The Curse of the Second Term!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

THE CURSE OF THE SECOND TERM!

by Steve Fair

On Sunday President Obama became the seventeenth President to be sworn in for two terms.  The US Constitution requires the President be sworn in on January 20^th, so Obama was officially sworn in at the White House on Sunday.  On Monday a public ceremony was held that included celebrities, a parade and lots of pomp and ceremony.

As the President starts his second term as the fourty fourth President of the Republic, the question is; Will he avoid the second term curse?  The term ‘second-term curse’ refers to a phenomenon where the second terms of recent  Presidents are less successful than they were in their first terms.  The second terms of recent presidents have usually been plagued by a major scandal, policy inertia, some sort of catastrophe, or other problems.  Instead of a ‘mandate’ which many second termers think they have after reelection, they instead face challenges from both the opposition Party and their own Party.

The President’s second inaugural address was only nineteen minutes long.  In his short speech, he recapped what he has done thus far and set forth his planned future agenda when he said,  “It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began.  For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.”

President Obama clearly pointed out he wants to forge ahead with climate change legislation and gun control.  He will face major opposition on both issues in the U.S. House.  The President also articulated a theme he has been preaching for over six years:  the rich must pay more taxes, and it is the government’s function to take care of their citizens from cradle to the grave by providing food, clothing, and health care.  It’s not likely the President will change his tune, but Christians should remember two things:

First, it’s important we understand God hasn’t lost control.  He sets up kings and rulers and brings them down.  President Obama’s election didn’t catch God by surprise.  Christians must recognize this simple fact and recognize the authority of the president because he is God’s appointed servant to preserve order and punish evil doers- the primary purpose of government.  You don’t have to agree with the President morally, theologically or politically, and you should point out those areas of difference and stand up against anything that is unbiblical, but throughout the process we should be respectful.

Secondly, Christians should commit to praying for the President daily.  We are commanded to pray for those in authority.  1 Timothy 2:1-2 says,  “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; ² For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”  Christians should pray the President will make decisions based on the principles and precepts in God’s Word.  We should pray that he take spiritual inventory everyday and recognize that God has His way in the whirlwind. 

It remains to be seen if the President falls to the curse of the second term, but his outlined agenda on Monday is one that failed to address the most pressing issue in our country- our out of control spending and national debt.

Water War continues to Rage!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

Water War Continues to Rage!

by Steve Fair

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the water rights case brought by the Tarrant Regional Water District against the State of Oklahoma.  The Obama administration took the Texans side and asked the Supreme Court to take the case which gives Oklahomans another reason to not like the President.   Tarrant Regional Water District (“TRWD”) provides water to more than 1.7 million Texans in an 11-county area of North Texas, and wants to buy water from Oklahoma. However, Oklahoma isn’t selling. The Oklahoma state legislature enacted statutes back in 2006 that impose restrictions on water sales across state lines which, as a practical matter, prevent the interstate sale of Oklahoma water to the TRWD.

In 2007, TRWD sued in federal court to have those restrictions lifted, arguing that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, state laws that discriminate against other states regarding water are unconstitutional.

The North Texas group has contended that water in Oklahoma is theirs and should be diverted to their growing area.  According to a 1980 compact among Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana, each of the four states would share in the water that flows through the Red River and its tributaries.

The Tarrant County Water District contends the Red River compact agreement gives Texas the right to twenty five percent share even if it has to get water from inside Oklahoma’s borders. The Obama administration’s U.S. Justice Department agrees, saying that section of the compact makes no reference to state boundaries.  But two federal courts have agreed with Oklahoma's argument that the state has the right to enact laws protecting water within its boundaries.  TRWD has lost in both federal district court and the Tenth Circuit Court. 

The Appellate Court decided that Oklahoma statutes which precluded water being sold to users in Texas did not violate the Commerce Clause because the Red River Compact preempted it. The Red River Compact, which was signed by Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas in 1978 and approved by Congress in 1980, divided the water from the Red River and its tributaries among the states involved.  The Compact grants the four states authority over the water allocated to them within their borders.  The Tenth Circuit held Texas to its bargain on the Compact and agreed with Oklahoma that the refusal to sell Oklahoma water to Texas users does not violate the Commerce Clause. But the Texans and the Obama administration will just not let it go. 

The fundamental question concerning the water issue is: If you own something someone else wants and needs, but you don’t want to sell it, are you within your rights to keep it and not sell it?

 According to the Obama administration, you do not have a right to not sell.  We have always known the President is passionate about redistributing wealth, but now it appears he favors redistributing natural resources that rightfully belong to our state. 

Oklahoma needs to keep our water.  In their Comprehensive Report on Oklahoma’s Water published in October 2011, (http://journalrecord.com/wp-files//ocwp-executive-rpt-final.pdf) the Oklahoma Water Resources Board pointed out that statewide consumption and demand for water in the state will increase by one third in the next 47 years.  Crop irrigation is forecasted to be the largest water use, about 36% of the total demand.  Oil and gas water use will experience the largest growth statewide, triple what it is currently.  The report goes on to state that Oklahoma has been in a prolonged state of drought and that trend is expected to continue. 

The bottom line is Oklahoma doesn’t have ‘excess’ water to sell off.  For the federal government to attempt to force Oklahoma to sacrifice a precious natural resource like our water is unconstitutional and socialist.  This issue is about states rights and let’s hope the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s rulings. 

Shootout is looming in Congress!

A SHOOTOUT IS LOOMING IN CONGRESS!


"When you all go home and you're talking to your buddies and you say, ah 'He wants to take my gun away.' You've heard it here, I'm on television so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away,” said then U.S. Senator Barrick Obama at an 2008 Virginia campaign event.



But President Obama’s position on the second amendment has certainly changed since that event. According to sources, the White House is considering a broad approach to stopping gun violence. Plans are to do more than just reinstate the assault weapons ban and high capacity magazines.



Led by Vice President Joe Biden, the ‘Biden Group’ is considering asking Congress to pass legislation for universal background checks for people who buy firearms, a tracking system that will monitor the location of weapons through a national database and tougher penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors.

They also want to reinstate the expired federal assault-weapons ban that prohibited the manufacturing of nineteen (19) models of semiautomatic guns classified as ‘assault’ weapons, including certain rifles and shot guns. The law also banned ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten(10) rounds. In addition to potential legislative proposals, Biden’s group has expanded its focus to include measures that would not need congressional approval and could be quickly implemented by executive order. According to sources, the Biden group plans to encourage President Obama to change federal mental-health programs and to empower the ATF to track weapons. The group plans to submit their recommendations to President and Congress before the end of the month.

Obama’s advisers have calculated the longer they wait and the more time that elapses from the Newtown massacre, the greater the risk Congress will have the political will to tackle gun control. “This(Gun Control) is not something that I will be putting off,” the President said on last Sunday’s “Meet the Press.”

The administration plans to get gun retailers like Wal-Mart to get on board by requiring background checks for all gun purchases, even those made at gun shows or through a private transaction. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.

But the administration knows it faces a fight in the court of public opinion. A significant number of Americans recognize that gun control will not stop violence. The NRA has been somewhat quiet since Newtown, but at a news conference on December 21st, National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, said that schools should have armed police officers in every school. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” LaPierre said. LaPierre is absolutely right and a recent incident in San Antonio illustrates that point.

On Sunday December 30th, a person entered a movie theater with weapons after shooting at a San Antonio police unit. The shooting immediately sparked thoughts of a mass slaying like the one in July that killed twelve people and injured fifty eight at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo. But after the suspect reached the theater, an off duty County Sheriff officer, who was working at the theater, shot him. Only two were wounded. A good guy with a gun stopped a potential tragedy like Aurora. You likely didn’t hear much about the San Antonio incident because it didn’t fit the message the liberals wanted are pushing.

Three things to remember on this issue; First, bad guys are going to get guns no matter what. Secondly, guns protect the weak from the strong and finally more laws are not the answer.

I predict a shootout in the upcoming Congressional session over gun control. Make your voice known. Write your Congressman and Senator and tell them to stand firm and support the second amendment.

I AM RESOLVED!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

I AM RESOLVED!

by Steve Fair

Yesterday was New Years- the start of 2013.  Many people made New Years resolutions.  A New Year's resolution is a commitment that a person makes to one or more personal goals, projects, or the reforming of a habit. People committing themselves to a New Year's resolution generally plan to follow through for the whole following year. 

 

Making resolutions has a long history.  The ancient Babylonians made promises to their gods at the start of each year and Romans began each year by making promises to the god Janus, for whom the month of January is named.   Puritans avoided the indulgences associated with New Year’s celebrations and other holidays. In the 18th century, American Puritans avoiding even naming Janus. Instead they called January “First Month.”

The Puritans urged their children to skip the revelry and celebrations of a New Year and instead spend their time reflecting on the year past and contemplating the year to come. They encouraged their children to make resolutions. These were enumerated as commitments to better employ their talents, treat their neighbors with charity, and avoid habitual sins. 

Jonathan Edwards, the great American theologian, took the writing of resolutions to an art form. During a two year period after he had graduated from Yale and at the ripe old age of 19, Edwards compiled seventy resolutions which he committed to review each week for the rest of his life.  Many modern day Christians prepare for the New Year ahead by praying and making resolutions.  The United States federal government even has a website where citizens can get help to achieve their resolutions http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/New-Years-Resolutions. But just how successful are people at keeping New Year’s resolutions?

According to a study by Richard Wisemen from the University of Bristol that involved 3,000 people,  88% of those who set New Year resolutions fail.  That is despite the fact that 52% of the study's participants were confident of success at the beginning. Men achieved their goal 22% more often than women. 

Frank Ra, author of “A Course in Happiness,” says, "Resolutions are more sustainable when shared, both in terms of with whom you share the benefits of your resolution, and with whom you share the path of maintaining your resolution. Peer-support makes a difference in success rate with new year's resolutions".  So you shouldn’t keep your resolutions secret.  You should share your intents to reform with friends and family.  It will provide you accountability and help you stay committed to the resolution.

Unlike Edwards resolutions which involved his spiritual life, most modern day resolutions involve selfish goals of health and wealth.  The top resolutions involve losing weight, getting in shape, eating healthy, and stop drinking.  While those are excellent goals, they are not in the same league as those made by Edwards.  You can read his resolutions at  http://www.newreformationministries.org/The%20Resolutions%20of%20Jonathan%20Edwards.pdf.

As we enter into 2013, we must resolve to pay attention to our government more than just every two years when major elections are held.    We are, after all, self governed.  That means you and I are the boss.  We must resolve to keep elected officials, at all levels, accountable for their actions and to make sure they follow the U.S. Constitution.  We must resolve we will work to elect people, at all levels, who understand we cannot spend more than we take in as a government if we expect to survive.  We must resolve to vote in every election- local, state and federal.  We must resolve to ask questions of elected officials, express our opinion in a civil manner, and make sure our voice is heard in our government. 

John Adams said “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people,” and Thomas Jefferson said simply “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free… it expects what never was and never will be.”

It’s important we resolve to educate ourselves on the issues and have knowledge of our government.  Here are two opportunities for citizens to be educated and to get involved in their government. 

On Saturday January 26^th at 6pm, the SCGOP will host Wallbuilders for the 8^th consecutive year.  This year, Texas State Representative Matt Krause will be speaking.  The event will be at 6pm at the Stephens County Fairgrounds.  It is free to the public. 

On Thursday February 7^th, the Stephens County Republican Party will hold precinct meetings and our County Convention.  The GOP is organized from the precinct level up.  All registered Republicans are encouraged to attend. 

Resolve to join us!

Gun Control is Window Dressing!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

GUN CONTROL IS WINDOW DRESSING!

by Steve Fair

On December 14th, twenty year old Adam Peter Lanza fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut.  Before he left home, Lanza shot and killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their Newtown home. After shooting the students and staff members, he committed suicide.    Lanza is reported to have suffered from Asperger syndrome, an autism disorder that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction.  No motive for the shooting has been disclosed by law enforcement. 

Immediately, the anti-gun/anti 2^nd amendment crowd begin to use the incident to promote gun control.  On Tuesday President Obama said he would support a bill to ban guns like those used in the Newtown school shootings(AR15).  White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama supported reinstating the assault weapon ban, which was first introduced in 1994 but was allowed to lapse in 2004 by the Bush administration. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, (D-California) has indicated she will introduce in January a bill to curb the sale of automatic- and semi-automatic weapons. Feinstein was the author of the original 1994 bill.  By the way, the weapon used in the Newtown shooting was not on the original bill, so even it would have been in force, it would not have prevented this shooting.

This is an emotional issue and the immediate reaction of some people is that guns are the problem.  Let’s take a deep breath and look at this issue logically.  Three observations:

First, strict gun-control policies will always fail to deliver on their promise to make law-abiding citizens safer by denying them the means of self-defense.  This should come as no surprise, since gun control has always been about control, not guns.  Want an example that gun control doesn’t work?  Take President Obama’s hometown- Chicago.  It is illegal to own a gun in Chicago and yet the Windy City has one of the highest crime rates in the country.  Does anyone really think those signs in store windows  banning paying customers the right to carry their gun in the store prevent those stores from being robbed at gunpoint?  When you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns. 

Second, the root problem that caused the school shooting was a spiritual one, not one of hardware.  We have thrown God out of school and out of our society.   Sin, wickedness, depravity is in the heart before it is in the hand.  For far too long, America has been treating the symptoms of sin and not the disease.  Christians must recognize the only hope our country has is the gospel of Jesus Christ.   Instead of teaching behaviour modification, preachers should be heralding biblical repentance and faith.   

Third, any gun control campaign is really a sneak attack on the U.S. Constitution.  Liberals love to paint the Constitution outdated and impractical.  If they can somehow make assault weapon gun owners out to be criminals and void the 2^nd amendment, then we become more dependent on the government for our safety.  The founding fathers knew that government by the people would require keeping the people armed.  The original intent of the 2^nd amendment is to protect us from our own government, not to just allow us to duck hunt. 

The liberals would have you believe by taking away our guns, they will protect us from ourselves, but in fact the most deadly school disaster was not a shooting, but a bombing.  It happened in Bath Township, Michigan in 1927 when a disgruntled school board member set off three bombs killing thirty eight elementary school kids, two teachers and four other adults.  Another fifty eight people were injured.  The perpetrator first killed his wife, and committed suicide with his last explosion.   He had hoarded dynamite, but there wasn’t calls for the regulation of dynamite.  People recognized it for what it was- an act of evil by a depraved man.

Ronald Reagan was right when he said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

 
Banning a certain type of weapon or hardware will not stop violence in our society.  It will only erode our liberties and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.  The real solution to America’s violence and moral problems is the gospel of Jesus Christ, which can change the hearts of men.  Anything short of that is mere window dressing.

Right to Work has been good for Oklahoma!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

RIGHT TO WORK HAS BEEN GOOD FOR OKLAHOMA!

by Steve Fair

Last week Michigan, the birthplace of the United Auto Workers union became America’s 24th right-to-work state. It sounds bizarre but Michigan joined Indiana, which passed right-to-work legislation in February, to become the second right-to-work state in the heavily unionized Midwest.

The Michigan legislation will prohibit workers from being forced to pay mandatory dues to labor unions in order to gain employment.  Without compulsion to pay union dues, union membership, revenue, and strength decline.  In other words, when a worker is given a choice, a significant number choose to not join the union. 

The labor unions in Michigan reacted with violent protests, even storming the capital building in Lansing. Union educators walked out of schools and Democrat state senators walked out on the final vote.  Union workers and the Democrats believe the transition from a "closed shop" state to a right-to-work state will kill the unions in Michigan.  They may be right.  This is the second defeat to Michigan's organized labor interests in two months.

The first defeat came when Michigan defeated a state question on the general election ballot that if it had passed would written collective bargaining into the state constitution and outlawed a right to work law.  Proposal 2 was defeated 58% to 42%.  According to Republicans in Michigan, Proposal 2 was defeated because the unions had outlived their usefulness and have deviated from their original purpose.  Many unions now have become powerful special interest/lobbying groups rather than true representatives of workers' rights.

On Monday, before the state legislature passed and the Governor signed the right to work law, President Obama went to Michigan to campaign against the bill.  He said, "These so called right to work laws, they don't have to do with economics -- they have everything to do with politics. What they're really doing is trying to talk about the right to work for less money."  The president went on to say that strong unions build a strong America.  Understand that two thirds of union workers vote straight Democrat so it makes sense the president would support his base. 

But an important question to ask is why are union states passing Right-to-Work laws?  It’s probably because union workers are tired of losing their jobs because employers refuse to operate, relocate or expand in a non right to work state.  Michigan has been losing population and jobs for over twenty years and right to work states are doing better than those who are not right to work. 

Mark J. Perry, from the American Enterprise Institute, says that in the past three years right to work states have created four times as many jobs as states where they have closed union shops.

Oklahoma passed right-to-work in 2001.  During the campaign for the ballot initiative, I wrote a brochure that was widely distributed across the state entitled, “The Grapes of Wrath continues…”  At that time college graduates were fleeing Oklahoma to Texas and other states for better paying jobs.  Companies were refusing to relocate and expand in the Sooner state because we didn’t have right to work.  We were exporting our most precious resource- our kids and grandkids. 

Critics of right-to-work in Oklahoma said passage wouldn’t make any difference.  They said business didn’t care about right-to-work and passage would hurt Oklahoma.  Has passage of right to work made a difference in our state?  Consider the following:

Since the passage of right to work, Oklahoma’s ranking among the states in per capita income has risen from 47^th to 32^nd.  According to the US Commerce Department, per capita income in the Sooner state is now $37,679.   In the ten years since Oklahoma passed right-to-work, the state’s personal income growth is second in the country.  

Forbes magazine ranks Oklahoma as the eleventh best state in America to do business. Site Selection, magazine that evaluates states and cities for their business enviroment, declared Oklahoma to have the 13th best business climate in the country. Before passage of right to work, we ranked at or near the bottom.  Right to work has worked in Oklahoma- it has worked well.

Contrary to President Obama's statement to his union supporters about how right-to-work is not directly related to economics, it’s clear right-to-work states do better than those without it.  Right-to-work laws allow employers the freedom to hire non-union workers and negotiate contracts with more than one party. 

 
I predict that Michigan will look back in ten years and be grateful to their legislature for having the courage to pass right-to-work.  If they do as well as Oklahoma, it could be what stopped the exodus from the Wolverine state.

Weekly Opinion Editorial

DIVE OFF THE CLIFF!

by Steve Fair

All eyes are on Washington D.C. as Congress and the President address what has been called the ‘Fiscal Cliff.’  Many people are confused and don’t understand what a fiscal cliff is.  The ‘Fiscal Cliff’ is the popular term being used to describe what will happen if the Budget Control Act of 2011 really goes into effect. 

Among the laws set to change on January 1^st are the end of last year’s temporary payroll tax cuts.  That would result in a 2% increase for most workers in the country.  It will also mean the end of a number of  tax breaks for businesses.  The New Year also brings on the start of taxes related to ObamaCare. 
At the same time, the spending cuts Congress and President agreed to in early 2011 in order to increase the debt ceiling will go into effect. According to Barron's, over 1,000 government programs - including the defense budget will face deep, automatic cuts.

Speaker of the House John Boehner, (R-Ohio) has said lawmakers have a choice among three options concerning the cliff:

First, the government can let the Budget Agreement scheduled to go into effect at the beginning of 2013 go into effect. The plus side is the deficit, as a percentage of GDP, would be cut in half.  The down side is that it would mean hard times for a couple of years until the economy recovers.  It would be like taking a medicine that tastes bad but will cure what ails you.  Most political types are unlikely to take the risk of going over the cliff.

Second, Congress and the President could cancel or delay some or all of the scheduled tax increases and spending cuts.  That could mean adding to an already out of control national debt and increase the odds that the United States would face an economic crisis similar to that which is currently occurring in Europe.  It would also send a signal to the rank and file GOP members of the House that the House leadership’s word means nothing.  The newly elected conservative members agreed to increase the debt ceiling in exchange for future cuts in spending.  If that agreement is not implemented, Boehner will have no hope of getting them to trust him again.

Third, the feds could take a middle course, opting for an approach that would not raise taxes and address the budget issues by modestly cutting spending.  That approach is the coward’s way out and it would be just kicking the can down the road to let future Congresses address the root problem(spending).

The average American citizen sees a highly partisan political environment that can’t seem to get anything done.  Congress has had three years to address this issue, but Congress has largely put off the search for a solution rather than seeking to solve the problem directly. House Republicans want to seriously cut spending and avoid raising taxes, while Democrats want to raise taxes and make modest cuts.  It’s not likely the two sides will ever agree.

The ‘fiscal cliff’ will not only impact the federal government, but state and local government as well.  It is estimated that Oklahoma state government could lose up to $150 million in direct federal funding as a result of those automatic spending cuts set to take effect the first of the year.  A third of that would be in education and a third in health and human services.  Medicaid, Social Security, veteran’s programs and food stamps are not included in the list of programs set to be automatically cut. 

The exact amount the state will be cut is not certain, but it is almost an absolute certainty Oklahoma will not be receiving as many federal dollars as they have in the past. 
House Speaker-elect T.W. Shannon, (R-Lawton), has already conducted a study to look at a contingency plan on ways the state will have to respond when faced with reductions in federal assistance.  Tough times are coming. 
 
The bottom line is the federal government is broke and sadly will not recognize it.  The government doesn’t have a revenue problem- it has a spending problem.  We can’t afford these giveaway programs anymore!  According to USA Today, only 45.3% of the American population works and produces.  One in six Americans is on government assistance.  That is a path that is not sustainable.  If America is to survive as a country, we have to take a deep breath and dive off the cliff.  It won’t be easy, but we have to have the courage to do it.