TAKE THE STAGE & SELL THE IDEA TO CHEAT!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

House Resolution #7296 (HR#7296) aka the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act is legislation establishing new federal requirements for voter registration and identification. HR#7296 proposes to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requiring documented proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.  It passed the U.S. House, along Party lines, 218-213, but faces strong Democratic opposition in the Senate.  Republicans currently lack the 60 votes needed in the Senate to invoke cloture, overcome a traditional filibuster, and bring HR#7296 to a floor vote.

Some Republicans have urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune, (R-SD), to force the D's to physically hold the floor to sustain their obstruction- a 'talking filibuster.'   Remember "Mr. Smith goes to Washington?"  Thune and others believe doing that could backfire and delay other legislation.  Three observations:

First, the U.S. Constitution gives joint power of elections to states and the federal government.  By its terms, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, referred to as the Elections Clause, says state legislatures will establish the times, places, and manner of holding elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate, subject to Congress making or altering such state regulations. 

State authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding congressional elections has been described by the Supreme Court as the ability to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards to ensure elections for federal offices are fair and honest and orderly.   Therein lies the problem- some states don't want fair, honest and orderly elections.  All of those states are governed by Democrats. 

Second, Democrats should be forced to physically filibuster.  They have done it before to block important legislation.  In 1964, a group of Democrat Senators blocked the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 60 days. During that debate, Senator Robert Byrd, (D-WV) spoke for 14 hours and 13 minutes.  But that's not the record for one person holding the Senate floor.  In 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond, (D-SC) spoke against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 in an attempt to prevent its passage for 24 hours and 18 minutes. To sustain his speech, he read the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and Washington’s Farewell Address.  If the American people are made aware of the absurdity of letting non-citizens vote in elections, they will rise in mass against the practice.  Let the Ds take the stage.

Third, HR#7296 is just common sense.  Requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote is not unreasonable.  Only cheaters oppose making sure those who vote are Americans.  Requiring voters present a valid government-issued ID to cast a ballot is not obstructive.  Only tricksters oppose confirming a voter is who they say they are. Requiring state election officials to regularly purge their voter rolls is not being difficult.  Only thugs oppose making sure voter rolls are current and correct.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, (D-NY) said HR#7296 would force Americans to register to vote in person- something he claims only about 5% of Americans do today.  He's wrong- it's about 11%, but the truth is voters should be required to register in person. When Schumer was a member of the House back in 1996, he supported voter ID.  He said requiring IDs was just 'common sense.' 

What happened in the last 30 years?  Democrats became dependent on non-citizen votes.  The Ds can't win without cheating, so Schumer flip flopped. 

Let the Democrats take the stage!  GOP Senate leaders should make them physically hold the Senate floor.  Make them sell Americans on their plan to have non-citizens vote to elect our leaders.

     

SQ#832 would hurt the very ones it claims it would help!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial 

by Steve Fair

A group called Raise the Wage Oklahoma (RWO) gathered enough signatures to get State Question #832 (SQ#832) on the June 16th primary election ballot.  If SQ#832 were approved by voters, the measure would increase the minimum wage in Oklahoma to $9 immediately and to $15 by 2029.  The current minimum wage in the Sooner state is the same as the federal rate- $7.25 hourly.  Thirty U.S. states have raised the minimum wage above the federal rate the past three years.   

The United States federal minimum wage, was established by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938, during the Great Depression, at two bits ($.25) an hour.  The objective was to ensure workers got a fair wage that would stimulate economic recovery.  FLSA also instituted a 44-hour work week and protected children from prematurely entering the workforce.  The minimum wage has been increased 22 times since its inception- the last time in 2009.   

Legislation is regularly proposed regarding raising the federal minimum wage- the latest was introduced in 2023. Three observations: 

First, one size does not fit all.  All employees are not the same.  Some are more productive than others.  When employers are mandated/required to pay all workers a minimum wage, it hurts their most productive workers.  When 'slugs' have to paid the same as 'eager beavers,' it's not fair to hard workers, resulting in an unfair division of labor.  Conscientious and dedicated workers have options and when not treated fairly by employers will leave.  Cream rises to the top.      

Second, everyone works for themselves.  Even enter level employees drawing minimum wage are ultimately responsible for their own career development, skills acquisition, and income generation.  Each worker is a solo entrepreneur of their career.  Loyalty in today’s labor marketplace is virtually non-existent.  The most productive workers have options and often go the highest bidder.  Today's employers treat their employees as expendable, resulting in high turnover and poor morale.  Employees should remember they are "solo entrepreneurs" of their own lives and allegiance is not valued as much as in the past. 

Third, consumers, not businesses pay the higher rate.  Businesses will pass the higher labor cost on in the form of price increases.  A higher minimum wage is not absorbed by businesses, because businesses are not sponges.  If they don't pass on their costs, then they go broke. 

Studies show increases in the minimum wage hurt small business more than large business.  Faced with the choice of reducing staff, increasing prices or accepting less profit, many small entities simply can't survive. 

A minimum wage hurts those workers just entering the workplace.  Most businesses track their labor costs as a percent of revenue.  Labor costs can account for as much as 70% of total business costs according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor costs, like any other commodity, should be set by supply and demand.  Creating an artificial, government mandated price floor goes against America's capitalist economic system. 

Oklahoma voters should vote no on SQ#832.  It will hurt the very ones it claims it would help.

Who will be the 'placeholder' in the U.S. Senate?

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

MUSICAL CHAIRS!

by Steve Fair

 

U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., was nominated to lead the U.S. Department of Homeland Security this week after President Donald Trump removed Secretary Kristi Noem.   The move follows bipartisan criticism of Noem’s leadership, including contentious congressional hearings and scrutiny over departmental spending and media campaigns.

Mullin accepted the nomination shortly after the president’s formal offer and now awaits U.S. Senate confirmation.  “I am super excited about this opportunity. It came — not as a complete surprise — but it came at a little bit of a surprise for us,” Mullin said on the steps of the Capitol shortly after Trump announced Noem’s ouster Thursday afternoon.

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt has 30 days after receiving Mullin's resignation to appoint a registered Republican to temporarily fill the seat after the senator leaves his post, but the appointee must sign an affidavit pledging to not run for a full term in November.   Many believe the restriction to prevent the appointee from running for a full term is illegal and would never stand up in court.  Oilman Harold Hamm has supposedly asked to fill the placeholder seat.  It remains to be seen who Stitt will appoint.   Three observations:

First, Mullin will follow Trump's orders.  Secretary Noem's poor judgment in policy and her personal life became a major distraction to Homeland's mission.  Removing her from the cabinet was a wise move.  Senator Mullin agrees with Trump's immigration policy and will carry out his directives without a hitch.  Mullin faces a Senate confirmation hearing, but it appears there is no organized effort to derail the nomination.  Senator Lindsey Graham, (R-SC) said about Mullin's nomination: "President Trump could not have chosen a better candidate to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security than Senator Markwayne Mullin."  With the GOP in control of the Senate, he should sail through the confirmation.

Second, the timeline for senate candidates is short.  Filing for federal, state and county offices is April 1-3.  The primary election is June 16th and the primary runoff August 25th.  Some claim a tight campaign schedule favors a grassroots candidate.  Others believe it favors a candidate who can self fund a high visibility advertising campaign.  Oklahoma 1st district Congressman Kevin Hern, (R-Tulsa) has indicated he is going to run for the full term.  Other potential candidates include Governor Kevin Stitt, Congressman Stephanie Brice, (R-OKC) and former State Senator and OKGOP Chair Nathan Dahm.  There is just 90 days until the primary.  Whomever decides to run will have to hit the ground running.  The race will be won in the GOP primary in June.  No Democrat has represented Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate in 30 plus years.

Third, Mullin's appointment creates a domino effect in Oklahoma.  If Congressman Hern or Brice run for the senate, a scramble to replace them in the House will draw multiple candidates.  Most likely state legislators would be among the aspirants for the Congressional seats, creating openings in their districts.  County elected officials would likely pitch their hat into the ring, creating openings for their offices. 

Musical chairs is a classic fast-paced game of elimination that tests reaction time and listening skills. Players march around a circle of chairs- numbering one less than the participants- while music plays.  When the music stops, everyone rushes to sit; the person left standing is eliminated, a chair is removed, and the game continues until one winner remains.  That is what is happening in Oklahoma politics. 

Cue The Laughing Policeman. 

ONLY THE DEAD HAVE SEEN THE END OF WAR!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

WAR!

by Steve Fair

 

The United States and Israel, launched a major, two-day military operation against Iran on Saturday February 28th.  The operation targeted nuclear and missile facilities.  Iran retaliated by launching missile attacks on U.S. military installations throughout the Middle East.  Three U.S. service members were reportedly killed and five others seriously wounded in the attacks.  Dubbed Operation Epic Fury by President Donald Trump , the stated objective is to eliminate remaining nuclear and missile capabilities.  The action comes after Iran has rejected several good-faith U.S. diplomatic negotiations and the regime's massacres of thousands of its own citizens during recent protests. 

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 86, was killed in the attacks.  The Iranian government confirmed the supreme leader's death and announced 40 days of mourning.  Approximately 40 plus top Iranian leaders and officials were also killed.  During his 36-year rule, Khamenei was unwavering in his steadfast opposition to the U.S. and Israel and to any efforts to reform and bring Iran into the 21st century.  President Trump called Khamenei’s death “the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country,” and urged Iranian citizens to seize the opportunity and take back their country.  Three observations:

First, the attacks are inconsistent with Trump's MAGA mantra.  Republicans largely rallied around the White House in the hours after the attack — insisting the time for debating U.S. intervention in Iran had passed and the GOP must unify behind the president. But many of the president’s “America First” allies questioned the wisdom of intervening in global conflicts.  One of the fundamental planks in Trump's campaign platform has been a non-interventionist stance against 'forever wars,' from previous administrations.  Some Trump supporters are criticizing for practicing what he pummels. 

Second, the strikes were launched without prior congressional authorization.  Article 1- Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war.  Throughout America's history, presidents have frequently circumvented the formal Article I by invoking their Article II authority as Commander in Chief to engage in military actions. While the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to declare war, historical practice has shifted significant control over initiating armed conflict to the executive branch.  Following World War II, nearly all large-scale military conflicts—including Korea, Vietnam, and the second Iraq War—were conducted without a formal declaration of war.   

Top Congressional Democrats and Republicans that make up a group known as the Gang of Eight — party leaders from both chambers, as well as the Intelligence committees' leadership — were notified by Secretary of State Marco Rubio shortly before the attack.

Third, it remains to be seen if the attacks were a wise choice.  If the 92 million Iranian citizens embrace the opportunity and take control of their country, they could throw off the current political system and bring about reform.  But Iran's political system is built around the concept of a 'Marja al-Taqlid.'  That is a senior cleric who citizens turn to for religious guidance and legal rulings.  Until a replacement cleric is chosen, a 3-member council is in charge.  President Trump says that council is willing to talk with him.  Time will tell if they will dial down the extremism and allow for reform. 

U.S. consumers are already seeing the impact of the attacks at the pump.  Some predict gas prices could get to over $3 a gallon in the coming months.  Because of underinvestment and sanctions, Iran, which has 12% of the world's oil reserves, only accounts for 4% of global oil supply.  But it's not Iran's oil supply driving the price up- it's the instability in the Middle East.  Instability in the Strait of Hormuz, where 20% of the world's oil travels through, is what could disrupt supply.

Since the 1930s, over half of the conflicts in the world have been disputes involving untapped oil reserves.  Oil-importing nations (the US is second behind China) tend to get involved to protect energy interests.  No matter the stated reason, countries go to war to protect their economic interests.

Philosopher George Santayana said, "Only the dead have seen the end of war."  

COURTS AND PRESIDENTS ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

TARIFF RULING!

by Steve Fair

 

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) delivered a major blow to President Donald Trump last week by ruling (6-3) many of the tariffs Trump has imposed based on a 1977 emergency economic powers law were unconstitutional.  To say Trump was disappointed in the ruling is an understatement.  At a hastily called news conference after the ruling, he denounced the SCOTUS justices who ruled against him as a “disgrace” and announced wide-ranging new tariffs.  Trump used a different law to impose a 10 percent across-the-board tariff.  Three observations:

First, courts don't always get it right.  Courts and judges, at all levels, are made up of people and people are fallible.  They filter all their decisions through their worldview and political philosophy.  Often judges legislate from the bench and use their power to overturn laws and twist the original intent of lawmakers.  The SCOTUS is part of balance of power in America, but it is far from perfect and many of the high court's past decisions have been wrong.

Second, presidents don't always get it right.  No one gets it right all the time, including President Trump.  He could be right about the SCOTUS getting it wrong, but that remains to be seen.  Trump is correct the executive branch has the authority to Impose tariffs.  Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allow the president to act regarding tariffs under specific, limited, and legally defined conditions.  

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said: “we claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

Third, the law is subject to interpretation.  There are two types of judicial philosophy: judicial activism, where judges are more willing to overturn laws, precedents and policies to shape social and political change.  Those who subscribe to judicial activism interpret the Constitution as a 'living' document.  That is normally the liberal view.

The second philosophy is judicial restraint.  Judges who subscribe to judicial restraint rule more often on the original meaning of the Constitution and defer to the legislative branch to make the laws.  This is normally the conservative view.  Neither philosophy is perfect, because even in its best day, human judgment is flawed. 

Trump's response to the SCOTUS ruling on the tariffs could impact future cases.  Insulting and degrading people who in the future will likely be ruling on cases you are involved in is probably not a wise strategy. 

Two of the three of the SCOTUS justices Trump appointed to the high court voted with the three liberals on the court and Chief Justice Roberts against Trump's tariff decrees.  Only Justice Brett Kavanaugh (appointed by Trump in 2018) sided with the president.    

It remains to be seem who got this ruling right, but Trump is not be the first president to be surprised by how a justice they appointed ruled.

When tariffs are put in place, they have to comply with the law.  If the law is wrong, then Congress needs to fix it.  Circumventing and dodging the law is illegal, no matter who does it. 

Court rulings are often frustrating and create roadblocks.  Routinely, the legislative and executive branches of government are at odds with the judiciary.  None of the three branches are always right. They all make mistakes. 

THOSE CALLING CONSERVATIVES RINOS MAY BE THE REAL RINOS!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

NOSE HORN!

by Steve Fair

 

President Trump uses the term, "RINO,' on a regular basis.  RINO is an acronym for Republican-In-Name-Only.  It's a derogatory label to describe politicians and activists who allegedly do not hold to true Republican values.  It is often used to disparage politicians who are viewed as too moderate.  Some moderate Democrats are branded DINOs by their Party, but you seldom hear that term.

Name calling and branding political opponents with a label is nothing new.  Two-time presidential candidate Thomas Dewey, who ran against FDR and Truman, did not oppose FDR's New Deal programs, but just promised that Republicans would run them more efficiently.  Dewey and his allies were branded 'Me Too' Republicans, because they agreed with the Democrats.  'Me Too' Republicans were the majority among GOP elected officials and won the Party's presidential nomination up until 1980, when Ronald Reagan upset the applecart. 

This week, President Trump posted on Truth Social Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt is a RINO.  Stitt, who is Chairman of the National Governor's Association (NGA) had released a press release regarding an upcoming governor's weekend in Washington that President Trump said was inaccurate.  Trump had disinvited two Democrat governors and Stitt released a presser saying that Trump had agreed to invite all the governors.  Trump posted: “We will soon have a Governor in Oklahoma who knows how to accurately write a Press Release to the Public, in this case, to state that I invited, not happily, almost all Democrat Governors to the Governor’s Dinner at the White House.  Stitt, a wise guy, knew this, but tried to get some cheap publicity by stating otherwise.” Immediately, two candidates for Oklahoma governor in 2026 (Keating and Drummond) jumped on Trump's bandwagon, saying they agreed Stitt is a RINO.  Three observations:

First, everyone who disagrees with Trump is not a RINO.  Blind loyalty is a dangerous thing.  The president demands blind loyalty.  In today's toxic political environment, anyone who expresses a differing view from Trump is branded a nose horn.  Each citizen has the right to place their registration with which ever political Party they desire.  They don't have to agree with any or all of the tenets of a Party.   Some in the GOP want the Party to impose excommunication, like churches, for the RINOs.  If an elected official doesn't pass a litmus test regarding the platform, they would be booted out of the Party.  Exclusion, not inclusion.  In today's GOP, disagreement with Trump's views are considered heretical and worthy of banishment and shunning.  Group think rules!

Second, much of the RINO talk is political theatre.  Stitt, who is term limited, shrugged off Trump's comments, saying Trump doesn't really mean it.  To the uninformed, who believe everything they see on the news, grandstanding politicians sway public opinion by caricaturing another's position.  That seems the be the case with Trump and Stitt.  Sensationalism and exaggeration rule!

Third, graciousness is dead in politics.  You can make the case it never existed in the world's second oldest profession.  Clearly humility, patience, kindness, gentleness, steadiness and self-control are now considered traits of cowards, and yellow bellies, aka RINOs.  The inability of the GOP to agree to disagree has hurt America.  Instead of working together, the Republicans fight more internally than against the Democrats, resulting in nothing getting done. Name calling and insults rule! 

Today's definition of a RINO seems to be: "anyone who disagrees with Trump." The fact is, many branded RINO are principled people who care about the direction of American and the GOP.  Many have been active in politics before Trump entered the arena and will be around after he is gone.  These nose horns are pro-life, pro second amendment, fiscal conservative, traditional Republicans who don't blindly follow any man.  They aren't 'Me Too' or RINOs.  Those calling them RINO are likely the real RINOs.

IS OKLAHOMA'S DESTINY GROUNDHOG DAY?

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

 

On Monday February 2nd (Groundhog Day), Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt delivered his last State of the State address to a joint session of the Oklahoma legislature.  Stitt proposed sending four issues to a vote of the people: (1) a state question to put an annual 3% cap on state spending growth, (2) a state question that would freeze property tax, (3) a state question making the Superintendent of Public Instruction (State School Superintendent) an appointed position, (4) a state question reversing legalized marijuana in Oklahoma.

Stitt also called for the elimination of the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (OSSAA), which drew criticism from the Oklahoma Officials Association (OOA) and others.  The OSSAA is a member driven organization, governed by the 482 school districts that join voluntarily, like a co-op.  Stitt's issue with the OSSAA appears to be their transfer policy for athletics. 

In a clear swipe at Attorney General Drummond, who is running for governor in 2026, Stitt said the McGirt ruling by the US Supreme Court was divisive and created a double standard for citizens in the state.  AG Drummond supports the McGirt decision, while Stitt has been at odds with the tribes over the ruling.    "I challenge Oklahomans to elect people who are committed to these values and protect these simple truths.” Stitt said. 

Three observations:

First, why do Oklahoma voters always have to do the heavy lifting?   Two of Stitt's proposed state question issues could be done by the state legislature without a state question.  Granted, their action wouldn't amend the state constitution, but it would accomplish the same thing.  If every important issue has to go to a vote of people, why have a legislature? 

Has Oklahoma really progressed?  Back in the early 1990s, a rag tag bunch of citizens got fed up with annual tax increases from the Oklahoma legislature and ran a grassroots initiative petition campaign.  Approved by voters in 1992, SQ #640 became a part of the state constitution.  It requires a 75% super majority in both chambers to raise taxes and that has only happened once since 1992.  The legislature hates 640, but it has saved Oklahomans millions of dollars.  Now the governor wants citizens to do what the GOP led legislature won't do- exercise restraint and disciple. 

Second, taking away the right to vote on a statewide elected official is a hard sell.  Oklahoma elects eleven statewide elected executive officials, third highest in the country.  Only Mississippi and North Dakota elect more statewides.  Making some of Oklahoma's statewide offices appointed positions might be efficient, but it transfers power from the people to the governor.   All eleven officials are currently accountable directly to the people.  Consolidation of power is not usually a good idea.

Third, monkeying with property tax is a risky strategy.  Local school districts and county government rely on property tax.  No one likes to pay taxes, but taxes are necessary to provide funding for those entities.  If property tax is frozen or eliminated, that funding has to be made up somewhere else or cuts have to be made.   You can't get blood out of a turnip.  Property tax is the devil we know.  While it might not be the best vehicle to fund schools and county government, it is one we know.  What is the alternative plan to make up the funding property tax provide?  No one seems to know. 

Stitt closed his address by quoting President Reagan's "A Time for Choosing," speech. We have a rendezvous with destiny," the governor concluded.  The truth is Oklahoma is more like the Groundhog Day movie- the more things change the more they remain the same.

OKLAHOMA LAWMAKERS TEND TO MAJOR ON THE MINORS!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

 

According to Article V, Section 26 of the Oklahoma Constitution, the state legislature convenes in regular session annually at noon on the first Monday in February. Sessions must adjourn sine die no later than 5 p.m. on the last Friday in May.  A total of 1,578  House bills and 50 House Joint Resolutions were filed before the deadline.  Coupled with the Senate bills, Oklahoma legislators will be considering around 2,500 total bills between now and May. 

Dozens of bills filed this session would expand cooperation with federal immigration authorities, restrict access to public assistance, driver’s licenses and higher education, and limit foreign land ownership for non-citizens.  Five bills were filed that would ban illegal immigrants from receiving in-state tuition at Oklahoma colleges and universities.

Lawmakers also introduced a number of bills that would require Oklahoma employers to verify the citizenship of immigrant employees. Federal law requires employers to complete I-9 forms for all workers, but private businesses in Oklahoma aren’t currently required to use E-Verify to compare those forms to government records. 

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, (R-Bristow), filed HB#4422, which would require the Oklahoma Department of Human Services to verify the immigration status of applicants for public assistance programs. 

There are at least two bills that address President Trump's recent announcement of the retirement of the penny.  Senate Appropriations Chair Sen. Chuck Hall (R-Perry) is running a bill requiring state agencies that accept cash from an individual to round the amount of the transaction down to the nearest cent that is a multiple of five. Hopefully the unintended consequences for Hall's bill doesn't mirror Michael Bolton's mistake in Office Space.  Three observations:

First, lawmakers file far too many bills.  The number of bills filed has risen steadily in recent years.  Granted many of the bills have little to no chance of becoming law and often the legislator that crafted them know that.  They file those bills to self-promote, grandstand and appeal to their base. The duplication of bills is out of control.  Republican legislative leadership should address the 'throw it on the wall and see if it will stick' practice.  It's a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Second, lawmakers major on the minors.  Fiscal responsibility, the state budget, tax cuts take a back seat to 'policy' bills, that create more government bureaucracy in the name of conservatism.  Spending less tax dollars and delivering more efficient government should be top priority, not symbolic resolutions or measures addressing issues already covered by existing laws.  Some lawmakers introduce bills purely for political posturing and personal attention.  Neglecting the most important high-impact budget tasks exposes misaligned priorities and leads to mediocre results. 

Consider this- since the GOP took the majority in the Oklahoma state legislature back in 2006, Republican leadership has overseen a significant, consistent increase in state spending.  The 2026 state budget is a record $12.59 billion.  

Third, lawmakers need feedback.  Constituents should hold their elected officials accountable.  They should ask hard questions.  They should pay attention to what the legislature is doing.  Good representatives solicit input from their constituents and not just their donors.  Great representatives do it regularly and listen to wise counsel.  Poor representatives ignore those they represent and only pay attention to them on an election year.  The weak rep don't want their views or votes to be questioned and only listen to positive feedback on their performance. 

Will Rogers said when the Oklahoma legislature was in session, 'neither man nor beast, nor property is safe."  Be on guard Oklahoma!

PEACEFUL PROTEST IS A PROTECTED RIGHT!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

OBEY THE LAW!

by Steve Fair

 

 

On Saturday, a Minneapolis VA nurse, Alex Pretti who was carrying a licensed handgun was fatally shot by a U.S. Border Patrol agent.  Authorities said Pretti resisted arrest after trying to intervene in the ICE operation.  Vice President JD Vance called the protests in Minnesota "engineered chaos" in the wake of the shooting.  Three observations:

First, the Constitution guarantees peaceful protest. The First Amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble.  It also guarantees freedom of religion, speech, the press, and the right to petition the government or redress of grievances.  Assembly is the only right in the First Amendment that requires more than a lone individual for its exercise. One can speak alone, but one cannot assemble alone. Moreover, while some assemblies occur spontaneously, most do not. For this reason, the right to assembly right extends to preparing to assembly activity, aka 'right of association,' by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS).  The right to peaceably assembly is extended to all citizens and all political ideologies and the government is not to impede that right.

Second, the Constitution does not guarantee hostile assembly.  The protests in Minnesota- and in other states- against the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been characterized by conflict, unrest, and confrontational conduct toward authorities.  Violent protest is not a guaranteed constitutional right.  Protestors must abide by the law when assembling.   Physically confronting law enforcement officers is usually not going to end well, and that has been the case in the two Minnesota shootings. 

Third, let the facts determine what happened.  The predictability of how elected officials on both ends of the political spectrum would react is a foregone conclusion. Immediately after the shooting, supporters and critics of ICE had formed a verdict about the situation and were espousing judgment or vindication.    Sadly, most elected officials are on auto-pilot, blindly following a predictable pattern. 

It is very possible the ICE agents in Minnesota overreacted and were in the wrong.  It is also very possible Pretti presented a threat to the agents.  The public would be wise to allow independent investigators, with no political agenda, conduct a through investigation and let the facts speak for themselves.  If the agents overreacted and are in the wrong, they should pay the price. 

One of the fundamental rights Americans have is the right to disagree with their government without fear of being punished or retaliated against.  It should concern every American when federal law enforcement officers shoot protestors.  An independent, unbiased investigation should be done and the chips fall where they may.

For years, Republicans referred to federal law enforcement as 'jackbooted federal agents.'  Conservative Republicans regularly criticized federal agents as acting too authoritarian, using heavy handed tactics and government overreach.  Ironically, many of those same people are now supporting the storm troopers in this battle. 

In May 1970, four unarmed college students were killed and nine wounded by the Ohio National Guard on the Kent State University campus, while protesting the expanding involvement in the Vietnam War.  It was an avoidable tragedy and while there was bad behavior on both sides, the unwillingness of the protestors to simply obey the law was the problem. 

Americans have a right to engage in 'organized chaos,' but they should remember what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said: "Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence."

 

LEGISLATURE WANTS THAT TSET MONEY!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

END RUN OR FAKE PUNT?

by Steve Fair

 

The Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET) is a public trust created in November 2000 after Oklahoma voters approved SQ#692 by a 59% margin.  TSET was created to manage monies from settlements or lawsuits against any tobacco company by the state of Oklahoma.  It specified that only 'earnings' from investments from TSET can be spent and only for tobacco prevention, cancer research, and other health related programs.  TSET was charged to use the money to improve the health for all Oklahomans.

The assets of TSET are invested at the direction of a five-member Board of Investors. That Board consists of the State Treasurer (Todd Russ), who serves as chair, and the designees of the Governor, Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the State Auditor.  The State Treasurer serves on the Board as long while in office and the appointed members serve four-year terms. 

The board of directors of TSET are appointed by seven statewide elected officials: the Governor, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of Senate, the Attorney General, State Treasurer, State Auditor and the State School Superintendent.  All members serve seven-year terms.  All appointed members serve seven-year terms.

There has to be at least one appointee from each Congressional district, and not more than two appointees from the same district.  In addition, not more than four appointees may be from any one political party. The board is responsible for spending the earnings from the trust.  They have normally spent about $50 million annually.

This week, TSET announced an award of $150 million through 14 grants to universities, clinics, and foundations throughout Oklahoma to strength health care systems in the Sooner state.  Using accumulated, unspent earnings from previous years, TSET exceeded the investment income provision in SQ#692.  Expect TSET's action to be challenged in court.  Three observations:

First, Oklahoma did the right thing in creating TSET.  Only two other states- Alaska and North Dakota did something similar and set aside their tobacco settlement money for prevention and reduction of tobacco use.  Most states used the money to fill budget holes or to pay off debt.  Two tobacco producing states- South Carolina and North Carolina- ironically used their settlement funds to help tobacco farmers.  Oklahoma voters chose to create an independent entity that would use the money for what it was intended- health care.  Crafters of SQ#692 knew if the legislature got their hands on the tobacco money, it wouldn't be used for what it was intended.  TSET was a wise decision.

Second, the legislature has been trying to do an end run on SQ#692 for years.  They have repeatedly tried to gain more control and access to TSET's funds.  After the TSET board, denied a request for an OU Health project, lawmakers passed HB#2783, authored by Rep. Trey Caldwell, (R-Lawton), and Sen. Chuck Hall, (R-Perry) in 2025.  HB#2783 allowed the statewide elected officials to remove their appointed TSET board members at will and ignore the term provisions of SQ#692.  HB#2783 passed the House on a vote of 60-30 and the Senate 36-8.  Gov. Stitt did not sign the bill, so it became law automatically in May 2025.  This week, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, in an 8-1 vote, ruled HB#2783 unconstitutional.  They noted voters the guidelines for how the board members are appointed and the length of their term was clearly set forth in SQ#692 and in the state constitution. 

Third, TSET needs revision.  SQ#692 guidelines require a significant amount of the TSET earnings go to education.  Instead of running out of date TV ads urging kids to not smoke, TSET should be spending money in rural Oklahoma to improve health care.  But any change to how TSET is governed and earnings are used require a vote of the people, Voters would likely vote to remove many of the restrictions that were wise in 2000, but make little sense 25 years later.  But the legislature should stop trying to circumvent the will of the people.  Bypassing what voters have approved isn't revision- it's an end run.

The legislature's action may have spurred the TSET board to action and their granting of the $150 million.  If that was the case, HB#2783 wasn't an end run- it was a successful fake punt. 

Excavate the U.S. Department of Education!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

HOLLOW OUT!

by Steve Fair

 

In October 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed into law a bill that created a new federal agency and a cabinet position focused on education.  The bill was opposed by many in the GOP, who saw creation of the department as unconstitutional, unnecessary, and federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs.  But alas, the United States Department of Education (USDOE) began operating in May 1980. 

During the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan called for the total elimination of the newly created U.S. Department of Education.  After he was elected, President Reagan reduced the budget at USDOE, but by the time he left office in 1989, the Gipper had increased the budget at USDOE.  To be clear, Republican leaders have been inconsistent on the elimination of USDOE.

In March, President Trump signed an executive order (EO) directing the Secretary of Education to take all necessary steps to facilitate the close of the USDOE and 'return education authority to the States.'  Permanent elimination of the USDOE requires 60 votes in the Senate, so until the GOP gets a few more seats in the upper chamber, USDOE will still exist.

Like all government agencies, the USDOE has grown over the years.  In 1980, the USDOE budget was $13 billion.  In 2024, it was $238 billion dollars.  At its creation, the agency had 3,000 employees.  Until President Trump's EO, the staff had grown to 4,133.  Trump's EO cut the staff to 2,183. 

In March 2023, a House Republican effort to abolish the USDOE failed because sixty (60) Republican members joined Democrats and voted against the measure.  Three observations:

First, education should be controlled at the local level.  Community control over curriculum, funding and operations will align public education with local values.  That has been the fundamental issue.  The USDOE has required local school districts to promote diversity, inclusion, and social issue ideologies inconsistent with local values to get federal funding.  Instead of encouraging more parental involvement, the USDOE's actions has created conflict rather than collaboration.  

Second, Oklahoma should be granted a Return to the States waiver.  Back in August, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon was in Oklahoma on her 'Return Education to the States' tour.  She participated in Governor Stitt's signing of SB#796.  SB#796 prohibits institutions within the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education from using taxpayer money to support diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs or activities.  McMahon has publicly supported local control of education.

Last week, McMahon announced Iowa was the first state approved for a 'Returning Education to the States' waiver.  It will give the state more control over nearly $9.5 million in federal education funding over the next four years.  Iowa had asked to control all $157 million they get from the feds, but only were granted control of $9.5 million, but that's a start. "We know that (one size fits all) mandates fail. States should lead. Washington should support their sound approaches and get out of the way," McMahon said. 

The waiver allows the Iowa Department of Education to give local school districts local flexibility in how their federal money is spent.  Expect federal educational dollars to be pushed to the local level over the next three years under the Trump administration.

Third, the USDOE should be eliminated.  The Republican Party's consistent stated position for the past 45 years has been one of opposition to a large federal role in education, but the walk hasn't matched the talk.  Virtually every GOP candidate campaigns for the elimination or significant downsizing of the USDOE, but it still exists. 

Getting moderate Republicans in the House and Senate to terminate the agency are not likely to happen.  Trump understands that so his strategy is to 'hollow out' the USDOE.

A significant percentage of federal education tax dollars are spent on red tape (compliance).  According to McMahon, teachers leave the profession because they spend too much time filling out compliance forms and neglect actual teaching. 

It's past time to excavate the USDOE and leave a shell.

 

DON'T CALIFORNIA OUR OKLAHOMA!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

 

Benjamin Franklin said, "the world is run by those that show up."  Talking and having good intentions don't cut it.  Sporadic, inconsistent, patchy involvement produces little. True meaningful influence and progress are the fruit of people who consistently put in the effort and do the work.  Most who 'show up' are not flamboyant or theatrical.  They are methodical and structured.  They are not influenced by hyperbole, exaggeration, and sensationalism.  They walk the walk, not just talk the talk. 

 Advocates for changing Oklahoma's primary election system point to the state's low voter turnout, which ranked last nationally in 2024.  They claim going to a California model primary system will increase voter turnout.  But that hasn't been the case in California.  California’s turnout was down (-5%) in 2024, so that theory is flawed.  Three observations:

 First, voter turnout is a science.  It's also big business.  Political operatives charge big bucks to help campaigns determine who will vote. They charge more money to 'get out the vote.'  The goal is to get 'their voters' to the polls.  They will use whatever means necessary.  For them, it's a game of numbers.  By getting their voters to the polls at a higher rate than their opponent, their odds of winning increases.  Many campaigns aren't above lying, cheating or stealing to 'get the vote out.'  Sadly, situational ethics reign in politics.    

 Second, Oklahoma has a turnout problem.  In 1992, Oklahoma's voter turnout was 58.8% and ranked 24th in the country- 4 points higher than the national average.  It has steadily declined through the years.  In 2024, only 55.3% of voters cast a ballot in the Sooner state- dead last in U.S.  There are a variety of reasons people don't vote, but the solution isn't revamping a primary system that is both fair and logical.  The fix is to educate fellow citizens and encourage more people to show up.  But that requires long term commitment by citizens and political leaders, something neither has proven to embrace.  Until Okies take more equity in their own government, expect turnout to be an embarrassment.  FYI- until 2024, Texas voter turnout has consistently been lower than Oklahoma.

 Third, low information voters are easily manipulated.  Poorly informed voters represent a huge opportunity for political operatives.  By using emotional appeals and misleading tactics to influence voter behavior, the uninformed become simply a tool to win.  Misleading, caricatured distortions of opponent’s positions rule the day.  The principled practice unprincipled tactics to win.  Capitalizing on voter's laziness and unencumbered with integrity, political ads, mailers and messaging placate and kowtow potential voters.

 Some believe low information voters should simply stay home, but that is not the answer.  The solution is to encourage, educate, and develop fellow citizens into strong-willed, resolute, unimpressionable voters that can't be exploited, but that requires too much work for most politicos.      

 Three things to remember about the SQ#836 petition: (1) Oklahoma's current primary system isn't broken or unfair.  (2) Changing to a California style primary system will not increase voter turnout.  (3) SQ#836 would increase the number of 'low information' voters.

 Don't sign the SQ#836 petition.  Don't California our Oklahoma!  Start showing up!