Weekly Opinion/Editorial

MODERN DAY TEA PARTIES SEND A MESSAGE!
by Steve Fair

On Wednesday, tea parties will be held all across America. Not the type of tea party where women wear hats and daintily hold their little finger out as they sip black pekoe from a china cup, but the type where average citizens protest what’s going on with our federal government.

The modern day “tea parties” got started when Rick Santelli, a reporter for CNBC, said the government was promoting irresponsibility by bailing out people who took out home loans they couldn’t afford. (View at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA). When Santelli made the on-air comments from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, he mentioned that it was time for a Chicago Tea Party. Santelli’s remarks inspired 30,000 Americans to stage “tea parties” in over fourty cities across the country in late February.

Other Americans, concerned about the state of the economy and the direction of the government toward socialism, organized and established Tax Day- April 15th as the day to stage the events. The most visible tea party in the Sooner state will be at the State Capital on Wednesday at noon. For information on "tea parties" in your area, go to http://taxdayteaparty.com/

The original Tea Party was in Boston harbour in 1773 and the battlecry was, “Taxation without Representation!” The American colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their constitutional right to be taxed by their own elected representatives. While we have representation, it appears most of Congress is ignoring what average Americans are saying

What are the modern tea parties all about? First, they are non-partisan. Republicans, Democrats and every other Party will be represented at the events on Wednesday. Second, they are an opportunity for average citizens to let their voice be heard by their elected officials. Third, the tea parties will provide resource sites so the participants can remain informed in the future. There are watchdog groups and think tanks that do a good job of monitoring what is going on in Congress and their websites will be provided to those participating. And finally, the tea parties will send a clear message to our elected officials that Americans are not pleased with the way things are going in Washington.

According to the Institute for Policy Innovation, http://www.ipi.org/, there are at least ten reasons why citizens should be up in arms about their taxes and get involved in “tea parties.” Those ten reasons are:

#1. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the national debt will double over the next five years; and it will triple over the next 10 years to $17.3 trillion.

$$$$$$$$$$
#2. The CBO projects the national debt will soar over the next decade from 40 percent of GDP today to a shocking 82.4 percent. Compare that to just twenty years ago when Reagan left office. The national debt was at 42 percent of GDP.

$$$$$$$$$$
#3. The budget will grow federal borrowing by $2.7 trillion this year alone, an increase of 27 percent in one year!

$$$$$$$$$$
#4. The budget for this year increases federal spending by an incredible 34 percent over the previous year, with a total of $4 trillion in federal spending, the highest ever.

$$$$$$$$$$
#5. The federal budget deficit (not the national debt) would reach $1.845 trillion this year, according to the CBO, the highest ever. That would be more than seven times Reagan's largest budget deficit of $221 billion.

$$$$$$$$$$
#6. The CBO estimates this budget deficit will total an astounding 13.1 percent of GDP, more than one-eighth of the entire U.S. economy, for the federal budget deficit alone! Under George Bush, the federal deficit for 2008 was 3.2 percent of GDP. The deficit for fiscal year 2007, in the last budget adopted when Republican majorities controlled Congress, was $162 billion, or 1.2 percent of GDP.

$$$$$$$$$$
#7. The top five percent of wage earners will have their income tax increased under the Obama budget. The budget includes $1 trillion in tax increases on the upper 5 percent of income earners.

$$$$$$$$$$
#8. Corporate income tax will increase by 124% in the next three years under the Obama budget. Corporations will only pass those taxes on to consumers or end users.

$$$$$$$$$$
#9. A $645 billion tax increase will be imposed from President Obama's proposed anti-global warming cap and trade system, which is essentially an energy tax on the production and use of carbon energy, such as oil, natural gas, and coal.

$$$$$$$$$$
#10. Of the two trillion dollars the Obama administration claims to have cut from the budget over the next decade, $1.5 trillion of those "cuts" actually represents the troop draw down in Iraq.
$$$$$$$$$$

In these tough economic times, government should be tightening their belt and strengthening the dollar. Instead they are engaging in irresponsible, reckless spending, borrowing and bailouts. Hopefully, Wednesday's tea parties will get the attention of Congress and the President. On Wednesday, Americans will once again cry out, “taxation without representation!”

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

EFFECTIVE LOBBYING!
By Steve Fair

In 2007, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life polled 35,000 Americans and found that 16.1% were unaffiliated- non-believers. A recent poll by a researcher at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., pegged the percentage of people who say they have no religion at fifteen percent. That number has nearly doubled from polls taken in 1990. Is America becoming more secular? It certainly appears that way.

Nica Lalli said in a USA Today editorial(4/6/09 edition) entitled “No religion? No problem,” “Atheists like me are just content to be able to be religion-free without the social stigma that has been attached to “my kind”- the irreligious minority.” The premise of Lalli’s column was that all Americans should focus more on co-existing and less on religious combat. Does Lalli have a right to be a non-believer? Biblically, not a chance! This article on FREE WILL might interest those serious about the subject: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Tracts%20and%20Writings/FreeWill.htm. Scripture addresses these enlightened, educated, tolerant creatures known as nontheists in Psalms 14:1, which says, “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”

Pew’s poll found that one in four Americans between the ages of 18-29 said they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion. Young people are not attending church like their parents or grandparents. When they do, they expect more entertaining services and less “meat” from the pulpit and there is not shortage of churches and ministers willing to fill that demand. Perhaps one of Lalli’s friends will get her engaged in a mega-church where she can find her “purpose” or read all the “Chicken Soup” books to enhance her spirituality.

The real issue is the 18-29 age group doesn’t have an appetite to study or mediate on God’s word or consider their spiritual standing before a holy God. Those who are believers would rather be spoon-fed some spiritual Pablum* to satisfy their spiritual hunger.

American youth now look to government for their existence, protection, security, joy and peace rather than a sovereign creator. Few can deny younger Americans are more open to socialist concepts than their parents and grandparents. When America elects a President whose stated goal is to “spread the wealth,” and who believes government is the answer to every problem, we are not headed to a socialist state-we are in one.

In the September 2008 Tabletalk magazine, theologian Dr. R. C. Sproul wrote, “a decline from statehood to statism happens when the government is perceived as or claims to be the ultimate reality. This reality then replaces God as the supreme entity upon which human existence depends.” Sound something like what is happening in America today? Sproul’s entire article is worth reading. You can access it at: http://www.ligonier.org/tabletalk/2008/9/1091_Statism..

The reason America has moved to “statism” is not government’s fault. Government by its nature grows, consumes, and perpetuates itself. The average American has brought into the secular philosophy the state will handle the hard issues and has abrogated personal responsibility to the government. Instead of believing a sovereign God controls His creation, average Americans trust government and government responds by “giving them what they want-not what they need.” And we to wonder why politicians “tell us what we want to hear?”

Political activists with religious right leanings- almost exclusively Christians- have engaged in “behavior modification” tactics instead of spiritual ones to impact government. Activists have immersed themselves in the political system, worked on campaigns, attended seminars and engaged in party politics to “make a difference.” Their work and activism has produced some limited results, but until they/we understand that ONLY God can permanently change a heart in an individual and a country, we are destined to be disappointed.

America’s spiritual problem is far greater than our economic ones and much more pressing. It's obvious the "seeker friendly" church concept has not produced lasting results, nor is the conventional political lobbying of conservative Christians. Activists should lobby more, but not the conventional way. We should lobby our Creator on our knees and ask Him to forgive our sins and heal our land. We should plead with Him to change hearts in and out of government.

*Pablum is a processed cereal for infants originally marketed by the Mead Johnson Company in 1931. The trademarked name is a contracted form of the Latin word Pabulum, meaning "foodstuff". The name is also used metaphorically, especially in literary criticism, to refer to something bland, unappetizing, or with little content value.

WE’RE DOING FINE, OKLAHOMA!

Earlier this week you may have received an email in support of moving Oklahoma Republicans back to a caucus system of choosing which presidential candidate receives Oklahoma’s delegate votes to become the Republican nominee for President.

Most knowledgeable Republicans who have studied the caucus proposal being promoted feel passage would be extremely devastating to our party and could set our party back over 20 years.

The information provided in support of this change to the caucus is extremely misleading and comes from individuals whose goal is to create a system that would allow a very small, well-organized minority to manipulate the process to promote their own political agenda.

Let’s analyze each statement made in support of the Caucus.

“In 1976, 1980, and 1984 the Oklahoma GOP supported Ronald Reagan for President - through a caucus system instead of a "Presidential Preference Primary".

Ronald Reagan lost the Iowa Caucus in both 1976 and 1980. He then came back and won the New Hampshire primaries. So using that logic, if New Hampshire had a caucus Ronald Reagan may have never become President. How can we empower the grassroots to support conservative leaders like Reagan in the future? Answer: Restore the Oklahoma GOP to the Caucus System?

Back to the Reagan example. In 1976 Gerald Ford won the Iowa caucus. One week later Ronald Reagan won the New Hampshire primary. In 1980 George H.W. Bush won the Iowa Caucus. The following week Ronald Reagan won the New Hampshire Primary. I don’t know of anyone who would argue that Ford and Bush 41 were more conservative than Ronald Reagan.

Counties across the State, including Oklahoma and Tulsa counties, have already passed a proposal known as "Caucus OK!" that would restore the Oklahoma GOP to a caucus system, and it will soon be heard at the State Convention, Saturday, April 18. I would invite you to visit the Caucus OK website http://caucusok.org/to learn more!

While it is true the proposal was passed in a few counties it was soundly defeated 52-28 in Cleveland County, which was perhaps the only county to have a full and open debate on the issue. Cleveland County even suspended its own convention rules to allow the principal proponent of the caucus proposal to debate for the measure. It was still soundly voted down.

"An enlarged , invigorated , and empowered grassroots volunteer and donor base will result from the restoring of the caucus system."

There is no evidence that this would be the case. Iowa has been the example given to support this assertion, claiming Iowa gets more attention and activity because of their caucus. Truth is, Iowa receives attention because they are first in the process. New Hampshire receives an equal amount of attention and they have a primary. Current RNC rules do not allow Oklahoma to conduct their selection process earlier than it is currently held, either primary or caucus. Changes are currently being discussed by the RNC and will more than likely be put into effect before the 2012 elections.

"A caucus system is a nomination process that truly reflects a consensus of the Party grassroots."

Again, there is no evidence to support this claim. In 2008 over 345,000 Oklahoma Republicans turned out to vote in the Republican Presidential Primary. If the proposed caucus were to be approved we would be telling those Republicans that we didn’t care about their opinion and that their votes didn’t matter.

"Moving to a caucus system will increase fundraising opportunities for the Party."

The change as proposed would not generate additional revenues; in fact, it would be extremely costly to the Oklahoma Republican Party, as it requires the party to furnish ballots, including absentee ballots, to all Republicans at no cost. The OKGOP would also be responsible for conducting the voting process, including having to verify whether those showing up or mailing in ballots were indeed eligible to vote.

"Moving to a caucus system will save Oklahoma tax-payer dollars (up to $3 million)."

This is not true, as the change to the caucus does not eliminate the primary. The Democrat party will still conduct their voting via a primary. It does not change the law.

"Moving to a caucus system will increase Oklahoma's influence and attention in the national election process."

Since 1988 when Oklahoma moved from the caucus to the Primary, Republicans held 32 seats in the Oklahoma House; we now hold 61. In 1988 Republicans held 15 seats in the Oklahoma Senate; we now hold 26. All in all, Oklahoma Republicans have done quite well under the current system.

CONCLUSION

The truth is a caucus system would empower a few influential activists who believe they know better than the general population what Oklahoma needs. A caucus system would establish an oligarchy which is a form of government where power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society- aka Political Pharisees. That is never good and goes completely against the principles of the U.S. Constitition which is inclusive and protects us from the establishment of an oligarchy.

Oklahoma Republican activists should be about the business of educating Oklahoma voters and encouraging more conservatives to become involved in the process. Moving to a caucus system would be a step backward in Oklahoma. We have accomplished too much with a Presidential Primary! While not a perfect system, it is infinitely better than moving back to a Caucus system. Vote No at the State Convention!

Since this post appeared, I have received dozens of emails on this issue. The emails are running three to one in favor of retaining the Presidential Primary system. Most writers have been gracious, others not so kind. I appreciate each of you who have taken time to read the post and to comment-no matter your position on the issue. There are good people on both sides of this issue and many I count as friends. I do not question anyone's intergity or motive if they are for moving to the caucus system. They are sincere, but I believe they are sincerely wrong. If the tone of the article offends you, please forgive me. It was never my intent to offend, but to present the other side of this very important issue.

To clarify, this article reflects MY position and does not necessarily reflect the position of anyone else. ~Steve

Cole Says Majority's Budget Proposal Undermines National Defense

WASHINGTON – Congressman Tom Cole (OK-04) made the following remarks on the House floor last night opposing the Majority's budget proposal.

"Mr. COLE: I thank the gentleman for yielding. And, Madam Chair, I rise to oppose this Democratic budget. As we have heard repeatedly tonight, it spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much.

But I want to be fair to my friends on the Democratic side. There is one area of the budget where there is a glaring exception to that rule, and that is the defense of the United States of America.
Over the course of a 10-year projected Obama budget, we will move from 20 percent of the Federal budget down to 14 percent devoted to defending the country. We will move from just over 4 percent of the gross national product to 3 percent to defend the United States of America. We will risk canceling major weapons systems, like the future combat system, a tanker that will help us project air power around the world and missile defense, at a time when the North Koreans and the Iranians are developing missiles. That risks jobs, that risks security. That is reckless in a dangerous world.

That is not just my opinion, Madam Chairman. Let me read from Robert Samuelson's recent article, 'Obama, the Great Pretender.' 'It would be responsible for Obama to acknowledge the big gamble in his budget. National security has long been government's first job. In his budget, defense spending drops from 20 percent to 14 percent of the total from 2008 to 2016, the smallest share since the 1930s. The decline presumes a much safer world. If the world doesn't cooperate, deficits will grow.'

More importantly, American soldiers and American security will be at risk, Madam Chairman. So let's reject this budget because it does spend too much, it does borrow too much, it does tax too much. And let's embrace the Republican alternative which spends less, borrows less, taxes less, but, most importantly, puts more resources where it counts, defending the United States of America.

NEWT TO SPEAK AT BIG DINNER!

......replaces Pallin!

from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20726.html

Congressional Republicans are replacing their party’s former vice presidential nominee as the headliner of their big spring fundraising dinner with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich after the Alaska governor vacillated publicly about the appearance, sources familiar with the situation said Tuesday.

Gingrich becomes a Catholic
By Betsy Rothstein of The Hill

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) converted to Catholicism on Sunday and celebrated his new faith with some close friends at the hot spot Café Milano. Gingrich, who had been a Baptist, attended Sunday evening Mass at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church on Capitol Hill and was confirmed into the Catholic Church that evening during a separate service.Gingrich’s wife, Calista, is Catholic.

~~~~~~~~~~
Former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), now a lobbyist at Clark & Weinstock, and his wife attended the Sunday service. Weber told ITK that the Gingrich party “for his Catholic friends” was “very, very nice.” Weber cracked that it was different from any other event he has attended with Gingrich because “it was the only event with Newt where he didn’t give a speech.”

~~~~~~~~~~
The possible 2012 White House hopeful had no comment on becoming a Catholic. Rick Tyler, Gingrich’s spokesman, said, “He’s not commenting on it. That’s not to say that he won’t comment on it, but he isn’t right now.” Gingrich’s Wikipedia page already posts his religion as Roman Catholic.

~~~~~~~~~~
Writer Michael Novak and Cardinal McCarrick, the retired cardinal of Washington, were in attendance at Café Milano.

~~~~~~~~~~
Becoming Catholic isn’t simple. “It’s harder than becoming a Lutheran or a Methodist,” said Weber. “You go through several months of preparation — it’s not like joining a country club.”
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was at the restaurant dining with three men. He didn’t appear to be there to celebrate with Gingrich.

WHY IS RICK WAGONER FIRED AND NANCY PELOSI STILL WORKING?

Ann tells it like it is in her latest column. Click on link to access it: http://www.anncoulter.com/