A sequel appears to be where America is today.

Weekly Opinion Editorial 

IMITATING OURSELVES

by Steve Fair

     President Joe Biden will announce his re-election bid on Tuesday.  The Democratic National Committee (DNC) announced they support Biden’s nomination and that no primary debates will be held.  Biden, at age 80, is the oldest U.S. president in history.  If he is reelected in 2024, Biden would be 82 when sworn in for his second term.    

     2024 is shaping up to be a sequel rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.  Barring any unforeseen circumstances, Biden will be the Democrat nominee.  He faces token opposition and the leaders in the Party appear united in clearing a path to the nomination.  While it is still a year before GOP presidential primaries will be held, Trump, 77, has a double-digit lead among Republican primary voters.   Trump will face several viable opponents for the nomination, but none have the voter base or the fundraising ability of the former president.   If a rematch happens between Biden and Trump in 2024, what must the two candidates do differently than they did in 2020?  Three things

     First, Trump must lead with his accomplishments.  Trump tends to spend more time attacking/mocking his opponents than detailing public policy plan.  During the 2016 election, Trump had great appeal to swing voters.  Swing voters are the people who didn’t attend Trump’s rallies, laugh at his insults, or wear a MAGA ball cap.  They voted for Trump because their manufacturing job had been exported by the Obama administration.    They put Trump in office in 2016, but didn’t show up in 2020. No president in recent history did more to help America manufacturing than Trump.  Buy America appeals to the working Democrat.   Trump should recreate that appeal in 2024.      

     Second, Biden must campaign.  During the 2020 election, Joe Biden used the COVID pandemic as an excuse to hide in the basement.  He did less public campaigning than any presidential candidate in modern history.  That bizarre strategy worked in 2016 because the pandemic had everybody hunkered down.  But that approach will not work in 2024.  Biden must detail his plan on how to deal with record inflation, high interest rates, and diminishing retirement accounts, while explaining how his failed policies created the problem. 

     Third, the VP pick must be carefully watched.  If Biden or Trump are elected in 2024, they would be the oldest president in American history.  That makes the vice president pick very important.  Mike Pence was a capable and competent VP-  Kamala Harris not so much.  Harris is a far left ideolog that would will be a disaster as president.  It’s a safe bet Pence will not be Donald Trump’s running mate again, but whomever he selects needs to be capable.  American voters need to pay very close attention to who the VP picks are because they could very well be president due to the advanced age of the candidates.

    A Washington Post/ABC poll conducted in February showed Republicans spilt between nominating Donald Trump or someone else.  The poll found most Democrats preferred an alternative to Biden.  It found few Americans were excited about a Trump-Biden rematch.  Sequels are seldom as good as the original.  Dr. Don Marquis was an American philosopher that taught at the University of Kansas.  Marquis famously said, “A sequel is an admission that you’ve been reduced to imitating yourself.”  That appears to be where America is today.

Parents shouldn't have to engage in espionage and reconnaissance to find out what school is teaching!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

WINK & NOD!

by Steve Fair

     Oklahoma House Bill#2077, authored by Rep. Chad Caldwell, (R-Enid) and Sen. Dave Rader, (R-Tulsa) would have directed the State Department of Education to create an online transparency portal for review of certain school materials.  Caldwell said the bill would have given both parents and the public access to look through and comment on school curriculum, textbooks and library materials. 

     “We tried to find a simple middle of the road common sense solution that would address both sides of this issue.  Parents, not only in Oklahoma, but across the country are concerned about what is going on in our schools,” Caldwell said.  The immediate financial cost to Oklahoma taxpayers to create the portal was estimated to be $1 million dollars.   

     HB#2077 passed in the House Appropriations and Budget Education subcommittee 10-4.  All Democrats on the subcommittee opposed it with one Republican, Rep. Ronny Johns, (R-Ada), a former school superintendent, joining them.  On March 2^nd, when voted on by the full A&B committee, HB#2077 failed 24-8.   

     Opposition to HB#2077 was initially from Democrats.  Democrat floor leader, Rep. Andy Fugate, (D-Del City) said, “I’m concerned about the impact to classroom teachers having another place to have to upload information.  If they don’t use the precise, exact language, they open themselves up to be a target.”  But some Republicans also thought HB#2077 had some fishhooks.  Rep. Rhonda Baker, (R-Yukon) said school superintendents in her district opposed it because they didn’t have the manpower to upload the material.  Caldwell responded that his goal was to reduce the burden on the districts, not add to it.  Baker voted to advance the bill in subcommittee, but opposed passage in full committee (very common occurrence).  Three observations:

     First, parents and taxpayers have a right to know what is going on in the schools.  They are the ones paying the bill.  HB#2077 may not have been the right vehicle or had the perfect language, but Caldwell’s idea of accountability and transparency is a good one.  Making it easier for taxpayers and parents to review what their children are being taught or have access to it would have been progress.  It might have been vexatious and burdensome for educators to upload, but that could have been addressed.  Parents and school patrons should not have to engage in espionage and reconnaissance to find out what their local school is teaching. 

     Second, the killing of HB#2077 illustrates the effective power of the education lobby.  Once word got out HB#2077 had gotten out of the subcommittee and had a chance to become law, opposition got busy.  They immobilized and made sure the bill was dead on arrival.  The education lobby is consistently opposed to efforts to provide the public more transparency into what is going on in schools.  Any attempt to force more accountability is resisted. 

     Third, local school board members are important.  These elected officials serve with little or no compensation.  Per Oklahoma statutes, school board members are ‘eligible’ to receive $25 per meeting, not to exceed $100 monthly.  They represent school patrons and parents and are charged with general oversight of the district.  Sadly, most just ‘rubber stamp’ the administration’s recommendation on curriculum and textbooks.  They take more interest in the fiscal issues.  Both are important.  School board members should make it their mission to know what their school is teaching and solicit input from those in their district.    

    School board races were held across the state of Oklahoma in February and April.  Turnout was dismal.  Less than 10% of those eligible to cast a vote bothered to show up and vote.  Until parents and taxpayers start to care more, little will change.

     Several Republican House members opposed passage of HB#2077 in the A&B committee.  If your State Representative was one of them- ask them why they opposed it.  They may have a good reason, but opposing it because the school superintendents in the district opposed it is not one of them.  Opposition to a bill that provides transparency to taxpayers has to be more substantive than just a wink and a nod.

 

Sadly, for most politicians ‘standing on principle’ is just a campaign slogan!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

DEARTH OF TRUTH!

by Steve Fair

     Politico, a political newspaper based in Virginia, was founded in 2007 by Robert Allbritton.  Allbritton, a Texan, sold Politico to a German publishing company for $1 billion in cash in 2021. Politico leans left of center (meaning liberal), but their coverage of politics is followed by people on both sides of the aisle. 

     On Saturday, Politico columnist Steven Shephard wrote Republicans were losing races because more than 50% of America supports abortion.    Shephard claims 60% of voters support legal abortions in most cases.  He says only one third of American voters want abortion to be entirely or mostly illegal. Citing last week’s Wisconsin Supreme Court race, Shephard concludes the GOP lost because the youth vote is not pro-life.  He says Rs will continue to lose if the Party doesn’t, “find a message that puts the Party more in line with the median voter.” Three observations:

     First, standing up for what is right is more important than winning political races.  Shephard may be correct about Republicans losing the youth vote.  Because there is a moral decline in America, interest in spiritual things is down across the board, especially among the young.  Abortion is a Biblical and political issue that polarizes. Polarization makes GOP political operatives nervous and puts their livelihood in jeopardy.  Their response is to ‘rebrand/relabel’ the message by toning down a strong pro-life stance by candidates.

     Sadly, for most politicians ‘standing on principle’ is just a campaign slogan.  All too often, candidates are recruited based on their marketability, not their ability.  Political consultants want a candidate as pliable as wax to be molded into effigies that can get elected.  Once elected, those ignorant and uninformed droids get schooled by special interests on how to vote and behave.  If they play the game- they get funded for reelection.  If they don’t play the game, they are abandoned and another golem is enlisted.  Until voters start paying attention all the time and not just a month before an election, the cycle will continue.

      Second, life begins at conception.  Even most liberals concede that fact, but even if they don’t believe it, it is still true.  God said He gives life.  He is the Creator.  In America, a person has a right to believe otherwise, but it doesn’t the change facts.  God is the Creator and man is His creation.  Legalizing abortion puts man in direct conflict with what God has said.  Former President Reagan wisely said, “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” 

    Third, America has too much emphasis on relevance or not enough on reverence.  The familiarity of basic Bible truths is at an all-time low.  Modern day churches, Christians, and parents have abandoned the message of the Gospel for a pertinent gist, which has resulted in a dearth of truth.  Emphasis on self-fulfillment has created a society of narcissistic people who are self-centered, arrogant and have no empathy or consideration for others.  Because they believe there is no absolute truth, they are on a continual journey for admiration.  They look at those who believe the Bible as unlearned, unscientific boobs, sitting on a tree stump picking their teeth.  They fail to see they are the unenlightened.  May God open their eyes.

     Shephard concludes his column by saying Democrats need to be careful expanding abortion.  He says the Party who ‘moderates’ their position on abortion will likely win elections in the future, by attracting the youth vote.  If the GOP weakens their position on life in the womb, they will lose a huge percentage of the base and cease to be the Republican Party.  That will guarantee its defeat.

Blind loyalty/allegiance often leads to disappointment for the devoted.

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

TRUMP NOT TARGET!

by Steve Fair

 

     On Thursday, former President Donald Trump was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury.  The indictment, the first directed at a U.S. president, concerned Trump’s alleged role in a hush money payment made to Stormy Daniels, a porn actress.  The former president is expected to appear in person at an arraignment on Manhattan Island Tuesday.  Three observations:

     First, the indictment is a misuse of the legal system.  Most legal experts believe the Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg doesn’t have a strong case.  They predict Trump will be found not guilty, if the case goes to trial.  Bragg is attempting to tie the payment to Daniels as an in-kind campaign contribution.  They believe that would be a stretch, since no campaign monies were used for the payment.  A former Federal Election Commission Chair says the payment would not be considered a political contribution.

     Bragg openly campaigned in 2021 he would indict Trump if elected.  That is highly inappropriate for a prosecutor.  District Attorneys are not to engage in ‘selective enforcement,’ or targeted prosecution.  Bragg is soft on real crime.  Bragg, 49, announced four days after he took office that he would not enforce what he called low level offenses.  Offenses like resisting arrest, prostitution, and cannabis related laws are not enforced in Manhattan.  Bragg also announced burglaries and store robberies, ‘”where the offender displays a dangerous weapon, but does not create a genuine risk of physical harm.” would be reduced to a misdemeanor.  Bizarre! But Bragg is aggressive in going after high profile political figures. He indicted former Trump advisor Steve Bannon in September on charges of fraud, the same charges Trump pardoned him for.  Bragg, a Harvard grad, is politically ambitious and a self-promoter. 

     Second, President Trump is basking in the attention.  Most people would have angst or perturbation if they faced indictment by a prosecutor, even if they were innocent.  But not Trump.  The former POTUS has stated he wants to be handcuffed and a mug shot taken.  Both are not likely to happen.  Trump subscribes to the theory any press is good press and there is no such thing as bad publicity.  Painting himself as the persecuted victim who is being picked on helps Trump with his base.  Reportedly Trump has raised $4 million dollars in campaign funds since the indictment was announced- 25% came from new donors.  By indicting him, Bragg likely handed the former POTUS the 2024 GOP nomination. 

     Third, this indictment is not about Trump.  Bragg denies it, but he and most every Democrat hate what Trump was able to accomplish in his single term.  They hate Trump’s policies more than they hate him.  But they recognize their socialist stratagem won’t sell to the public.  They resort to attacking the messenger.  They condemn him for his boisterous, egotistical, muckraking personality.  The real bulls-eye is conservative policies.

     Breaking the law or misbehavior by elected officials should never be excused by all Americans.  Every person of character, no matter their Party affiliation or political leanings, should demand integrity and forthrightness from elected leaders.  No one should ever be considered above the law, including former presidents.  No one should excuse misbehavior or turn a blind eye to shenanigans, even from zealot DAs. 

     Bragg’s actions are obviously partisan, but Democrats have ‘circled the wagons’ around him.  Many Republicans have done the same for Trump.  Blind loyalty/allegiance often leads to disappointment for the devoted.  

JUSTICE WRITES OPINION OVER TWICE AS LONG AS THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

INSTABILITY!

by Steve Fair

 

     This week, the Oklahoma Supreme Court(OSC) ruled the state constitution protects the right to an abortion to a woman in life-threatening situations.   In the 5-4 decision, the OSC determined Senate Bill# 612 was unconstitutional and violated Section 861 of the state constitution. 

     Enacted in April 2022, SB#612 prohibited all abortions except in narrowly defined medical emergencies and made abortion a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and/or a $100,000 fine.  The OSC’s concurring and dissenting opinions on the decision can be found at: https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=493235 

     Governor Kevin Stitt disagreed with the OSC opinion, calling it an ‘activist’ opinion.  Stitt pointed out the majority(concurring) opinions failed to mention the unborn.  “From the moment life begins at conception, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to protect that baby’s life and the life of the mother,” Stitt said.

     In the dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John Kane wrote: “This court should adhere to the Constitution given to us, not craft what we believe to be a ‘better’ Constitution.  The power lies with the people.” 

     Justice Yvonne Kauger, 85, wrote the 4,870-word majority/concurring opinion.  The Sermon on the Mount is only 2,000 words!  Kauger, appointed to the OSC in 1984 by Governor George Nigh, lists four feminist arguments why a women should have the right to an abortion.  In her rambling conclusion, Kauger cites several injustices against women in the past and winds up by writing: “For some women, the draconian law which allows no exception, in the absence of a medical emergency to preserve the life of the mother, may be a death sentence. In some instances, women may have fewer rights than a convicted murderer on death row.”

     The justices who joined with Kauger in the majority opinion, the governor who appointed them to the high court and the date of their appointment are as follows: Winchester (Keating in 2000), Combs (Henry in 2010 ), Gurich (Henry in 2011), and Edmondson (Henry in 2003).

     Justices who voted No were Kane (Stitt in 2019), Kuehn (Stitt in 2021), Rowe (Stitt in 2020), Darby (Fallin in 2018). Three observations:

     First, the OSC is more unstable than Justine Bieber.  How the OSC will rule is inconsistent and impossible to predict.  The OSC’s pick and choose past rulings on what is ‘log rolling/single subject’ legislation are classic examples.  What they see as constitutional in one ruling will be ruled the exact opposite in another case.  Their rulings are often illogical and legally indefensible.  They have often overturned the will/vote of the people of Oklahoma based on their liberal interpretation of a law.   

     Second, Oklahoma needs judicial reform.  The current retention ballot isn’t working.  Since the Sooner state went to the retention ballot (1972) for the state’s three courts of appeal, no jurist has been voted out.  That is not because they are all doing a bang-up job.  It’s because Oklahoma voters can’t find out anything about the judges on the ballot, so they skip the retention ballot.  Proposals to term-limit judges hasn’t gotten anywhere in the legislature.  Proposed reforms to the nomination process (controlled by the state attorney’s association- OBA) always hit a dead end.  The reason liberals and quasi- conservatives get appointed to the OSC is because the OBA is not conservative.  Having liberals involved in the selection of the justices have put liberals on the court. 

     Third, legislating from the bench is alive and well in Oklahoma.  The OSC has routinely struck down legislation and overturned the vote of the people.  That proves elections have consequences.  It makes a difference who is elected governor. All, but one of the Justices (Winchester), who voted against the unborn were appointed by a Democrat governor.  It is not the job of the OSC to rewrite the constitution.  Their job is to interpret the law, not make it.

     The hyperbole, exaggerated scenarios liberals use to make their case for terminating a child’s life in the womb fail to address the one overriding question: when does life begin?  If it begins at conception, then no one has a right to murder another and any law that allows it is draconian.

OKLAHOMA HAS A LONG HISTORY WITH TOLL ROADS!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

OTA PROBE!

by Steve Fair

 

     The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) is an authorized quasi state agency.  It was created, by statute, in 1947 to construct, maintain, repair and operate turnpike projects authorized by the state legislature and approved by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (DOT).  The OTA issues revenue bonds for the purpose of paying costs of constructing the turnpikes.  The bonds are paid back solely from the tolls and do not constitute indebtedness to the state.  The OTA has been described as similar to a public utility.

     The OTA board has seven members.  The governor is an ex-officio member.  The other six members, who serve without pay for eight-year terms, are appointed by the governor.  The board members can be removed by the governor at any time, without cause, and replaced. The OTA has around 650 full time employees.  It takes in over $330 million annually in tolls.

     In August 2022, the Council of Bond Oversight approved $500 million in revenue bonds OTA could issue to expand Oklahoma’s toll roads.  The OTA plans to use the money to widen the Kilpatrick, Turner, and the Will Rogers turnpikes.  They also plan to improve the Gilcrease and the Creek. 

     OTA’s 15-year plan is called ‘Access Oklahoma.’  The plan, “identities and addresses on-going highway infrastructure needs to improve access to communities across Oklahoma.”  To view the plan, go to: https://www.accessoklahoma.com.

     Until last week, the OTA had never been audited by the state auditor’s office.  That is about to change.  On Wednesday, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond requested State Auditor Cindy Byrd conduct an investigative audit of the OTA.  “I have had many conversations over the past few months with legislators, community leaders, private citizens and state employees who have expressed a wide array of concerns with the financials conduct of the OTA.  These concerns include, but are not limited to improper transfers between the OTA and DOT, improper contracting and purchasing practices, and inadequate internal financial controls,” Drummond said. Three observations:

     First, the OTA is a private business controlled by Oklahoma government.  Most Oklahomans don’t realize when they toss their quarters into the basket, the money doesn’t go to the state- it goes to bondholders.  The governor sovereignly controls the OTA.  Not only is the governor on the authority, but they hand select the other members.  There have been a number of failed attempts by legislators through the years to fold the OTA under the DOT, but the bondholders are a powerful lobbying group.  Each attempt is met with resistance and the proposals never come to a vote on the floor.

     Second, Oklahoma has a long history with toll roads.  Oklahoma was the first state west of Pennsylvania to construct a toll road.  The Turner Turnpike, named for Governor Roy Turner, was authorized in 1947 and opened in 1953.  When built, Oklahomans were told once it was ‘paid off,’ the toll booths would come down.  Because the OTA ‘cross pledges’ the turnpikes in the state, no single turnpike is ever paid off. 

     Oklahoma has 10 toll roads comprising over 600 miles.  Fifteen percent of Oklahoma roads are toll roads.  The state ranks only behind Florida in number of miles of toll roads and behind New Hampshire in percentage of total roads vs. toll roads. 

     Third, the audit is long past due.  Tim Gatz, executive director of the OTA, says he welcomes the scrutiny of the audit.  Gatz claims the OTA is well run and managed, but not all of OTA’s expansion is being met with enthusiasm. In December, 150 citizens of Cleveland County, who oppose expansion of turnpikes around Norman, filed suit against the OTA claiming it violated the Open Meeting Act.  Cleveland County Associate District Judge Timothy Olsen agreed with them, saying the OTA intentionally violated the Open Meeting Act by discussing business not on the pre-published agenda. He ruled any business conducted on the items not published is void. The OTA has appealed the ruling.

     Turnpike expansion was a campaign issue in last year’s gubernatorial race.  Governor Stitt’ opponent, Joy Hofmeister, pledged to request an audit of the OTA if she was elected.  Some of Hofmeister’s advisors are now working for Drummond and some believe those staffers are behind the audit request.  Whatever the motivation/reason for Drummond’s request, more sunlight on what is going on at OTA is good for Oklahoma.

Parleying by legislative leadership should be done behind the scenes!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial 

ALL ‘ER NOTHING

by Steve Fair

    

     This week, Oklahoma Speaker of the House Charles McCall, (R-Atoka) held a news conference and said HB#2775 and HB#1935, two school choice bills passed by the House, cannot be amended by the Oklahoma State Senate.  McCall said the upper chamber must pass them as is.  Any tweaks, modifications, or alterations the senate had could be addressed with a ‘trailer bill,’ McCall declared.

     McCall’s hardline stance on the two bills didn’t set well with Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat, (R-OKC).  Treat called McCall’s statements, “asinine.”   “The Senate has a role to play.  These members(senate) are duly elected, and we will play our role,” Treat said.    

     “We expect those (HB#2772 & HB1935) to be heard as is.  We are open to the Senate’s ideas for education.  If they have some priorities, the House is certainly interested in anything that benefits education in the state of Oklahoma,” McCAll responded. Three observations:

     First, Oklahomans lose when the two chambers feud.  Last year, the two chambers were frequently at odds.  Oklahoma taxpayers received no tax relief in 2022 because the House’s tax cut proposals failed to be considered by the Senate.   The leaders of the two chambers don’t appear to collaborate or communicate.  At his news conference, Treat referenced a weekly meeting he and McCall hold where the school choice issue wasn’t brought up.  If that is true- and there is no reason to believe it isn’t- then why is McCall publicly taking a tough, inflexible stand?   McCall’s goal appears to be to get passionate school choice citizens to put pressure on Treat to get his bills a vote in the senate. 

     Oklahoma voters elected legislators to represent their interests and to work together for the good of the state, not grandstand and showboat.  Elected officials need to set aside ego and work together.  Contention and conflict will produce a dead end stalemate.  When that happens, nobody wins.    

     Second, collaboration and negotiation are part of the political process.  McCall’s ‘line in the sand,’ stance is not just a poke in the eye to the senate, but an insult to the Oklahomans who elected the 48 senators.  More collaboration usually results in better legislation, not worse.  The two chambers are there to vet and inspect the work of the other chamber.  Neither should be expected to rubber stamp the other’s proposals.  Treat is right- the senate should do its job.    

     Third, trailer bills in Oklahoma are a myth/fable.  They are an apparition. These so-called bills of correction never come to past.  They are discussed and promised when fishhooks are pointed out in major legislation, but they never materialize.  Fixing the ‘unintended consequences’ in a bill should be done before it is passed, not after it becomes law.    

     In the musical, “Oklahoma,” cowboy Will tells Ado Annie (in song) that he wants total commitment from her.  He croons he expects ‘all ‘er nothing.’ Ole Will gives no quarter to compromise, accommodation or middle ground.  Annie takes umbrage with Will’s demands and takes a hardline stand of her own, resulting in a rift in their relationship.  That appears to be what is being played out in the Oklahoma legislature.  It’s uncertain which chamber- or leader of the chamber- is being unyielding and obstinate (all ‘er nothing).  But for certain the parleying by legislative leadership should be done behind the scenes and not played out in the media.