USA Reformation will be God Initiated!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

POLITICS OR PIETY?

by Steve Fair

     In 1953, future U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) was serving in the U.S. Senate from Texas.  LBJ faced criticism from conservative tax-exempt organizations in his home state of Texas- two of which were Facts Forum and the Committee for Constitutional Government.  They pointed out LBJ’s liberal views to Texas voters in his 1948 campaign for Senate, and Johnson vowed to shut them down.  LBJ believed their accusations of his liberalism would harm his political standing in the conservative Lone Star state.  He sought to neutralize their influence on legislation and political campaigns by stopping donations to those 501(c)3 groups by removing their tax-exempt status.  The ‘Johnson Amendment’ banned any tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from political activism and endorsing of candidates.  Long time critics of the amendment say it is selectively enforced.  According to the Free Speech Center, religious organizations are the target of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) more often than secular groups. 

     Historically, the IRS has rarely enforced the Johnson Amendment against churches. The only known instance of a church losing its tax-exempt status over the amendment involved newspaper ads being run on behalf of a candidate.  But that will likely be changing. 

     Last week, the IRS entered a consent decree stating the ‘Johnson amendment’ does not prevent a "house of worship" from speaking to its congregation, through customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith.  The action came after two Texas churches sued the IRS, asserting the ‘Johnson Amendment’ violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and exercise of religion.  Three observations:

     First, the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional, but remains the law of the land.  In regard to the Johnson Amendment, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has ruled in the past tax benefits given to 501(c)3 nonprofits are a “form of subsidy administered through the tax system.”  Two federal Courts of Appeals have ruled the Johnson Amendment constitutional, but until the U.S. Supreme Court formally rules on the Johnson Amendment as how it applies to religious organizations, this is not over.  The IRS compromise reached this week may stop enforcement, but it doesn’t remove the Johnson Amendment from the statutes.

     Second, this deal will change campaign finance.  If donors can contribute to a church or any other 501 (c)3 group, receive an IRS approved tax deduction, and the donation be funneled to a candidate, ‘following the money’ becomes next to impossible.  Will churches and candidates be required to report campaign contributions from 501(c)3s like secular organizations have to?  Will the 501(c)3s need to disclose the giver?  If not, then this new position by the IRS could dramatically increase the number of ‘dark money’ groups involved in the political arena.  "Dark money" in politics refers to political spending by organizations that do not disclose their donors. This lack of transparency allows special interests to influence elections without public accountability. 

     Third, the policy could change the mission of churches.  Preaching repentance and faith may be put aside for proclaiming liberty and freedom-the doxology replaced with God Bless the USA.  Sermons may be on patriotism instead of peacemaking.  Fundraisers will replace fellowships.  Worship will focus on reforming the USA through activism.  Studying the Constitution instead of the Sermon on the Mount. 

     The mission of the Lord’s church is to preach the Gospel.  Jesus gave the Great Commission to His church in Matthew 28:19.   A church who veers or deviates from that commission- no matter their motive- is in danger of losing their candlestick.  Does a church have a right to get political?  Sure, but any church who puts politics over piety have lost their way.   They have sacrificed reverence for relevance.  America’s reformation will be God initiated, done in His timing and by His methods. 

Republicans proved they can do more than win elections!

Weekly Opinion Editorial 

REPUBLICANS CAN GOVERN!

by Steve Fair

     On Friday July 4^th, President Donald Trump signed into law H.R. #1 aka The Big Beautiful Bill.  Introduced on May 16^th, the legislation was passed by the House on May 22^nd, the Senate on July 1^st and the House again on July 3^rd- record time for a piece of federal legislation of this magnitude.   The bill is a budget reconciliation bill encompassing several areas, including tax policy, border security, immigration, defense, energy production, the debt limit and changes to SNAP and Medicaid.  It passed primarily along Party lines in both chambers, with Vice President J.D. Vance required to break the tie in the Senate to get it across the finish line.

     Critics of HR1 say it cuts two major social safety net programs and impose work requirements that will cost millions of poor Americans their benefits.  They claim the ripple effects will be felt across the country and not just by the poor.  Three observations:

     First,  Republicans collaborated.  For the first time in decades, Republican elected officials governed.  In years past, when the GOP had a majority in Congress and the presidency, they couldn’t agree on what sandwich to order for lunch, much less major legislation.   For the most part, the Republican caucus was cohesive and united.  Only five House members voted no on HR1 in May and just two- Massie of Kentucky and Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania- voted no last week.  Three Senators- Paul of Kentucky, Collins of Maine and Tillis of North Carolina- opposed it in the Senate.  As expected, every Democrat in Congress voted no. 

     Second, Trump campaigned on HR1.  Many of the tenets in the sweeping legislation are consistent with what he hawked on the campaign trail.  This not a ‘bait and switch’ bill- no matter what the Ds and mainstream media claim.  Trump told voters he would close the border, make tax cuts permanent, reform entitlement programs, and build the military.  HR1 does that.  The problem a lot of Republicans have with HR1 is it costs a ton of money.  Trump maintains the economic growth from HR1 will offset the spending.  That remains to be seen.  Trump campaigns as a fiscal conservative, but his walk hasn’t matched his talk when it comes to spending.

     Third, HR1 will affect mid-term elections.  It’s too early to tell if the ‘big beautiful bill,’ will be delightful or disagreeable to 2026 voters, but it will not be neutral.  If HR1 produces the results Trump says it will, Republicans will gain seats and the GOP will retain a united government.  If HR1 is a bust, Republicans will lose seats and the last two years of Trump’s term will be gridlock.

     The misinformation, caricaturing, and spinning on HR1, by both sides, has made it next to impossible to know what the sweeping legislation will actually do.  Democrats claim it will destroy America- Republicans assert it will save the Republic.  Time will divulge the ramifications of HR1.  But one thing for certain- for the first time in decades, Republicans proved they can do more than just win elections- they can govern. 

 

Congress should dominant, not be dormant!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

DOMINANT OR DORMANT?

by Steve Fair

     The United States federal court system consists of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), 13 circuits of appellate courts and 94 federal district courts.  Congress has authorized 679 federal district judges.  As of January 2, 2025, of the 679 district court judges, 384 were appointed by Democratic presidents compared to 257 by Republican ones.

     U.S. federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, according to Article III of the U.S. Constitution.   They serve for life or so long as they ‘maintain good behavior,’ as the Constitution prescribes.  The lifetime appointment was put into the founding document to supposedly ensure judicial independence.

     On Friday in Trump vs. CASA, the SCOTUS decided in a 6-3 decision that universal injunctions issued by the federal courts should be limited.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett said: "Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”  

     The SCOTUS did grant a partial stay of injunctions blocking Executive Order 14160 (Birthright citizenship).  The majority opinion didn’t rule on whether the EO violated the 14^th amendment or the so-called Nationality Act.    Three observations:

     First, the SCOTUS ruling expands the power of the executive branch.  Recent presidents- in both Parties- have used Executive Orders (EO) to govern, circumventing a dysfunctional Congress. [S1]   The response by opponents of the EO has been to venue shop and find a sympatric district judge to issue a universal (nationwide) injunction stopping enforcement of the EO. The federal judiciary used injunctions to legislate from the bench.  The predictability of which district judge would issue a decree stopping an EO wasn’t difficult.  Conservative judges stopped Biden EOs- liberal ones- Trumps.  This ruling means district judges are restricted on the reach of their injunctions, but it is unclear just how restricted.

     Second, the judiciary is not independent.  That was the intent of the founders when they implemented lifetime appointments, but that has never been the case.  Every person has a political viewpoint, a worldview, a value system and their decisions are filtered through their life experiences.  Biases are a natural part of human cognition, influenced by experiences and environment.  The key to be conscious of those biases.  In the 21^st century, the judiciary has abandoned the stated purpose of the founders.  Instead of interpreting laws, they block them by issuing injunctions, preventing enforcement.     

     Third, the three branches of government need to stay in their lane.  The executive branch’s job is to enforce the laws.  The judiciary is to interpret laws.  It’s the legislative branch’s job to make the laws.  Remember Schoolhouse Rock? 

     In the past twenty years, presidents have used EOs to make temporary laws.  Federal judges have used injunctions to stop EOs. Both are outside their lane. Congress has been malfunctioning and ineffective.  Grandstanding, self-promotion, and posturing by members of Congress has become more important than getting out of the pits and getting into the race.

     Congress has the constitutional authority to control federal lower courts issuing of national injunctions.  Legislation should have been passed in Congress curtailing the abuse, but instead the SCOTUS had to intervene.

     Americans should be very concerned two of the three branches of government are performing tasks the Constitution doesn’t give them explicit authority to perform.  The founders envisioned Congress (legislative branch) as the most dominant of the three branches, but it has become largely dormant.

WAR MAY BE CLOSER TO HOME THAN IN THE PAST!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

BEWARE OF TAQIYYA

by Steve Fair

     Early Sunday morning, the United States bombed three nuclear sites in Iran (Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz).  Using American stealth bombers and 30,000 lb. bunker-busting bombs President Donald Trump was quoted as saying Iran’s key nuclear facilities were ‘completely and fully obliterated.’  Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, warned the U.S. attacks “will have everlasting consequences” and Tehran “reserves all options” to retaliate.  The U.S. bombings come after eight days of attacks and counterattacks between Israel and Iran.  Israel struck first, bombing the Natanz uranium enrichment plant, resulting in the killing of several Iranian nuclear scientists.  Iran, who claims their nuclear development is peaceful, have been lobbing missiles into Israel in response.

     Israelian Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the attack was necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and threatening Israel’s survival.   U.S. Congressional members are sharply divided along Party lines- Republicans support Trump’s action and Democrats condemn it.    Three observations:

     First, Iran can’t be trusted.  They have been caught violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.  International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports have shown Iran failed to cooperate with neutral inspectors and to answer questions regarding their nuclear development. 

     The Supreme Leader of Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a Muslim cleric, who has ruled Iran for 36 years.  Khamenei has said there will be severe consequences for any military actions taken against Iran.  Iran leadership has committed itself to bringing ‘death to America,’ and wiping Israel off the map. Iran can’t be trusted.

      Second, the Biden administration mishandled Iran.  In 2023, President Biden released six billion in Iranian assets in a deal to get five detained Americans released.  Hamas, funded by Iran, launched a horrific attack on Gaza October 7^th using those American tax dollars to attack Israel.  

     In an effort to get Iran to the negotiating table, Biden relaxed economic sanctions placed on Iran during President Trump’s first term.  Biden’s weak and feeble foreign policy is how Iran revived their nuclear development program.

     Third, this conflict is not likely connected to end times.  In the eternal decree of God, everything’s connected, but it’s far from crystal clear this war is the beginning of the end of the world.  It could be, but only God knows that.    Believers should be focused on spreading the truth of the Gospel instead of trying to explain current events in light of scripture.  An unhealthy obsession with eschatology shouldn’t be the heart of a Christian- it should be reflecting the good news of redemption to a lost and dying world.  Christian believers should be praying for our leaders and military personnel and for peace.

     The White House is reportedly investigating sleeper cells in the United States.  Sleeper cells are spies or terrorists who remain inactive within a country until they are ordered to act.  With the recent bombing in Iran, it is feared some of those sleeper cells may be activated in the U.S.  The open border policy during the Biden administration allowed a record number of undocumented illegals into the country.  That unrestrained program played into the covert/clandestine sleeper cell strategy.  Americans should recognize Islam allows precautionary dissimulation. 

     Taqiyya is a concept in Islam, primarily associated with Shia Islam, that allows a person to conceal or deny their faith in the face of persecution or threat. It is a form of dissimulation, where one outwardly conforms to the beliefs or practices of another group while maintaining their true faith inwardly. The practice is considered a valid form of self-preservation.  Not all Muslims practice taqiyya, but it’s a sure bet the sleeper cells do.  Every American should be hypervigilant, on guard, and watchful.  This war may not be fought exclusively over there this time.

EOs bear a resemblance to monarchy!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

MIMIC MONARCHY!

by Steve Fair

     On Saturday protesters across the United States took to the streets to demonstrate against Trump administration policy.  Dubbed the ‘No Kings’ protest, over 2,000 cities across the country had people waving signs showing their displeasure with ‘authoritarian overreach and billionaire influence in the U.S. government.’   The No Kings movement claims to be concerned about the erosion of democratic values and believe the power should reside with the people and not a singular authority.  Most Americans would agree with that.  No Kings claim America has become an oligarchy (government controlled by a small group) or a plutocracy (government controlled by the wealthy).

     Estimates of the total number of No Kings protesters ranged from 500,000 to 5,000,000 nationwide.  There were a couple of cities where acts of violence broke out, but overall, the protests were peaceful.  Three observations:

     First, America is not a pure democracy.   It never has been.  In a pure democracy, citizens directly participate in making laws and other decisions.  For example, in ancient Athens, citizens gathered to vote on policies directly.  That is impractical for large populations and susceptible to a tyranny of the majority- mob rule.  America is a democratic republic-a constitutional republic.  Citizens vote for representatives to govern them (make and enforce laws), according to the Constitution.  America is ruled by those that show up at the polls.        

     Second, the use of executive orders (EO) is excessive.  Using EOs to govern does bear a striking resemblance to a monarchy.  Presidents are using EOs more because of a lack of collaboration/cooperation within the legislative branch.  If they don’t use them, America is governed by bureaucrats within federal agencies. 

    EOs are directives issued by the president to manage the operation of the federal government.  Because an EO offers a quicker and more certain path to implementation, presidents often have chosen to circumvent Congress rather than wrangle with stubborn lawmakers.  EOs use rises during periods of political polarization and gridlock.  The ‘No Kings’ movement has been critical of Trump’s use of EOs, but were eerily silent when Biden used the same tool while in the Oval Office.  Overuse of EOs is bi-partisan, but don’t expect it to change overnight.  The polarization of America is reflected in their elected officials and Congress can’t agree on what direction the sun comes up.

     Third, consolidation of political power is real.  Because less and less Americans pay attention to their government (at all levels), special interests- on both ends of the political spectrum- get their lackey/ flunky elected and dictate how they will act/vote.  Constituents they represent are ignored and only campaign donors are heeded.   Special interests then fire up the public with clever marketing and exaggerated caricatured claims to make sure the subservient puppet elected official stays in office.  Like a firebrand evangelist, they preach hell hot for those who disagree with their political philosophy.  Citizens who dare to not engage in political ‘group think,’ are routinely branded unpatriotic, establishment, irrelevant and ignorant by friends and family.  Partisans condemn everything their political enemy does and affirm everything their standard-bearer espouses and practice blind loyalty. 

     Until there is a decentralization of political thought and more critical thinking by the average voter, expect more the same polarizing environment, resulting in more EOs and a mimic monarchy.

     America has never been a democracy, so no one day stunt will ‘restore democracy.’   But all Americans should be concerned about the consolidation of power in the country.  They should recognize continuing down this uncivil path of destruction threatens our way of life.  In America, a person should be able to disagree with the mob without being burned at the stake. 

Newscum is dashing his hopes to occupy the White House!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL

by Steve Fair

     On Saturday, President Donald Trump signed an executive memorandum deploying 2,000 National Guard troops in California in response to protests in Los Angeles over the enforcement of illegal immigration. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the action is being done to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles. Hegseth said if violence continued, active-duty Marines stationed at Camp Pendleton could also be mobilized.

The protests came after federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers raided multiple workplaces in L.A.’s fashion district and detained hundreds of illegal immigrates (those who enter and usually become established).

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, claims Trump’s action was a move to, “take over” the California National Guard (Trump’s right as Commander-in Chief). Newsom says deploying the National Guard is “purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.” Trump has threatened to cut federal funding to the Golden State for ignoring enforcement of his executive orders regarding illegal immigrates.  Newsom has said he would retaliate by withholding federal tax collected in the state.  “California pays the bills for the federal government,” Newsom said. 

      California is a donor state in regard to taxation. They pay over $80 billion more each year than they receive from the feds. It remains unclear if Trump and Newsom can legally withhold funding from the other. No one wins in a stalemate and it remains to be seen who will blink first.

Three observations:
First, the immigration issue is about votes. The Democratic Party has openly advocated for allowing illegal immigrates to be granted the right to vote. States with high levels of illegals affect the census, congressional apportionment and electoral college votes. If political power is shifted to states with high levels of illegal immigrates, America becomes bluer. That’s why Biden kept borders open. It is why Newsom encourages protests: it helps the Democratic Party cause.

Second, the immigration issue is about security. During Biden’s administration, the U.S. endured a large-scale invasion. Millions of illegal aliens from nations and regions around the world entered the U.S. Who knows how many potential terrorists, foreign spies, cartel members or other criminals are living here? A country with no border is not a country at all. Trump has closed the border and deporting illegal immigrants should be a nonpartisan issue, but it remains one of the most divisive debates of the day.

Third, the immigration issue is about the rule of law. The United States has clear immigration laws regarding how a person enters, stays and potentially becomes an American citizen. The inconsistency and unpredictability in enforcement by various administrations has been the challenge. Immigration enforcement should be applied fairly and consistently; it should not be ambiguous, inconclusive or obscure. The executive branch is charged with enforcing the law, not just the ones they like.

Americans want border security. A recent Gallup poll found more than 55% of Americans believe immigration law enforcement should be a priority for the federal government. Those same citizens support building more border walls and an increase in Border Patrol agents. Politically, illegal immigration is an issue that cuts across party affiliation. A majority of Democrats want a secure border. Most Americans support legal immigration, but not illegal immigration.

Newsom is considered a potential 2028 Democrat nominee for president. If he continues his mishandling of this situation, he will authenticate Trump’s nickname for him—Newscum—and dash his hopes to occupy the White House. After all, illegal is illegal.

    

LEGISLATURE HAS SHORTAGE OF INDEPENDENT CRITICAL THINKERS!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

BROUGHT AND PAID FOR

by Steve Fair

     The Oklahoma legislature went sine die (adjourned with no appointed date for readjournment) on Friday.  It was a session marked by new legislative leadership in both chambers.  After several sessions of contention between the state House and Senate, it appears collaboration improved between the two chambers.  Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, (R-Tuttle) and House Speaker of the House Kyle Hilbert, (R-Bristow) appeared to sing off the same sheet of music, but Governor Kevin Stitt isn’t on the same sheet.  Stitt set a record for the number of vetoes in a session- 68.  That is twice more than the previous session. 

     Oklahoma lawmakers overrode 47 of the 68 vetoes- a state record.  Two more vetoes were overridden by the Senate, but were not voted on in the House. One veto was approved by the House but not voted on by the Senate before adjournment. 

     Legislators also took time out of overruling to pass a resolution formally removing Allie Friesen as head of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health.  Friesen has been embattled since a state audit showed a $28 million dollar budget shortfall and struggled to make payroll.  Three observations about the 2025 session:

     First, special interests control the Oklahoma legislature.  Legislative candidates are   recruited, funded and equipped by trade associations, state agencies, and special interest groups.  Bear in mind- the listed groups represent people and have a right to lobby.  But also remember, a legislator’s allegiance/loyalty is primarily to those who got them into office.  Once elected, elected officials tend to kowtow to those they came to the dance with. 

     The number of independent, critical thinking lawmakers has dwindled to a handful.  Group think and conformity now guide state lawmaker votes.  They punch the button, not based on convictions and values, but on fraternity.  The predictability of how a lawmaker will vote is based on their crew/clique/pack/circle/caucus and any individualistic thought is not tolerated.  Rarely do any wander off the reservation and vote independently. Citizens should make it their mission to find out who funded their elected official’s campaigns.  Those are who they listen to- not to the people in their district. 

     Second, Stitt should have fired Friesen.  Instead of the legislature spending time with the issue, the governor should have done his job and sent her packing.  After the audit was released, it was clear Friesen was in over her head.  The governor called the removal a ‘politically motivated witch hunt,’ and that he had tasked Commissioner Friesen with bringing accountability and transparency to the agency.  Stitt claims the mismanagement of the Oklahoma Mental Health Agency goes back more than a decade.  The truth is Stitt has been in office 6 of those 10 years, which means much of the dereliction has happened on his watch. 

     Third, Oklahomans are confused about their state government.  Who can blame them?  Republicans hold super majorities in both chambers and the governor is a Republican.  Yet the legislature and the governor fight like cats and dogs, debating who is the most conservative? 

     Positioning, posturing, self-promoting braggarts on both ends of the political spectrum play to their base, while average Oklahomans have no voice because they don’t have a lobbyist at the Capitol.  The average citizen doesn’t know what to believe.  Special interest groups ‘spin’ the message, demonize opponents and demand loyalty from their blind kiwis.  They shout down free speech, quote scripture and sing O How I Love Jesus, while showing no respect for an opposing opinion.  It is no wonder Oklahoma has a deplorable voter turnout record.  The average Oklahoma voter is disgusted with that garbage and too busy working to care about their state government anymore. 

      Some of Stitt’s vetoes were political and should have been overridden.  Others that were overturned were bills special interests wanted.  After all, they paid a lot of money to get it done.  Voters should find out who their legislator and governor work for because it’s likely it ain’t for them. 

THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS - HR1 REQUIRES SCRUTINY!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

BEAUTY OR BEAST?

by Steve Fair

     President Trump’s ‘one big beautiful bill’ (HR1) passed the Republican controlled U.S. House last week by one vote (215-214), with five Republican House members voting no (2), present (1) or not voting at all (2).  It now heads to the Senate, where it faces some opposition.  The text of HR1 is available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text for those interested in the details.

     HR1 makes permanent the 2017 Trump tax cuts.  It cuts taxes by an additional $1,300 for a family of four and removes the tax on tips and overtime pay.  HR1 allows an American family to fully deduct auto loan interest for American-made cars. It also increases the standard deduction by $2,000 for every American family.  It increases the Child Care tax deduction.

     But the 1,116-page bill does not remove tax on Social Security, as has been wrongly reported.  Social Security can’t be changed through a budget reconciliation process.  HR1 does contain a provision where people over age 65 could deduct an additional $4,000 from their taxes if they make less than $75,000 or $150,000 filing jointly.  Three observations about HR1:

      First, HR1 will get changed in the Senate.  Senator Ron Johnson, (R-WI) and other Republicans, have criticized the spending in the bill.  Johnson wants deeper cuts, calling for government agencies to go back to pre-COVID spending levels.  “This is the weekend we honor the service and sacrifice of the finest among us.  I don’t they served in sacrifice to leave our children completely mortgaged,” Johnson said on CNN Sunday.  Johnson, a fiscal hawk, exhorted his fellow senators to be ‘responsible’ and reminded them the first goal of a budget reconciliation process should be to reduce the deficit. 

     HR1 does cut Medicaid (not Medicare) funding by up to $1 trillion and requires more stringent provider screening requirements.  A significant amount of taxpayer dollars are spent providing medical care for illegal immigrants and HR1 seeks to stop that expenditure.

     The Congression Budget Office (CBO) estimates HR1 will increase the budget deficit by $3.8 trillion next year.  Speaker Mike Johnson, (R-LA) says those estimates are inflated and the CBO did not factor in the economic growth HR1 will create.  One thing is certain- HR1 likely faces modification before it gets through the Senate.

     Second, HR1’s success hinges on U.S. economic growth. The House Ways and Means committee estimates HR1 will increase America’s GDP an average of $850 billion annually over the next decade.  One reason for the projected growth is the extension of key Trump economic tax policies for small businesses the Biden administration had rescinded.  Reduction of regulations on energy productivity is expected to lower energy costs and increase consumption.  Whether the tenets of HR1 will result in the projected growth the Trump administration expects remains to be seen.

     Third, the devil is in the details.  Simple things can often become complicated and problematic.   Overlooked details can be the source of failure.  In a bill with over 1,100 pages, specifics are crucial for success.  Unintended consequences are the axiom/motto of Congress.  While HR1 has some excellent provisions, it’s the undetected fishhooks that snag taxpayers. 

     HR1 includes measures consistent with ‘supply-side economics,’ aka Reaganomics.  With tax cuts, incentives encouraging work and investment and focus on supply, HR1 is similar to the approach President Reagan took to combat record inflation in the early 1980s.  It worked, despite critics who said it helped the wealthy in the U.S. the most.  If HR1 doesn’t work, the beautiful bill will be the beast.

AVOID PANDERING, OUTRAGED, CO-OPING, & SELF-VICTIMIZATING CANDIDATES!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

UNEMOTIONAL!

by Steve Fair

     Politicians use a variety of tactics to reach voters.  Using time honored marketing strategy, candidates target their audience, work to create a demand for their message and hone delivery of the same.  Modern technology has provided more personal information on voters.  Using micro-marketing, candidates now focus on a specific narrow group of voters and tailor their message to the needs and preferences of this small, defined audience.  The goal is to develop a loyal following among voters who vote and ignore those that don’t.  The 2026 statewide campaigns have started.  Listed below are four tools candidates commonly use to sway voters:

     Pandering.  Pandering is when a candidate will do or say what voters want to hear.  Panderers are disingenuous and insincere.  They lack straightforwardness and openness and are often hiding an agenda or motive.  Panderers avoid confrontation.  They are agreeable and likeable, but often lack the courage to stand alone.  There are honest panderers, but most are not.

     Outrage.  Politicos often show an extremely strong reaction of anger, shock or indignation over an issue to ‘fire up’ their base.  They cloak their clumsiness and incompetence in outrage.  They use passion and pain to further their cause.  Voters are distracted from elected official’s voting records and policy positions by indignation.  They actually may be a victim, but often they are only positioning.

     Co-opting.  Politicians often do ‘shout outs’ to influential people in their audience, in the hope the person recognized will provide them with credibility.  That is a form of co-opting.  Endorsements are also a form of co-opting.  Co-opting is not dishonest, but it a form of leeching.  They cling to someone for personal gain. 

     Self-victimization.  Politicos often play the victim.  They manipulate voters by claiming they are a target or victim of nefarious acts or abuse.  Self-victims tend to exaggerate or fabricate their own victimhood.  It is an effective tactic.  People love the underdog.  They come to the defense of the persecuted.   

      Informed voters must recognize politicians are ‘selling’ a message during a campaign.  It may or may not be a quality message or one the voter wants.  It’s the voter’s job to cut through the rhetoric.    Discerning the difference between hyperbole and truth can be challenging for voters.   Truth is often boring and lacks the pizzazz, excitement, and passion of a well-crafted hype campaign.  But it’s the truth and the truth will set you free. 

     Here are some suggestions for voters as they vet candidates in the coming year:  (1) Don’t rely on a single source for information.  Seek out reputable outlets to get information.  (2) Be wary of social media.  Verify claims before accepting them as true.  (3) Research candidate’s positions and voting records.  (4) Be aware you have your own biases.  Everyone is bias.  Our values and background influence how information is interpreted.  (5) Understand the issues.  Don’t let elected officials or candidates define the narrative.  (6) Recognize it is a marathon, not a sprint.  The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.  People who make a difference stay hooked up.

     As campaigns start earlier and well heeled (rich) candidates craft pandering, co-opting messages, discerning the best choice becomes harder for voters- but not impossible.  It requires a sober, introspective, thoughtful approach that removes the emotion from decision making.       

Traditional prison reform hasn't yielded lasting positive change!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

Transformation, not Reformation!

by Steve Fair

     On May 7^th, thirty men graduated from Oklahoma Baptist University (OBU) with Bachelor of Arts degrees in Christian Studies.  It was a historic moment because these 30 men are incarcerated at Lexington Correctional Center.  They are serving time.  They have labored for four years to earn a degree and according to one graduate the Lexington facility is already a more peaceful, safe place than it was before because of the influence of the thirty.  The graduates were commissioned as field ministers and will serve in correctional facilities across the state to provide mentorship, pastoral care and guidance to their fellow inmates.  They are still inmates and will continue to serve time, but they will be given an opportunity to make a difference in the life of other inmates. 

     This program started back in 2020 when Oklahoma Southern Baptists, in cooperation with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC), launched the OBU Prison Divinity Program (PDP) to provide incarcerated men with an accredited Christian liberal arts education.  Students’ complete coursework in theology, biblical studies, ethics, and pastoral ministry, culminating with a practical internship under the supervision of prison chaplains. 

     Applicants have to be high school graduates, have at least twelve years left on their sentence, be a security level 3 or 4, and not have any misconducts in the past six months.  Participants in PDP don’t receive special consideration for early release or parole.  Three observations:

     First, PDP could transform Oklahoma.  The state’s violent crime rate is 10% higher than the national average and the property crime rate is 19% higher.  Oklahoma ranks #15 in the U.S. for violent crime.  Oklahoma recidivism (return to incarceration) rate is around 1 in 4. 

     PDP is targeted toward violent offenders- only security levels 3 & 4 can apply.  In the ODOC system, security levels 3 &4 are considered maximum security.  The thirty field minister graduates will be working with men in prison whose hearts need transformation.  Instead of attempting behavior modification, they will be pointing their fellow inmates to an eternal transformation, not moral reformation. 

     Second, PDP is good public policy.  Kudos to Governor Stitt and ODOC Director Steven Harpe for their willingness to establish the program.  The U.S. Department of Justice partners with faith-based agencies for reentry into society.  Several states have established partnerships with faith-based organizations to address criminal behavior, most focusing on reentry programs, but PDP is groundbreaking.  It addresses the most violent in prison.  It reaches out to those deemed unreachable.   It communicates they still have worth and value- even while serving time.

     Traditional approaches to prison reform have not yielded significant, lasting positive change.  Recidivism hasn’t been reduced.  PDP seeks to change the person’s heart, not just their behavior.

     Third, PDP is privately funded.  No tax dollars are used.  There is no cost to the student.  Oklahoma Baptists, through the Cooperative Program and State Mission Offerings have paid the bill. 

    PDP is modeled after a faith-based ministry and rehabilitation program implemented at Louisiana State Penitentiary.  Once called ‘the bloodiest prison in America,” Warden Burl Cain established a branch of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary that changed the environment in the prison.    

     Time will tell as to whether God will regenerate and transform hearts through the efforts of the first graduates of PDP.  What is certain is those thirty men have been changed by the grace of God.  

Well-intentioned mandated FEEL GOOD programs are bankrupting America!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

FEEL GOOD PROGRAMS!

by Steve Fair

     On Wednesday, Oklahoma Congresswoman Stephanie Bice (R-OK), and Pennsylvania Congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan, (D-PA), introduced the More Paid Leave for More Americans Act.(MPLMAA) The legislation attempts to chart a path toward a national paid leave policy in the U.S. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the U.S. is one of just six countries in the world without a national paid parental leave policy.  If it passes both chambers and is signed by President Trump, it would establish a competitive grant program run by the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL).  It would create a modest ‘incentive’ for states to establish their own paid family leave program. 

     “We’ve had conversations with leadership, but more importantly, we’ve had conversations with committees and with the White House. We have really done our due diligence to make sure everybody knows the importance of this,” Rep. Bice said.  Bice and Houlahan are confident they can get the bill through Congress and signed into law.  Three observations:

     First, who pays the bill for MPLMAA?  Obviously, the federal grant portion will be paid by taxpayers.  The private portion will be paid by the end user consumer of the good or service provided by the business.  Business must ‘pass on’ any costs to stay in business.  They aren’t sponges- they can’t absorb increased costs.  When government mandates taxpayer empathy and charity to fellow citizens, it always requires money.  To fund sensitivity programs, government has to take from the needy and give to the greedy.    

     Second, MPLMAA has unintended consequences.  Here are two: first, small businesses will reduce the number of full-time workers so they do not have to provide the benefit.  Business has to adapt to survive and avoiding government overreach is a viable solution.  The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted in 1990, provides an illustration of ignoring unintended consequences. The effect of ADA was the reverse of the intent- which was to protect the disabled in the workplace. Within five years of ADA's passage, employment for disabled men fell to 49 percent, compared with 60 percent before the law was enacted. Employers, faced with the cost of accommodation and the threat of litigation, chose the rational option: they cut back on hiring the disabled. When the cost of hiring a worker rises, demand for that worker falls. Second, MPLMAA will affect employee morale and productivity.  When employees go on paid leave and their position must be held open, those left at work have to take up the slack, usually with no extra compensation.  When multiple employees simultaneously take leave or take unannounced vacations, it disrupts a business operation.   

     Third, MPLMAA is socialism.  It takes away individual incentive and gives government more authority in a family’s life.  Instead of mandating paid family leave, the feds should look for ways to reduce regulations on employers so they can experiment with alternative work arrangements.  Congress should change the tax code to reflect the social importance of family.  Implementing feel-good schemes, like MPLMAA, which are meant to protect the vulnerable is not conservative policy.  Well-intentioned, misguided government mandated safety nets are bankrupting America. 

TAXPAYERS PAYING FOR FREE LUNCH!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

FREE LUNCH

by Steve Fair

     Back in 2020, Oklahoma voters narrowly approved Medicaid expansion.  The expansion provided health care to around 200,000 previously uninsured low-income adults aged 19-64 whose income was less than $17,000 a year individually or up to $29,000 for a family of three. Back then, the federal government was paying 90% of the cost, while the state paid 10%.  Supporters of the expansion said Oklahomans would be fools to turn down ‘free’ money.  But as is often the case, the ‘free’ money the federal government was supplying to expand Medicaid is being cut.  That cut will put a great deal of pressure on Oklahoma state government.  Three observations:

     First Medicaid expansion was a short-term solution to a long-term problem.  More than 900,000 Oklahomans- 1 in 4- depend on Medicaid.  Oklahoma is among one of the unhealthiest states in the U.S.  It is also one of the poorest. Back in 2020, rural health care providers (hospitals) needed the Medicaid expansion money to help their bleeding bottom line.  The providers and recipients were willing to take the bait offered by the feds for ‘free’ money, even if they recognized it was temporary.    

     According to the Legislative Office of Fiscal Accountability (LOFT), if the feds stop funding Medicaid expansion, it will cost state taxpayers over $200 million annually starting next fiscal year.  That $200 million has to come from somewhere, so basic services (public safety, etc.) will likely be impacted. 

     Second, government should not be in the health care business.  Government’s function, according to Article 1, section 8 is to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the country.  Liberals interpret “general welfare” as the founders endorsing socialized, taxpayer funded health care.   While it is true, "general welfare" has been interpreted to include health care programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, the Supreme Court has never interpreted it as the U.S. Constitution explicitly guaranteeing right to health care.  Like pretty much everything else it touches, government involvement in health care has led to degradation and decay, not discovery and development.

     Third, free money doesn’t exist.  Somebody is always paying the bill.    Like everything else, taxpayers pay the cost of Medicaid expansion.  Government has no ‘free’ money to give.  The only money government has is what is collected from hard working citizens and then returned less a large handling fee. 

     Years ago, bars provided a ‘free’ lunch to patrons who purchased at least one drink.  The ‘free’ food was unusually high in salt, so the customers would buy more beer.  In his book, “There’s no such thing as a Free Lunch,” economist Milton Friedman points out the patrons were not really getting a free lunch, but were being duped by the bar.  The purchasers all eventually paid for their ‘free’ snack. 

     Back in 2020, Oklahoma voters-prompted by elected officials and health care providers- prioritized immediate gains over long-term consequences.  Just slightly over 50% of voters approved the expansion of Medicaid, but now 100% of Oklahoma taxpayers will pay for that non-existent free lunch.

GOP NEEDS TO DEVELOP AND NOT DIVIDE !

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

PURPLE OKLAHOMA?

by Steve Fair

     Thirty years ago (1995), there were 1,823,748 voters registered in Oklahoma.  62% were registered Democrat, 33% were Republican, and 5% were Independent. As of January 2025, the numbers are much different- there are 2,470,437 registered voters in the Sooner state:  52.6% are registered Republican, 26.6% Democrat, 20% Independent, and 1% Libertarian.

     Oklahoma voted Democrat in all but two presidential elections through 1948, but has not gone Democrat since, except in the landslide win for Lyndon Johnson in 1964.   In 2024, Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris by 66% to 32%, the sixth consecutive election the Republican nominee has won by over 30%.  Every county in Oklahoma voted for Donald Trump the last three elections.  All members of the Oklahoma federal delegation (2 Senators/5 Representatives) are Republican.  All statewide elected officials are Republican.  Republicans dominate county offices.  How did the Republicans flip voter registration in Oklahoma?  First, Oklahoma is a conservative state.  As the national Democrat Party became more liberal on social issues, conservative Democrats changed their Party affiliation and joined the Republicans. Over 70% of Oklahomans identify as Protestant, and most of those voters are socially conservative. They support the Republican Party's platform on abortion, same-sex marriage, and gun control.  Second, the oil and gas industry is a major player in the state.  The GOP tends to be more supportive of the energy sector than the Ds.  The Democrat’s war of fossil fuel didn’t set well with the thousands who make their living in that industry.  Third, Oklahoma is a rural state.  Almost two thirds of the state’s population is in rural areas.  Rural voters tend to be more conservative and traditional in their values.   But the GOP shouldn’t take their dominance for granted.  Three observations:

     First, Oklahoma is changing.  The state is gaining population, after years of little growth.  Oklahoma's population grew about 1% last year.  The OKC and Tulsa urban areas show the highest levels of net migration.  Rural Oklahoma population  remains flat and some rural counties have experienced population declines.  Many of the new Okies are from western states and they bring with them their politics and values (not as conservative).  That trend has been reflected in voting in the urban areas in recent elections.  GOP margins have declined and are thinner than in years past in the larger population areas.

     Second, Oklahoma Republicans have underperformed.  From elected Rs not

delivering on campaign promises to GOP Party leaders constant infighting, Republican creditability with the average Oklahoma voter has been shattered.  That’s why 1 in 5 Oklahoma voters are registered Independent, even though the GOP doesn’t let them vote in their primary. A cynical, skeptical, and suspicious public view GOP elected officials and Party leaders as grandstanders and self-promoters.  They detect little to no difference between the Ds and the Rs.  Past strategies to educate voters has been abandoned by the GOP for boasting, bragging and self-glory.  Until the Republican Party resumes making the main thing the main thing, expect the average voter to be lukewarm to the GOP. 

     Third, Oklahoma GOP politics has become nasty.  Name-calling, backbiting, talebearing, gossiping is unrestrained.  Professing Christians proudly proclaim their spiritual superiority and ‘thank God they are not as other men are, even this poor fellow Republican.’  Loving thy neighbor has been cut from Bibles with a penknife, in the name of standing for righteousness.  There is no tolerance for an opposing view.  Instead of civic debate, there is required harmony.  Failure to agree (heresy) results in being burned at the stake.  If the nastiness continues, the Oklahoma GOP will whittle the base down to where they can handle it. 

     Oklahoma is trending purple.  The urban areas will continue to grow at a faster rate than the rural areas, resulting in a more progressive/liberal state.  The GOP better get their act together and start developing instead of dividing before the Ds take over Oklahoma politics.

SQ#836 would change Oklahoma- and not for the better!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

DIVIDES & DILUTES!

by Steve Fair

     For nearly a century, the Democratic Party ruled Oklahoma.  When Republicans took control of the state House in 2004, it was the first time in over 75 years the GOP had a majority in the legislature.  Oklahoma was a one-party state and corruption ruled.  From Supreme Court bribery scandals to payoffs to county commissioners, Sooner tax dollars lined the pockets of crooks. Dishonesty and duplicity have been reduced since the GOP took over state government and while Oklahoma government isn’t perfect, it’s better than it was when the Ds were in control.

     A group called Oklahoma United is planning to run an initiative petition drive to get State Question #836 on the ballot.  They want the Sooner state to move to a top-two primary, where all candidates are listed on the same ballot, regardless of Party affiliation.  The top two would go the general election.  It is possible the top two would be from the same Party.  They have to get 173,000 signatures to get SQ#836 on the ballot.  Three observations:  

     First, it’s about winning elections.  Democrats face an uphill battle in elections.   Republicans now dominate Oklahoma government.  The GOP has super majorities in both chambers.  All statewide offices are held by Republicans.  County officials are overwhelmingly Republican.  Instead of educating the public on the virtues of being a Democrat, the Democratic Party’s response is to get their candidates to register R and run as a Republican.  For voters in Oklahoma, winnowing out the chaff (Republicans in name only) from the wheat (true Republicans) has become difficult.  Party affiliation used to mean something, but now it’s just a brand to win an election.

     Second, a political Party should choose their own nominee.  It shouldn’t be necessary to state the obvious, but Republicans should choose the Republican nominee- Democrats the Democrat- Libertarian the Libertarian. The Baptist don’t let the Methodist vote on who their pastor is going to be.  The Rotarians don’t let the Ambucs vote in their officer election.  Their processes are closed- as they should be.  A closed process doesn’t exclude- it simply prevents outsiders from ‘raiding’ a Party primary and nominating a weaker candidate. 

     Third, Party affiliation is a person’s first vote.  Party affiliation should be a matter of conviction, not convenience.  People often align with a Party so they can vote in primary elections or based on family tradition or geographies. While no political party is perfect or has all the answers, there is a distinct difference between the two major parties and honest citizens should align with the Party that reflects their convictions.  If someone wants to vote in the GOP primary, register Republican.  This isn’t brain surgery. 

     The Oklahoma Republican Party filed a lawsuit last week in an attempt to block SQ#836 from reaching the ballot.  The GOP says it petition violates the U.S. Constitution’s first Amendment associational right’s clause.  It also states SQ#836 is a radical change to how current elections are conducted in the Sooner state and that is not disclosed in the petition.   Whether the state GOP will win in court remains to be seen.

     Oklahomans can do three things to stop SQ#836: (1) Don’t sign the petition. No matter how pretty the young lady is with the clipboard, resist signing.  If the group fails to get the required signatures, SQ#836 will not be on the ballot.  (2) Recognize SQ#836 is not about fairness- it’s about control.  There is nothing ‘fair’ about open primaries.  Open primaries are not more moral/ethical/righteous than a closed primary.  Open primaries actually promote gamesmanship, deception, subterfuge, chicanery and treachery.  (3) Recognize Party affiliation is important.  It’s not about exclusivity- it’s about values.

     Educate your family and friends.  Get the word out- liberals are trying to change Oklahoma- and not for the better.  SQ#836 doesn’t ‘unite’ Oklahoma- it divides and dilutes.