent human baby. - Steve

Monday, June 15, 2009

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

Non-resistance to the higher powers

By Steve Fair

Increasingly more and more Americans are expressing outrage with the actions of the federal government. The bailouts, stimulus monies, and a rapid move to socialism by the feds have some American citizens paying attention to politics for the first time in their lives. The more radical ones say it’s time for a second American revolution. Others preach patience and temperance and correctly state that Christians should be careful when rebelling against authority. They cite Romans 13, which states, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: the powers that be, are ordained of God.” The passage leaves no doubt that a sovereign God sets up kings, presidents, and every other elected or appointed official in office. When someone rebels against proper authority God has placed in their life, they are in fact rebelling against God. At what point, if ever, does a Christian question authority or resist the “higher powers?”

That same ethical dilemma faced early American colonists. In 1750, Jonathan Mayhew, the thirty year old pastor of West Church of Boston, delivered a sermon entitled, “A Discourse concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers: with some reflections on the resistance made to King Charles I.” Just the title itself is longer than some sermons today. Mayhew delivered the sermon on the 101st anniversary of the execution of King Charles I, who was overthrown because of his tyranny and oppression upon the English people. Mayhew’s congregation still considered themselves loyal Englishmen. Many of them saw the flaws in their government, but chose to stay loyal to attempt change from within.

In the sermon. Mayhew dissected Romans 13, a passage of scripture that had been deliberately misinterpreted by the Anglican clergy to keep the colonists in submission. His expository sermon on Romans 13 was not emotion driven or political in nature but a systematic, studious verse-by-verse exposition of the passage. His sermon was an honest exegetic presentation of a passage that was very relevant to the culture at the time.

Mayhew said Romans 13 taught that, “common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not entitled to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of anything here laid down by the inspired apostle.” Mayhew went on to say, “The apostle’s argument is so far from proving it to be the duty of people to obey, and submit to, such rulers as act in contraditicion to the public good, and so to the design of their office, that it proves the direct contrary.” “It is plain the apostle Paul implicitly authorizes, and even requires us to make resistance, whenever this shall be necessary to the public safety and happiness.” Mayhew’s premise was that resistance is necessary when public officials (elected or otherwise) veer from the path of righteousness.

Has the modern federal government become full of common tyrants and public oppressors? It certainly seems that way. Are a large number of American’s federally elected officials acting in a way that is contrary to the public good? Few can doubt they are.

Even after Mayhew’s sermon, Christians in early America struggled with rebelling against Great Britain and the established government. Mayhew, himself cautioned Christians by stating in his concluding remarks in the sermon, “Let us learn to be free and to be loyal. Let us not profess ourselves vessels to the lawless pleasure of any man on earth. But let us remember, at the same time, government is sacred and not to be trifled with.”

Resisting government is not action to be taken lightly by any citizen, but particularly Christians. There are times while it becomes necessary to remind elected officials the government is subject to God- whether they recognize it or not.

So influential was Mayhew’s sermon that John Adams identified it as having, “great influence in the commencement of the Revolution.” Adams said, “The revolution was effected before the War commenced. The revolution was in the hearts and minds of the people: a change in their religious sentiments…. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American revolution.”

Is another revolution afoot? Certainly the opinions, sentiments and affections of the people’s hearts are changing in America! It’s not time to light the torches and get the pitchforks, but elected officials better take note that Americans are fed up with what is going on in Washington.

On July 4th, between 11am and 1pm, a “Tea Party” will be held at Elk Plaza- Hiway 81 and Elk Road- in Duncan, Oklahoma. The event is non-partisan and not sponsored by the GOP. The public is invited to attend. For more information, contact Jan Gaddis at 580.252.7000.

Friday, June 12, 2009

fiddle-faddle: trifling talk or action
A hodgepodge of some of the events of the week with comments from Steve Fair

MONDAY JUNE 8, 2009:

On May 12th, a 64 year old man from Wister, Oklahoma pleaded guilty to first degree rape and forcible sodomy and was sentenced to just ONE YEAR in prison. Evidently, it was a PLEA deal with prosecutors. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News called Governor Brad Henry who didn’t return the call. AG Drew Edmondson did talk with O’Reilly, but said he was “too busy” to look into the case. If Henry and Edmondson care about Oklahoma children and about justice, they will take a personal interest into this case. Remember Edmondson is expected to run for Governor and Blackjack Henry is not “retiring” from politics when his second term is up in 2010.

Tuesday night, O’Reilly had Pat Campbell on his program who did a good job representing the opinion of most Oklahomans. He said that people should contact Blackjack Henry and Edmondson and urge them to get involved in this situation. Senator Randy Brogdon, R, Owasso, said he was going to write legislation that would prevent this from happening in the future. The judge still refuses to explain why he gave the guy such a light sentence.


Governor Tim Pawlenty, the Republican from Minnesota announced he is not running for re-election. When he was interviewed on Hannity, he wouldn’t say he was or wasn’t going to run for President in 2012. Pawlenty can’t be a bad guy- his dad was a milkman. His mom died of cancer when he was 16. Pawlenty is a very strong conservative and has appeal to the Christian right. He and his wife are active members of a Baptist church in Minnesota.

Radio talk show host, Mark Levin was on Hannity Tuesday evening and addressed “Statism.” I have written a couple of articles on Statism- search the archives if you want to read it. Levin’s book Liberty and Tyranny has sold over one million copies and is #1 on the Times Best seller list. Levin indicated he has NOT been contacted by any major media outlet. His view on how to energize the GOP is correct- ignore the moderates and get back to the core principles of our Party.


Today, an 88-year-old man with a very GERMAN name- James Von Brunn- shot and killed a security guard at the National Holocaust Museum in DC. The analysis began almost immediately on what killed the guard- was it the gun Von Brunn used? If only he had not had access to a gun? Was it the “hate” he harbored in his heart? If only his mother had given him frosted flakes instead of the plain ones. The more I live, the more I understand that few understand the depravity of the heart of all men.

Drew Edmondson finally announced he is running for Governor and also conveniently decided to investigate the one-year rape sentence controversy in McAlester. Coincidence? Not likely.


What has happened to The Oklahoman? In a rambling editorial today, they asked if the Conceal & Carry provision in Oklahoma should be reviewed. What prompted it was the case of the Pharmacist who killed a 16-year-old robber two weeks ago. The “mental” state of those that get C&C permits should be taken into account according to the paper. What they fail to adequately state was armed robbers were robbing the Pharmacy. This whole situation would not happened if the criminal element would have not started it. The Oklahoman management and editorial staff, once decidedly conservative, are moving more to the left. Advertisers and subscribers should express their opinion the only way the management will understand- with their pocketbook.

President Obama has appointed a “pay czar” to monitor the pay of top executives at publicly traded companies. Under the guises of “looking out for the stockholders,” the administration will impose subjective rules to private industry. Some businesspeople are concerned it will ultimately impact companies that are not publicly traded. They challenged Obama to put the same restrictions on union bosses. There is no doubt that some companies and their boards abused compensation. Some were making millions while their employees were drawing food stamps, but the responsibility of that oversight should be with the STOCKHOLDERS, not the government. Most of those companies are no longer in business, because it’s the era of lean and mean, not fat and sassy.

FRIDAY JUNE 12, 2009:

The Oklahoman had an op/ed piece this morning entitled, “Stout group of candidates for 2010 governor’s race.” The article touted the strength of the field of announced candidates without mentioning State Senator Randy Brogdon, R, Owasso on the Republican side. Photos of the three perceived “frontrunners” was included with the intent being that only one of these three could possibly win the race. While I have not made up my mind who I will support in the primary, I can’t help but think of how a little known State Senator named Brad Henry upset the applecart in 2002 when virtually everyone had Congressman Steve Largent sworn in as Governor. Brogdon’s strength will be his grassroots appeal and “outsider” image. He should emphasize that to every group he addresses.

Oklahoma Congressman John Sullivan, R, Tulsa, is at the Betty Ford clinic in rehab for alcoholism. That is a tragedy that may result in his getting beat next year. But now Congressman Patrick Kennedy, D, RI, has returned to treatment for alcoholism and drugs. Kennedy, who is said to suffer from bi-polar disorders, crashed his SUV into a Capitol barricade a couple of years ago. His office hasn’t disclosed where he is or how long he will be gone. Oh, the rigors of public office- the pressure and the stress must be overwhelming compared to the rest of America- earning only $165K a year with bennies!

Monday, June 8, 2009

Weekly Opinion/Editorial
by Steve Fair
Politics and money have forever been linked and in the early years of our nation’s history that link was often corrupt. In a recent column, I mentioned the “good old boy” system so prevalent in the employment of government workers in our nation’s early history. That resulted in Congress passing the “Pendleton Civil Service Act,” in 1883, which created a class of federal employment available only through competitive exams? Up until that time, officeholders appointed their “cronies,” aka political donors, to the jobs.

After that source of “contributions” dried up, businesses such as banks, oil companies, steel firms, and railroad developers became the primary source of fund funding by candidates through corporate contributions. After his election in 1906, President Teddy Roosevelt encouraged Congress to ban corporate contributions.

In years following and during the Great Depression, WWII and the Korean War, political campaigns remained “grassroots” oriented and the big bucks didn’t enter the process until the 1960s.

By the end of the 1960s, the cost to run for Congress had skyrocketed to where only the wealthy or those closely aligned with the wealthy could run. In response, in 1971, Congress passed the FECA (Federal Election Campaign Act) that limited the amount of money a candidate could give to his or her own campaign and how much they could spend on TV advertising. The Act also provided a mechanism that required candidates to file reports on a quarterly basis on the source of their political contributions.

Proponents of the FECA expected the new regulations would stem the tide of money in politics. Not surprising Congress was again wrong. In 1968, before FECA, federal candidates spent $8.5 million collectively running for office. In 1972, under FECA, they spent $88.9 million- over ten times more.

In 2002, Senators John McCain, R, Arizona, and Russ Feingold, D, Wisconsin, sponsored BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) to get slow down the money in politics, but in the seven years since it’s passage, the amount of money needed to mount a serious campaign for Congress has almost doubled. McCain/Feingold has created a series of loopholes that 523s have exploited and used to circumvent the process. There is now more money than ever in politics. A “shoestring” budget for a 21st century Congressional race is $500,000- for a job that pays $165,200 annually.

It would be easy to blame the candidates, big donors, campaign consultants and political hacks for the huge growth of money in politics, but to do that would be wrong. The real reason we have big money in politics is the lack of broad based financial involvement by average citizens.

With a limited amount of time to raise money for a campaign, candidates tend to take “the path of least resistance” and solicit big donors. If you need to raise $100,000 for a state legislative race, it’s easier to find twenty $5,000 donors than two hundred $50 contributors. Building a small donor base is hard work and takes patience and is often next to impossible to accomplish.

According to Massie Ritsch, communications director at the Center for Responsive Politics, “Less than one percent” of the American population make campaign contributions large enough to track.” That’s less than one in a hundred citizens care enough about a local, state, county, or federal election to give a penny to the process.

People complain about “all” the money that is in politics and how corrupt the process is, but yet they are unwilling to contribute one red dime to a candidate- even candidates they know personally and trust. They don’t put their money where their mouth is. Signs, bumper stickers, and t-shirts cost money, but often even the volunteers of candidates are unwilling to reimburse them for just the “cost” of those resources. By not contributing, they are perpetuating the “big donor/access” machine that pumps obscene amounts of money into the political process.

It’s obvious that not everyone can write a big check to a political candidate, but all can do something. If everyone would contribute some, the “big donor” money would be diluted and the process would reform itself, restoring the power to the grassroots.
In Luke 12:34, the scripture says, “where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Where is your heart?

Monday, June 1, 2009

Weekly Opinion/Editorial
by Steve Fair
The old saying goes - if you want to vote after you are dead- move to Chicago. The implication is that voter fraud is commonplace in the Windy City. But it appears that post mortem voting is going on in the Sooner state. The Tulsa World conducted an investigation on dead people voting in Oklahoma and found that 429 dead people are on the voter rolls and that ten of the deceased had in fact voted after their death. The World conducted the investigation after Governor Henry vetoed a Voter ID bill that would have required a voter have valid identification to cast their vote. Henry’s veto was overturned by the Republican controlled legislature and Oklahoma voters will vote on the proposal in November 2010.

"The right to vote is one of our most precious freedoms, guaranteed to all eligible U.S. citizens regardless of their race, gender, religion, income level or social status, and policymakers must be especially careful when tinkering with this fundamental right," Henry said in his veto message.

"The action just confirms the fact that their proposal wasn't strong enough to attract enough votes to override the governor's veto," said Paul Sund, a Henry spokesman. "They're (the legislature) obviously gambling they can convince Oklahoma voters to trust the Legislature more than the League of Women Voters." The Oklahoma League of Women Voters had encouraged Henry to veto the bill.

The measure would have disenfranchised thousands of voters, created long lines and burdened precinct officials, said Gloria Caldwell, a spokeswoman for the League of Women Voters of Oklahoma. Caldwell said there was no evidence there was widespread voter fraud in Oklahoma. It will be interesting to see how Caldwell responds to The World article and the findings of dead people voting in Oklahoma.

Just who is the League of Women Voters and why would they be against voter ID? The group was established over eighty years, shortly after women’s suffrage. Their public image is one of little old ladies who sole goal is better citizenship and greater participation in the electoral process by women, but that’s far from the truth.

In the past thirty years, the League of Women Voters has become an activist organization for the Democrat party. No longer just involved in voter education and non-partisan efforts, the League’s website reveals political goals well beyond that of female voter recruitment. Its comprehensive policy manifesto includes positions supporting abortion, campaign finance restrictions, gun control, reduced defense spending, and prohibition of oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Taken point by point, it bears remarkable similarity to the Democratic Party platform of 2000.

The League used to sponsor the Presidential debates, but after 1988, they only work with the Democrats in their Presidential primary. The League is no place for conservatives and no friend to Republicans.
Democrats and the League throw around the word “disenfranchise” today, but not everyone knows what it means. According to Webster, it means to deprive someone of the right to vote. I know of no Republican who wants to disenfranchise voters. Political activists want more participation in the process. We just want the process to be fair and honest. This bill would just insure that when ninety five year old John Smith votes, it’s actually John Smith voting. The bill would require that John have a valid ID to vote. Sounds reasonable, logical and sensible, because if John Smith went down to the bank to cash a check, they would ask for identification to insure he was John Smith. This disenfranchising talk is insulting and demeaning to voters. How could anyone living in the 21st century survive without a valid ID?

House Speaker Chris Benge, R-Tulsa, said, " I am confident the people of Oklahoma will support this common-sense reform and I am glad they will have the opportunity to vote on it." Senate President Pro Tem Glenn Coffee, R-Oklahoma City, said he anticipates widespread support for the measure when it goes to a vote of the people.

Ten votes out of the thousands cast in an election is not a huge percentage, however one vote fraudently cast in an election is one too many. The person who voted for the dead person should be found and prosecuted- Republican or Democrat. The liberals who oppose this bill will attempt to trivialize the World’s findings. But when someone commits fraud by voting in place of a dead person in an election, they are stealing from you and me. That is unacceptable and a practice that must be stopped in Oklahoma. It's time we pulled our heads out of the sand and faced facts- voter fraud is happening in Oklahoma!