Newscum is dashing his hopes to occupy the White House!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL

by Steve Fair

     On Saturday, President Donald Trump signed an executive memorandum deploying 2,000 National Guard troops in California in response to protests in Los Angeles over the enforcement of illegal immigration. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the action is being done to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles. Hegseth said if violence continued, active-duty Marines stationed at Camp Pendleton could also be mobilized.

The protests came after federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers raided multiple workplaces in L.A.’s fashion district and detained hundreds of illegal immigrates (those who enter and usually become established).

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, claims Trump’s action was a move to, “take over” the California National Guard (Trump’s right as Commander-in Chief). Newsom says deploying the National Guard is “purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.” Trump has threatened to cut federal funding to the Golden State for ignoring enforcement of his executive orders regarding illegal immigrates.  Newsom has said he would retaliate by withholding federal tax collected in the state.  “California pays the bills for the federal government,” Newsom said. 

      California is a donor state in regard to taxation. They pay over $80 billion more each year than they receive from the feds. It remains unclear if Trump and Newsom can legally withhold funding from the other. No one wins in a stalemate and it remains to be seen who will blink first.

Three observations:
First, the immigration issue is about votes. The Democratic Party has openly advocated for allowing illegal immigrates to be granted the right to vote. States with high levels of illegals affect the census, congressional apportionment and electoral college votes. If political power is shifted to states with high levels of illegal immigrates, America becomes bluer. That’s why Biden kept borders open. It is why Newsom encourages protests: it helps the Democratic Party cause.

Second, the immigration issue is about security. During Biden’s administration, the U.S. endured a large-scale invasion. Millions of illegal aliens from nations and regions around the world entered the U.S. Who knows how many potential terrorists, foreign spies, cartel members or other criminals are living here? A country with no border is not a country at all. Trump has closed the border and deporting illegal immigrants should be a nonpartisan issue, but it remains one of the most divisive debates of the day.

Third, the immigration issue is about the rule of law. The United States has clear immigration laws regarding how a person enters, stays and potentially becomes an American citizen. The inconsistency and unpredictability in enforcement by various administrations has been the challenge. Immigration enforcement should be applied fairly and consistently; it should not be ambiguous, inconclusive or obscure. The executive branch is charged with enforcing the law, not just the ones they like.

Americans want border security. A recent Gallup poll found more than 55% of Americans believe immigration law enforcement should be a priority for the federal government. Those same citizens support building more border walls and an increase in Border Patrol agents. Politically, illegal immigration is an issue that cuts across party affiliation. A majority of Democrats want a secure border. Most Americans support legal immigration, but not illegal immigration.

Newsom is considered a potential 2028 Democrat nominee for president. If he continues his mishandling of this situation, he will authenticate Trump’s nickname for him—Newscum—and dash his hopes to occupy the White House. After all, illegal is illegal.

    

LEGISLATURE HAS SHORTAGE OF INDEPENDENT CRITICAL THINKERS!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

BROUGHT AND PAID FOR

by Steve Fair

     The Oklahoma legislature went sine die (adjourned with no appointed date for readjournment) on Friday.  It was a session marked by new legislative leadership in both chambers.  After several sessions of contention between the state House and Senate, it appears collaboration improved between the two chambers.  Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, (R-Tuttle) and House Speaker of the House Kyle Hilbert, (R-Bristow) appeared to sing off the same sheet of music, but Governor Kevin Stitt isn’t on the same sheet.  Stitt set a record for the number of vetoes in a session- 68.  That is twice more than the previous session. 

     Oklahoma lawmakers overrode 47 of the 68 vetoes- a state record.  Two more vetoes were overridden by the Senate, but were not voted on in the House. One veto was approved by the House but not voted on by the Senate before adjournment. 

     Legislators also took time out of overruling to pass a resolution formally removing Allie Friesen as head of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health.  Friesen has been embattled since a state audit showed a $28 million dollar budget shortfall and struggled to make payroll.  Three observations about the 2025 session:

     First, special interests control the Oklahoma legislature.  Legislative candidates are   recruited, funded and equipped by trade associations, state agencies, and special interest groups.  Bear in mind- the listed groups represent people and have a right to lobby.  But also remember, a legislator’s allegiance/loyalty is primarily to those who got them into office.  Once elected, elected officials tend to kowtow to those they came to the dance with. 

     The number of independent, critical thinking lawmakers has dwindled to a handful.  Group think and conformity now guide state lawmaker votes.  They punch the button, not based on convictions and values, but on fraternity.  The predictability of how a lawmaker will vote is based on their crew/clique/pack/circle/caucus and any individualistic thought is not tolerated.  Rarely do any wander off the reservation and vote independently. Citizens should make it their mission to find out who funded their elected official’s campaigns.  Those are who they listen to- not to the people in their district. 

     Second, Stitt should have fired Friesen.  Instead of the legislature spending time with the issue, the governor should have done his job and sent her packing.  After the audit was released, it was clear Friesen was in over her head.  The governor called the removal a ‘politically motivated witch hunt,’ and that he had tasked Commissioner Friesen with bringing accountability and transparency to the agency.  Stitt claims the mismanagement of the Oklahoma Mental Health Agency goes back more than a decade.  The truth is Stitt has been in office 6 of those 10 years, which means much of the dereliction has happened on his watch. 

     Third, Oklahomans are confused about their state government.  Who can blame them?  Republicans hold super majorities in both chambers and the governor is a Republican.  Yet the legislature and the governor fight like cats and dogs, debating who is the most conservative? 

     Positioning, posturing, self-promoting braggarts on both ends of the political spectrum play to their base, while average Oklahomans have no voice because they don’t have a lobbyist at the Capitol.  The average citizen doesn’t know what to believe.  Special interest groups ‘spin’ the message, demonize opponents and demand loyalty from their blind kiwis.  They shout down free speech, quote scripture and sing O How I Love Jesus, while showing no respect for an opposing opinion.  It is no wonder Oklahoma has a deplorable voter turnout record.  The average Oklahoma voter is disgusted with that garbage and too busy working to care about their state government anymore. 

      Some of Stitt’s vetoes were political and should have been overridden.  Others that were overturned were bills special interests wanted.  After all, they paid a lot of money to get it done.  Voters should find out who their legislator and governor work for because it’s likely it ain’t for them. 

THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS - HR1 REQUIRES SCRUTINY!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

BEAUTY OR BEAST?

by Steve Fair

     President Trump’s ‘one big beautiful bill’ (HR1) passed the Republican controlled U.S. House last week by one vote (215-214), with five Republican House members voting no (2), present (1) or not voting at all (2).  It now heads to the Senate, where it faces some opposition.  The text of HR1 is available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text for those interested in the details.

     HR1 makes permanent the 2017 Trump tax cuts.  It cuts taxes by an additional $1,300 for a family of four and removes the tax on tips and overtime pay.  HR1 allows an American family to fully deduct auto loan interest for American-made cars. It also increases the standard deduction by $2,000 for every American family.  It increases the Child Care tax deduction.

     But the 1,116-page bill does not remove tax on Social Security, as has been wrongly reported.  Social Security can’t be changed through a budget reconciliation process.  HR1 does contain a provision where people over age 65 could deduct an additional $4,000 from their taxes if they make less than $75,000 or $150,000 filing jointly.  Three observations about HR1:

      First, HR1 will get changed in the Senate.  Senator Ron Johnson, (R-WI) and other Republicans, have criticized the spending in the bill.  Johnson wants deeper cuts, calling for government agencies to go back to pre-COVID spending levels.  “This is the weekend we honor the service and sacrifice of the finest among us.  I don’t they served in sacrifice to leave our children completely mortgaged,” Johnson said on CNN Sunday.  Johnson, a fiscal hawk, exhorted his fellow senators to be ‘responsible’ and reminded them the first goal of a budget reconciliation process should be to reduce the deficit. 

     HR1 does cut Medicaid (not Medicare) funding by up to $1 trillion and requires more stringent provider screening requirements.  A significant amount of taxpayer dollars are spent providing medical care for illegal immigrants and HR1 seeks to stop that expenditure.

     The Congression Budget Office (CBO) estimates HR1 will increase the budget deficit by $3.8 trillion next year.  Speaker Mike Johnson, (R-LA) says those estimates are inflated and the CBO did not factor in the economic growth HR1 will create.  One thing is certain- HR1 likely faces modification before it gets through the Senate.

     Second, HR1’s success hinges on U.S. economic growth. The House Ways and Means committee estimates HR1 will increase America’s GDP an average of $850 billion annually over the next decade.  One reason for the projected growth is the extension of key Trump economic tax policies for small businesses the Biden administration had rescinded.  Reduction of regulations on energy productivity is expected to lower energy costs and increase consumption.  Whether the tenets of HR1 will result in the projected growth the Trump administration expects remains to be seen.

     Third, the devil is in the details.  Simple things can often become complicated and problematic.   Overlooked details can be the source of failure.  In a bill with over 1,100 pages, specifics are crucial for success.  Unintended consequences are the axiom/motto of Congress.  While HR1 has some excellent provisions, it’s the undetected fishhooks that snag taxpayers. 

     HR1 includes measures consistent with ‘supply-side economics,’ aka Reaganomics.  With tax cuts, incentives encouraging work and investment and focus on supply, HR1 is similar to the approach President Reagan took to combat record inflation in the early 1980s.  It worked, despite critics who said it helped the wealthy in the U.S. the most.  If HR1 doesn’t work, the beautiful bill will be the beast.

AVOID PANDERING, OUTRAGED, CO-OPING, & SELF-VICTIMIZATING CANDIDATES!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

UNEMOTIONAL!

by Steve Fair

     Politicians use a variety of tactics to reach voters.  Using time honored marketing strategy, candidates target their audience, work to create a demand for their message and hone delivery of the same.  Modern technology has provided more personal information on voters.  Using micro-marketing, candidates now focus on a specific narrow group of voters and tailor their message to the needs and preferences of this small, defined audience.  The goal is to develop a loyal following among voters who vote and ignore those that don’t.  The 2026 statewide campaigns have started.  Listed below are four tools candidates commonly use to sway voters:

     Pandering.  Pandering is when a candidate will do or say what voters want to hear.  Panderers are disingenuous and insincere.  They lack straightforwardness and openness and are often hiding an agenda or motive.  Panderers avoid confrontation.  They are agreeable and likeable, but often lack the courage to stand alone.  There are honest panderers, but most are not.

     Outrage.  Politicos often show an extremely strong reaction of anger, shock or indignation over an issue to ‘fire up’ their base.  They cloak their clumsiness and incompetence in outrage.  They use passion and pain to further their cause.  Voters are distracted from elected official’s voting records and policy positions by indignation.  They actually may be a victim, but often they are only positioning.

     Co-opting.  Politicians often do ‘shout outs’ to influential people in their audience, in the hope the person recognized will provide them with credibility.  That is a form of co-opting.  Endorsements are also a form of co-opting.  Co-opting is not dishonest, but it a form of leeching.  They cling to someone for personal gain. 

     Self-victimization.  Politicos often play the victim.  They manipulate voters by claiming they are a target or victim of nefarious acts or abuse.  Self-victims tend to exaggerate or fabricate their own victimhood.  It is an effective tactic.  People love the underdog.  They come to the defense of the persecuted.   

      Informed voters must recognize politicians are ‘selling’ a message during a campaign.  It may or may not be a quality message or one the voter wants.  It’s the voter’s job to cut through the rhetoric.    Discerning the difference between hyperbole and truth can be challenging for voters.   Truth is often boring and lacks the pizzazz, excitement, and passion of a well-crafted hype campaign.  But it’s the truth and the truth will set you free. 

     Here are some suggestions for voters as they vet candidates in the coming year:  (1) Don’t rely on a single source for information.  Seek out reputable outlets to get information.  (2) Be wary of social media.  Verify claims before accepting them as true.  (3) Research candidate’s positions and voting records.  (4) Be aware you have your own biases.  Everyone is bias.  Our values and background influence how information is interpreted.  (5) Understand the issues.  Don’t let elected officials or candidates define the narrative.  (6) Recognize it is a marathon, not a sprint.  The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.  People who make a difference stay hooked up.

     As campaigns start earlier and well heeled (rich) candidates craft pandering, co-opting messages, discerning the best choice becomes harder for voters- but not impossible.  It requires a sober, introspective, thoughtful approach that removes the emotion from decision making.       

Traditional prison reform hasn't yielded lasting positive change!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

Transformation, not Reformation!

by Steve Fair

     On May 7^th, thirty men graduated from Oklahoma Baptist University (OBU) with Bachelor of Arts degrees in Christian Studies.  It was a historic moment because these 30 men are incarcerated at Lexington Correctional Center.  They are serving time.  They have labored for four years to earn a degree and according to one graduate the Lexington facility is already a more peaceful, safe place than it was before because of the influence of the thirty.  The graduates were commissioned as field ministers and will serve in correctional facilities across the state to provide mentorship, pastoral care and guidance to their fellow inmates.  They are still inmates and will continue to serve time, but they will be given an opportunity to make a difference in the life of other inmates. 

     This program started back in 2020 when Oklahoma Southern Baptists, in cooperation with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC), launched the OBU Prison Divinity Program (PDP) to provide incarcerated men with an accredited Christian liberal arts education.  Students’ complete coursework in theology, biblical studies, ethics, and pastoral ministry, culminating with a practical internship under the supervision of prison chaplains. 

     Applicants have to be high school graduates, have at least twelve years left on their sentence, be a security level 3 or 4, and not have any misconducts in the past six months.  Participants in PDP don’t receive special consideration for early release or parole.  Three observations:

     First, PDP could transform Oklahoma.  The state’s violent crime rate is 10% higher than the national average and the property crime rate is 19% higher.  Oklahoma ranks #15 in the U.S. for violent crime.  Oklahoma recidivism (return to incarceration) rate is around 1 in 4. 

     PDP is targeted toward violent offenders- only security levels 3 & 4 can apply.  In the ODOC system, security levels 3 &4 are considered maximum security.  The thirty field minister graduates will be working with men in prison whose hearts need transformation.  Instead of attempting behavior modification, they will be pointing their fellow inmates to an eternal transformation, not moral reformation. 

     Second, PDP is good public policy.  Kudos to Governor Stitt and ODOC Director Steven Harpe for their willingness to establish the program.  The U.S. Department of Justice partners with faith-based agencies for reentry into society.  Several states have established partnerships with faith-based organizations to address criminal behavior, most focusing on reentry programs, but PDP is groundbreaking.  It addresses the most violent in prison.  It reaches out to those deemed unreachable.   It communicates they still have worth and value- even while serving time.

     Traditional approaches to prison reform have not yielded significant, lasting positive change.  Recidivism hasn’t been reduced.  PDP seeks to change the person’s heart, not just their behavior.

     Third, PDP is privately funded.  No tax dollars are used.  There is no cost to the student.  Oklahoma Baptists, through the Cooperative Program and State Mission Offerings have paid the bill. 

    PDP is modeled after a faith-based ministry and rehabilitation program implemented at Louisiana State Penitentiary.  Once called ‘the bloodiest prison in America,” Warden Burl Cain established a branch of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary that changed the environment in the prison.    

     Time will tell as to whether God will regenerate and transform hearts through the efforts of the first graduates of PDP.  What is certain is those thirty men have been changed by the grace of God.  

Well-intentioned mandated FEEL GOOD programs are bankrupting America!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

FEEL GOOD PROGRAMS!

by Steve Fair

     On Wednesday, Oklahoma Congresswoman Stephanie Bice (R-OK), and Pennsylvania Congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan, (D-PA), introduced the More Paid Leave for More Americans Act.(MPLMAA) The legislation attempts to chart a path toward a national paid leave policy in the U.S. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the U.S. is one of just six countries in the world without a national paid parental leave policy.  If it passes both chambers and is signed by President Trump, it would establish a competitive grant program run by the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL).  It would create a modest ‘incentive’ for states to establish their own paid family leave program. 

     “We’ve had conversations with leadership, but more importantly, we’ve had conversations with committees and with the White House. We have really done our due diligence to make sure everybody knows the importance of this,” Rep. Bice said.  Bice and Houlahan are confident they can get the bill through Congress and signed into law.  Three observations:

     First, who pays the bill for MPLMAA?  Obviously, the federal grant portion will be paid by taxpayers.  The private portion will be paid by the end user consumer of the good or service provided by the business.  Business must ‘pass on’ any costs to stay in business.  They aren’t sponges- they can’t absorb increased costs.  When government mandates taxpayer empathy and charity to fellow citizens, it always requires money.  To fund sensitivity programs, government has to take from the needy and give to the greedy.    

     Second, MPLMAA has unintended consequences.  Here are two: first, small businesses will reduce the number of full-time workers so they do not have to provide the benefit.  Business has to adapt to survive and avoiding government overreach is a viable solution.  The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted in 1990, provides an illustration of ignoring unintended consequences. The effect of ADA was the reverse of the intent- which was to protect the disabled in the workplace. Within five years of ADA's passage, employment for disabled men fell to 49 percent, compared with 60 percent before the law was enacted. Employers, faced with the cost of accommodation and the threat of litigation, chose the rational option: they cut back on hiring the disabled. When the cost of hiring a worker rises, demand for that worker falls. Second, MPLMAA will affect employee morale and productivity.  When employees go on paid leave and their position must be held open, those left at work have to take up the slack, usually with no extra compensation.  When multiple employees simultaneously take leave or take unannounced vacations, it disrupts a business operation.   

     Third, MPLMAA is socialism.  It takes away individual incentive and gives government more authority in a family’s life.  Instead of mandating paid family leave, the feds should look for ways to reduce regulations on employers so they can experiment with alternative work arrangements.  Congress should change the tax code to reflect the social importance of family.  Implementing feel-good schemes, like MPLMAA, which are meant to protect the vulnerable is not conservative policy.  Well-intentioned, misguided government mandated safety nets are bankrupting America. 

TAXPAYERS PAYING FOR FREE LUNCH!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

FREE LUNCH

by Steve Fair

     Back in 2020, Oklahoma voters narrowly approved Medicaid expansion.  The expansion provided health care to around 200,000 previously uninsured low-income adults aged 19-64 whose income was less than $17,000 a year individually or up to $29,000 for a family of three. Back then, the federal government was paying 90% of the cost, while the state paid 10%.  Supporters of the expansion said Oklahomans would be fools to turn down ‘free’ money.  But as is often the case, the ‘free’ money the federal government was supplying to expand Medicaid is being cut.  That cut will put a great deal of pressure on Oklahoma state government.  Three observations:

     First Medicaid expansion was a short-term solution to a long-term problem.  More than 900,000 Oklahomans- 1 in 4- depend on Medicaid.  Oklahoma is among one of the unhealthiest states in the U.S.  It is also one of the poorest. Back in 2020, rural health care providers (hospitals) needed the Medicaid expansion money to help their bleeding bottom line.  The providers and recipients were willing to take the bait offered by the feds for ‘free’ money, even if they recognized it was temporary.    

     According to the Legislative Office of Fiscal Accountability (LOFT), if the feds stop funding Medicaid expansion, it will cost state taxpayers over $200 million annually starting next fiscal year.  That $200 million has to come from somewhere, so basic services (public safety, etc.) will likely be impacted. 

     Second, government should not be in the health care business.  Government’s function, according to Article 1, section 8 is to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the country.  Liberals interpret “general welfare” as the founders endorsing socialized, taxpayer funded health care.   While it is true, "general welfare" has been interpreted to include health care programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, the Supreme Court has never interpreted it as the U.S. Constitution explicitly guaranteeing right to health care.  Like pretty much everything else it touches, government involvement in health care has led to degradation and decay, not discovery and development.

     Third, free money doesn’t exist.  Somebody is always paying the bill.    Like everything else, taxpayers pay the cost of Medicaid expansion.  Government has no ‘free’ money to give.  The only money government has is what is collected from hard working citizens and then returned less a large handling fee. 

     Years ago, bars provided a ‘free’ lunch to patrons who purchased at least one drink.  The ‘free’ food was unusually high in salt, so the customers would buy more beer.  In his book, “There’s no such thing as a Free Lunch,” economist Milton Friedman points out the patrons were not really getting a free lunch, but were being duped by the bar.  The purchasers all eventually paid for their ‘free’ snack. 

     Back in 2020, Oklahoma voters-prompted by elected officials and health care providers- prioritized immediate gains over long-term consequences.  Just slightly over 50% of voters approved the expansion of Medicaid, but now 100% of Oklahoma taxpayers will pay for that non-existent free lunch.