Weekly Opinion/Editorial

STICK TO PREACHING CHRIST!
by Steve Fair

On Sunday, at least thirty-three pastors in twenty-two states endorsed a presidential nominee from the pulpit. They were defying a federal law that prohibits American clergy from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. One of those was Paul Blair, pastor of Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond. Blair, a former OSU and NFL lineman, said, “As a Christian and as an American citizen, I will be voting for John McCain.” “It’s absolutely vital to proclaim the truth and not be afraid to proclaim the truth from our pulpits,” Blair stated.

Blair was participating in what is called The Pulpit Initiative by the Alliance Defense Fund http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/default.aspx whose stated mission is to “reclaim a pastors’ constitutional right to speak truth from the pulpit.”

Pastors, priests and rabbis were free to say what they wanted to say about politics and the issues of the day through the early history of our nation – in fact, right up until 1954. That year, Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson, D-Texas, was facing opposition in his re-election bid from Christians and anti-communists, some of whom were speaking their minds freely from the pulpits.
Johnson, a powerful figure in the Senate who would later become John F. Kennedy's vice president and succeed him following the assassination in 1963, had a solution for his own political predicament – to muzzle churches and clergy with federal regulations.

Through what became known as "the Johnson Amendment," the U.S. Congress changed the Internal Revenue Service code, prohibiting non-profits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. It still allowed for pastors to preach about “issues”, but not endorsing a candidate from the pulpit. That’s when the liberals begin to use the term “separation of church and state” to justify removing God from the public square.

Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution has the phrase “separation of church and state” included in them. Those words do not appear in either document. The words “separation of church and state” appeared in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. The Baptist group was concerned with the possibility of the newly formed republic establishing a “state” religion. Because of their background and the religious persecution they endured before coming to the New World, they wanted Jefferson’s assurance the government would stay out of the spiritual realm.

Jefferson agreed with them and wrote, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

The goal of The Pulpit Initiative is to reverse the Johnson amendment. While that may be a worthy goal from the political view, it’s misguided from a spiritual standpoint. I applaud these pastors’s willingness to stand for the truth, but their zeal in “endorsing” any man is misguided. Romans 13 is clear that we should obey the laws of the land and recognize that a sovereign God put elected officials in power. No place in scripture exhorts a pastor to preach anything but the “gospel” and the “whole counsel of God.” When a pastor steps into the pulpit, he should not be concerned with delivering a political parties message, but God’s message.

Issues are a different matter. Homosexuality and abortion are issues that are condemned in scripture and a pastor should address those issues. Drunkenness and perversion are not just political issues, they are spiritual ones, and so pastors should be bold and address those. But when pastors begin to endorse particular men for a particular job from the pulpit, they have gone too far.

I can’t imagine Jonathan Edwards, the Presbyterian theologian and the grandfather of Vice President Aaron Burr standing in his pulpit and endorsing a candidate. Behind that sacred desk, Edwards dispensed God’s message. His famous sermon, “Sinners in the hands of an angry God,” http://content.christianity.com/1/33075/1_33075_SinnersintheHandsofanAngryGod.ALL.mp3was preached in 1741, well before our nation was founded. This sermon has been widely reprinted as an example of "fire and brimstone" preaching in the colonial revivals. Was Edwards political? Absolutely, but when he was in the pulpit, he preached righteousness, temperance and judgment to come. He didn’t talk about the upcoming election.

In our “talking head” society, some ministers have taken their eye off the ball and believe they must engage in the political process from the pulpit to be relevant. While their motive may be pure, pastors should not endorse candidates from the pulpit. As ministers of the gospel, they should know the hope of the world is neither John McCain or Barrack Obama- it’s Jesus Christ.

Dr. Coburn Credits Emmett Till Justice Campaign with

Passage of Civil Rights Legislation
Pledges to force debate and spending cuts on even more bills next Congress

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) today helped pass the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act after Senate leaders signaled their intent to kill a compromise proposal supported by the Emmett Till Justice Campaign.

“Alvin Sykes, the head of the Emmett Till Justice Campaign, has worked tirelessly to pass this civil rights legislation ever since he promised Emmett Till’s dying mother that he would help bring justice to the perpetrators of these evil crimes. Mr. Sykes stood strong on his values and principles and was determined to finish his job as he waded through the swamp of Washington’s politics. His heart, integrity and determination are unmatched. I congratulate him on a job well done and on promises kept. Politicians in Washington can learn a lot from his example,” Dr. Coburn said.

“Still, I’m disappointed by the majority’s cynical manipulation of this issue and willingness to exploit for partisan gain the efforts of those who worked for many decades to prosecute these crimes. Cutting lesser priorities within the bloated federal budget could have paid for this legislation, but congressional leaders refused to eliminate pet projects back home or demand the Department of Justice direct funds to pay for solving these civil rights violations. Over the past three years, I have identified numerous examples of wasteful spending within the Department of Justice that could be eliminated to pay for the Emmett Till bill and was time and again rejected because Washington politicians insisted that they do not and should not have to pay for any new spending that Congress authorizes,” Dr. Coburn said.

“Taxpayers deserve to know that the Department of Justice ended the last two fiscal years with $1.6 billion in unspent money that will not be returned to the taxpayers. Yet, instead of allowing the DOJ to direct a tiny fraction of that sum to prosecuting unsolved civil rights crimes, Senate leaders have instead insisted that taxpayers provide DOJ with another $63 million more for this purpose,” Dr. Coburn said.

“For the victims of these decades-old crimes, justice delayed is justice denied. Yet, it is also unjust that Congress’ borrow and spend approach to passing legislation will burden future generations with the cost of today’s well-intentioned, but fiscally irresponsible, efforts to seek justice in these cases. Future generations of Americans who will inherit a $9 trillion national debt will, unfortunately, pay to make amends for Congress’ decision to live beyond its means,” Dr. Coburn said.

“The events of the last few weeks in the financial sector have highlighted the dangers of borrowing without regard to consequences. Unfortunately, Congress is continuing its business-as-usual spending practices. When the Senate reconvenes next year I look forward to forcing debate on even more bills that increase spending but are not paid for with spending cuts. I make no apologies for using every procedural tool at my disposal to try to force this body to live within its means. In the 110th Congress, nearly 900 bills have passed in secret with no debate, no amendments and no recorded vote through the ‘hotline’ process. I eventually allowed nearly 95 percent of those bills to pass. Next year, in light of our financial crisis and the majority’s refusal to pay for new programs with spending offsets, far fewer of those bills will become law,” Dr. Coburn said.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

USED TIRES AND MORTGAGES!
by Steve Fair

It’s forty-two days until November 4th- Election Day 2008. Because of the recent actions of Congress to bail out some publicly traded companies in the mortgage lending business, the spotlight in the race has shifted to the economy.

George W. Bush, Republicans and even Ronald Reagan are being blamed for the current bailout situation. But Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass. And Senator Chris Dodd, D, Conn. Chair the respective committees responsible for the oversight and regulation of the industry and must bear some of the responsibility.

Back in 2005, a bill was presented in the Senate Banking committee that would have revamped Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It was voted down “along party lines” with the Dems opposing increased regulation. Many of the U.S. Senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Mr. Dodd have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

And Mr. Frank said in 2002, shortly before accounting problems were exposed at both companies, “I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems,” The Wall Street Journal reported after the Freddie Mac accounting scandal in 2003, Frank said, “I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis.”

The industries that are in trouble- banking and home mortgage companies- are businesses that government has always highly regulated. Some criticize the free market system, but make no mistake these businesses did not operate in a pure free market. Twenty years ago, if you got a mortgage, you had the option of meeting with your local banker, completing a loan application and then having the local bank loan you the money for your house. For all practical purposes, local banks got out of the mortgage market when government-guaranteed mortgage lenders entered the business, pooling trillions of dollars of mortgages based on a broad geographical base of loans from around the country. This was done in the name of asset diversification. It also cut out local monitoring and removed that personal touch from banking that defined the industry.
If you want a mortgage now, a statistician assesses the risk. Nobody is hired locally to monitor the loans and collect monthly payments. While the process sounds efficient, the reason we are in this mess is because the standards to qualify for a mortgage loan were lowered to a level that virtually anyone qualified. Mortgages became like used tires- someone always had a better deal.

If people continue to walk away from their homes and if new lenders are not found to fund replacement owners, America will experience hundreds of billions of dollars of property equity decline by the end of 2009. Local banks will likely be back in the mortgage business. There will be empty houses detorating and at some point, squatters and the weather will take over what were once nice homes. Ben Bernanke, the head of the Federal Reserve, expects “local” banks to step in and help solve the crisis. That solution will likely be houses for sale at “garage sale” prices with the difference in market value and sale price supplemented by taxpayer dollars.
Bailing out private industry- regulated or not- is not the function of government. And not all lawmakers are for throwing a lift vest to every sinking company.

South Carolina U.S. Senator Jim DeMint who is the latest conservative lawmaker to publicly oppose the Treasury Department's estimated $700 billion Wall Street bailout, saying it could "make matters much worse by socializing an entire sector of the U.S. economy." "Most Americans are paying their bills on time and investing responsibly and should not be forced to pay for the reckless actions of some on Wall Street, especially when no one can guarantee this will solve our current problems," DeMint said. "This plan will not only cause our nation to fall off the debt cliff, it could send the value of the dollar into a free-fall as investors around the world question our ability to repay our debts."

Fiscal issues should be discussed in this presidential race. The candidates have two very different records on fiscal matters. Senator Obama believes government is the solution but as proven by this crisis, more government regulation is not the answer. McCain is a true fiscal conservative. He wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, eliminate earmark spending and balance the federal budget. He has pledged to veto any bill with an earmark in it and “make the person responsible famous.” If it were your money- and it is- which plan makes the most sense?

Dr. Coburn Says Financial Crisis Requires

Sacrifice and Statesmanship in Congress

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released the following statement today regarding a potential government plan to address problems in the nation’s financial markets:

“This is a time not just for bipartisanship in Congress but common sense, sacrifice and statesmanship. Before we ask American families to make further sacrifices we need to make sacrifices of our own. Congress must learn the lesson of our current financial situation, which is that you cannot live beyond your means indefinitely. As a first step, members of Congress should put their pet projects on the chopping block and come together to eliminate billions in wasteful Washington spending.”

“Congress has known about these problems for years, but we did nothing because we were so obsessed with short-term politics and earmarking to do the hard work of oversight and reform that was necessary to avert this mess.”

“The answer now is not a mysterious formula known only to economists at the Federal Reserve, but a commitment among all national leaders to restore the fundamental market principles that made America the world’s leading economic power. We must not forget that it was the ingenuity of the American people and Congress’ willingness to restrain the power of government that allowed our nation to flourish while other systems collapsed or atrophied under their own weight.”

“The current crisis was caused not by free markets but by a perversion of the market. Congress’ willingness to tolerate a perverse policy of private profit and public risk among leading financial institution created this problem. Members of Congress should not repeat this failed policy, but return it to its rightful place among other failed socialist experiments in the ash heap of history.”

DELEGATES PAINT SALVATION ARMY DINING HALL

At the Republican National Convention, delegations are asked to take on a "Service" Project in the host city. Oklahoma took on the task of painting the dining hall at the St. Paul Salvation Army feeding site. The day before former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney had helped serve breakfast at the same facility. Gary Jones, State GOP Chairman, is pictured above, but eight other delegates participated in the endeavor. You can read an account and see more photos at: http://www.thesalarmy.org/enewsletter/Sept08/mainweb.htm

Even on trial, Stevens pulls in earmarks
By Roxana Tiron
from THE HILL 09/16/08

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is busy fending off federal charges and scrambling to retain his seat, but that hasn’t affected his appetite for earmarks. Stevens has secured the most earmarks in the Senate defense appropriations bill, according to an analysis by The Hill. The Hill reviewed projects requested by individual members that made it into the spending measure. Stevens’s earmark share in the defense bill is more than $200 million. The indicted senator is likely to tout that haul on the campaign trail.

Senate appropriators recently disclosed close to $3 billion in project requests that were not included in the Pentagon’s budget request for fiscal 2009, according to a calculation by The Hill and Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS). That is more than $2 billion less than what the Senate disclosed last year. Sens. Stevens and Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, top the list with about $215 million in earmarks each.
Stevens stands out because he made the majority of requests by himself, sharing only a few with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). By comparison, many of Cochran’s requests come together with Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) or other senators.

Stevens relinquished his spot as the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Defense panel in July after being charged with seven counts of concealing more than $250,000 worth of home renovations and gifts from a now-defunct oil-services company, Veco Corp. Cochran stepped in as the ranking member of the Defense panel to replace Stevens. The longest-serving Republican senator has pleaded not guilty and is hoping to clear his name before he faces Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) in the November election. Stevens last month easily won the GOP primary.

Just like in previous years, Stevens — who stepped down before his panel officially marked up the bill — is once again able to secure funds for a wealth of programs benefiting Alaska.
In fiscal 2008, Cochran and Stevens emerged as the biggest earmark winners across all appropriations bills, according to an analysis conducted by TCS, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks earmarks and federal spending.

While it is not unusual for appropriators to secure many earmarks, the party in the majority rakes in the most.According to the TCS analysis, senior Republican appropriators still managed to win more funding for their pet projects than senior Democratic appropriators, although the GOP share shrank significantly. For the 2009 defense-spending bill — the only one marked up in subcommittee so far — Stevens and Cochran appear to continue the trend. Stevens enjoys a very close relationship with Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the chairman of the Appropriations Defense panel. Inouye and Stevens call each other “brother” and contribute to each other’s campaigns.

The majority members usually receive 60 percent of the earmarks; the minority, 40 percent. The two veteran lawmakers have been known to split the earmark amount almost down the middle. Stevens has some close friends on the committee, said TCS’s Keith Ashdown.
“His friends are giving him the juice to go back to his constituents and remind them that he delivers for the state of Alaska,” said Ashdown. “ He's in the fight for his political life."

In fact, Stevens appears to have received a bump in earmark requests from last year. In the fiscal 2008 defense bill, Stevens claimed $195 million in earmarks, according to TCS.
Ashdown added that this time around, “His buddies that he has known for decades and legislated with … have packed this bill with projects for Alaska to make sure that he can show that his experience and what he can bring home should matter in this election. This will be incredibly important for him.”

For the 2009 defense bill, Inouye secured $200 million — a close second to Stevens and Cochran. Stevens touted some of his earmarks as well as his close working relationship with Inouye in a press release. His office sent the press release (which is also posted on the senator’s website) when The Hill requested comment for this article. According to Ashdown, Stevens did not make it a habit to post press releases touting earmarks in the past. This year, with a tough political challenge, Stevens’s achievements are front and center. Among the projects Stevens’s office boasted are: $500,000 for wind power construction at Tin City, Alaska; $10 million for a coal-to-liquids facility at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska; $61.3 million for Air Force and Army ranges in Alaska to improve readiness and interoperability, and $16 million for a C-17 assault landing zone in interior Alaska. Stevens also secured $3 million for the Alaskan National Guard’s counter-drug program, $2 million for hibernation genomics and $4 million for the research and development of an Arctic regional computer. Cochran’s office did not comment for this article.
Meanwhile, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the dean of Senate appropriations, secured about $170 million in earmarks, according to the disclosure in the bill.

WHAT IS AN EARMARK?

Earmarks are government funds that are allocated by a legislator for a particular pet project, often without proper review. Definitions vary, but earmarks are "allocations of revenue in a bill that are directed to a specific project or recipient typically in a legislator’s home state or district."

The Office of Management and Budget defines them as congressional funds whose recipient has been specified without adherence to the "competitive allocation process."Earmarks appear in appropriation bills and authorization bills, legislation that authorizes the spending of government funds and the existence of programs. They can either be "hard" or "soft." When a bill allocates a specific amount to a project, it’s known as a hard earmark. When the amount isn’t specified, it’s called a soft earmark.

There are a few groups that monitor earmarking in the U.S. Congress. The watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste produces the Congressional Pig Book, which is a yearly compilation (going back to 1991) of earmarks and "pork." CAGW counts as pork any spending project that meets at least one of the group's seven criteria, which include being awarded without competition or without a presidential request. Another nonpartisan group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, has tracked earmarks for fiscal year 2008 and provides databases and analyses for appropriation bills, as well as reports on authorization bills. TCS maintains similar databases back to 2005, but they are only available by request.Both TCS and CAGW advocate against "wasteful" government spending, and their numbers might reflect that.

For instance, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget cites a slightly lower tally than CAGW for 2005 earmarks. OMB, too, provides a searchable database of earmarks (only for years 2005 and 2008), though users can’t search for individual congressional sponsors of earmarks. Previously, bills had to be scanned thoroughly to locate earmarks, but new regulations are making it easier to identify them and their sponsors. Members of the House must now claim their earmarks, identify what the money is for and who will benefit, and state that they have no financial interests in the earmarks. Senate members must make available a list of earmarks, their sponsors and governmental purposes, and post such information online within 48 hours of any vote on a bill. For more information go to http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_is_an_earmark.html

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

Olly Olly Oxen Free!
by Steve Fair

“Olly olly oxen free” is a phrase used in children’s games which is generally used to indicate that people who are hiding (in a game of hide and seek, for example) can safely come out into the open. Evidently some formerly hidden Republicans in the Sooner state are coming out of hiding.

In a recent Tulsa World article, State Senate district #24 which includes my home was mentioned. “Senate District 24, is the fastest growing in the state and is rapidly moving to the Republican column, “ the article states. “It (District #24) added nearly 5,000 voters from 2006 to mid-2008 and more than 60 percent of those were Republicans. “ Stretching from Moore to Duncan, the district is represented by State Senator Anthony Sykes, R-Moore.

Because Republicans control most of the state's largest and fastest-growing legislative districts this trend could magnify recent Democratic losses in the Oklahoma House and Senate if it continues through redistricting following the 2010 census. "If it stays the way it is, it's going to hit us hard and we know it," said Ivan Holmes, state Democratic Party chairman in the World article. University of Oklahoma political science professor Keith Gaddie agrees. "It's going to be hard to draw districts without carving out some new Republican seats. Southeastern Oklahoma is going to lose one Senate district and maybe two,” Gaddie predicts.

Legislative seats are based on population, not voter registration, but voter registration is one indicator of population shifts. According to state Election Board records through July 14, Republicans outnumber Democrats in seven of the eight fastest-growing state Senate districts in terms of new voters.

And for the first time in modern times, Democrats in Oklahoma are under 50% in registration. That trend coupled with the nomination of a liberal Democrat Presidential nominee and US Senate candidate at the top of the ticket should have state Democrat leaders worrying about what they can do to turn the tide. The Dems have lost the State House and will likely lose the State Senate in November.

With such positive trends for the GOP, why is it that Oklahoma still has more Democrats than Republicans? Registering Democrat in Oklahoma was common in years past due to local elections. Republicans were in the minority and often times, no Republican ran for the county offices, so the race was determined in the primary. In order to vote in those county primary elections, “hidden” Republicans registered as Democrats and ran as Democrats in order to participate in the system. But the Democrats have moved so far to the left, many of those voters in Oklahoma are changing party affiliation to align with their values. When former President Ronald Reagan formally switched to the Republican Party, he said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me."

Another factor is the Oklahoma Democrat party used to claim Sooner state Democrats were not as liberal as the national party, but the most recent Democrat state party platform is as liberal as the national document. In the most recent Oklahoma Democrat party platform there are planks supporting abortion on demand and same sex marriage. If you want to “vet” it, the two major party platforms are widely available online.

When “vetting” candidates, here are some appropriate questions to ask; “Who are you voting for in the Presidential race?” If they are a Democrat and say McCain, perhaps they are in the wrong party. It’s one thing to be a “hidden” Republican voter, but a political candidate should be in agreement with their party leadership. A great follow-up question would be why are you running as a Democrat if you can’t support your presidential nominee?

A second question should be; "Why would you run for office with a party unless you agreed with their platform?" These are fair questions and voters deserve an answer. Candidates must align with their values and the party platform outlines positions on a variety of subjects.

Recent polls show that McCain/Palin will carry Oklahoma by 35-40 points. The Sooner state has not voted for a Democrat for President since 1964. Our federal delegation is largely Republican, but at the local level, Democrats still control county government. Republicans do well in some counties, but rural counties are more of a challenge. That too is changing. With the emerging of new “Republicans” in Oklahoma it’s as if someone cried- Olly Olly Oxen Free!