Weekly Opinion/Editorial

ENGLISH SHOULD BE OKLAHOMA OFFICIAL LANGUAGE!

by Steve Fair

In November 2010, Oklahoma voters will be casting their ballot on a State Question authored by State Senator Anthony Sykes, R-Moore. The State Question, if passed, will amend the State Constitution to require that Oklahoma state government conduct business in the English language. According to a poll by Bill Shapard of Soonerpoll, 86% of Oklahomans support making English the official language of states government. The joint resolution passed the State House by a vote of 89-8 and the Senate by a vote of 44-2 back in May during the later part of the 2009 legislative session.

“Making English the official language of state government is not only the humane thing to do, it’s also cost-effective. Right now, Oklahoma taxpayers can be forced to pay for government materials to be printed in up to 300 different languages or even pay for individual translators in every language. We are already seeing large sums spent on Spanish-language driver’s manuals no one uses while facing a shortage of English manuals. It’s time to eliminate that waste and be efficient with taxpayer funds.” I’m certain that the people of the state of Oklahoma will support the resolution as drafted and it will be part of our constitution,” Sykes said confidently.

The actual ballot language for the SQ is: “This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It would add a new Article 30. This amendment states that English is the common and unifying language of the state. All official actions of the state would be in English, except as required by federal law. No one would have a cause of action against an agency or subdivision of the state for failure to provide actions in any other language. The amendment could not be construed to diminish or impair uses of Native American languages. The Legislature would be able to enact related laws.”

Note that Sykes and the House authors made a provision for Oklahoma rich Native American language heritage, which had been a controversial issue in the 2008 legislative session.
Already thirty other states and more than fifty nations have adopted official English laws. Sykes has worked long and hard on this issue. He campaigned on the issue when he ran in 2006. But getting it to a vote of the people did not come without difficulty.

In a letter dated April 14, 2009(in the middle of the "English" debate in the legislature) from Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, the DOJ letter states, “As you know, recipients of federal financial assistance must comply with various civil rights statutes, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin.” The letter continues, “State agencies and other entities in Oklahoma that receive federal financial assistance thus would be precluded by federal law from abiding by an English-only requirement where it conflicts with their obligations under Title VI.”

The not so veiled threat from the feds that Oklahoma would lose federal money if voters chose to make English the official language of state government raised the hackles of the Oklahoma Congressional delegation. Senators Coburn, Inhofe, and U.S. Reps Lucus, Cole, Fallin, Sullivan, and Boren fired off a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder pointing out that several other states have passed similar legislation and asked if they too have been “accused by the Department of Justice to be in violation with Title VI, or formally threatened with funding termination?” The delegation letter asked for an explanation for what prompted the DOJ to write the state of Oklahoma on this issue and seeks explanation for what funds would be eliminated should Oklahomans pass the English only amendment.

Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. said, “Attorney General Holder owes the residents of Oklahoma an explanation as to why this thinly veiled threat was issued to Oklahoma on a state matter. The last thing Oklahoma needs is a bureaucrat in Washington dictating more of what we can and cannot do. Officials at the Department of Justice should focus on more pressing matters under their jurisdiction before issuing statements about a state issue that has yet to become law.”

On October 9th, the Congressional delegation received a response from the DOJ. The explanation stated the Department learned of the Oklahoma Constitutional amendment through media reports and said, “Please be assured that voter approval next year of Oklahoma’s official English amendment would not affect the state’s eligibility for federal financial assistance from the Department.” U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe said, “I am pleased that the Justice Department has backed off its threat over Oklahoma’s proposed English-only constitutional amendment.”

Voters should vote to approve the State Question next November and the reasons are clear. First, by making English our official language we encourage immigrants to assimilate into American society. President Theodore Roosevelt once said, "We have one language here, and that is the English language, and we intend to see that the [assimilation] crucible turns our people out as Americans." Secondly, Official English would also reinforce America's historic message to new immigrants - that we expect them to learn English as the first step in that assimilation.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

CELL PHONE LAWS ARE UNNECCESSARY!
by Steve Fair

In June, Oklahoma State House Speaker Chris Benge- R, Tulsa, authorized one hundred and twenty “interim” studies to study issues. One of the studies was requested by State Representatives Sue Tibbs, R-Tulsa, and Danny Morgan, D-Prague to study cell phone and texting use while driving. Tibbs chairs the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, in which Morgan is a member.



Morgan, who is the House minority leader, has filed bills to ban cell phone use in cars the past two legislative sessions, but it hasn’t gotten anywhere. Morgan remains undeterred in his attempts to emphasize the risks of distracted driving. "Erratic driving due to cell phone use is only getting worse as drivers continue to overestimate their own ability to juggle phone use while behind the wheel," Morgan claims.



Currently six states (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington) as well as Washington DC ban handheld cell phone for all drivers. With the exception of Washington State, these laws are all primary enforcement—an officer may ticket a driver for using a handheld cell phone while driving without any other traffic offense-taking place.
No state completely bans all types of cell phone use (handheld and hands-free) for all drivers, but many prohibit cell phone use by certain segments of the population.



For example, twenty-one state and DC ban all cell phone use by novice drivers (under 21). Eighteen states and the District of Columbia now ban text messaging for all drivers and nine states prohibit text messaging by novice drivers.



At last week’s interim study at the State Capital, an emotional Jennifer Smith told the story of how her mother was killed in a car accident last September by a driver distracted on a cell phone who ran a red light. The emotional and passionate Smith advocates banning all cell phone use in moving vehicles.



Scott Watkins, director of the Oklahoma Highway Safety Office, also spoke at the meeting and said there is no evidence to show that talking on a cell phone is more of a distraction than other distractions. Watkins said that in 2008 only 2.3% of car wrecks were due to driver distracted with cell phones.



That number may be higher because currently cell-phone use is self-reported at the time of an accident. That means drivers can admit or deny they were on their cell phone or texting. Current Oklahoma law requires that a subpoena or court order be issued to get cell phone records to find out if a driver was using their phone using the phone/texting. Law enforcement would like to be able to get that information without getting a court order or subpoena.



In 2008, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were 34,017 fatalities in 2008 from auto accidents. According to the NHTSA, thirty one percent of fatal crashes in 2008 were alcohol related. Mark Edwards, Director of Traffic Safety at the American Automobile Association, believes driver distraction is a close second. Edward says, "The research tells us that somewhere between 25-50 percent of all motor vehicle crashes in this country really have driver distraction as their root cause." Distractions include rubbernecking, driver fatigue, kids/passengers, reading maps or other documents and grooming. The AAA study said that talking on your mobile while driving will increase crash risks fourfold.



In a study conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, people who send text messages while driving are 23 times more likely to be in a crash (or what they call a near-crash event) than nondistracted drivers. Prevention magazine says that at least eighty five percent of cell phone users talk on their phone while driving.



Technology has advanced at such a rate that lawmakers believe it essential they deal with it. Not only is the Oklahoma state legislature taking up the issue of cell phone use while driving, but so are state cities and municipalities. The Duncan City Council already has the issue on their radar screen.




The problem of people not excercising common sense and using electronics of all types while driving is certainly a problem. I drive over 50K miles each year and have seen about every “distraction” you can imagine by passing drivers. It’s also true that modern communication technology has made it almost seemingly impossible for some people to be “off the grid” for even an hour while driving, but with the amount of traffic laws on the books, I’m not sure adding another is the answer.




It seems rather discriminating for us to single out just one cause of distraction for possible ticketing. Shouldn’t we make it illegal for people to “groom” while driving? How often have you seen a woman putting on make-up or a guy shaving while passing you at 75? How about making it illegal for people to “look back” (rubberneck) while driving?




These proposed “cell phone” laws take away individual personal liberty in the name of personal safety. Individual personal security can’t be legislated and these laws are intrusive and unnecessary.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

NOBEL WAS PREMATURE!
by Steve Fair

Last week, President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Established in 1901 by the inventor of dynamite, a Swede named Alfred Nobel, the prize comes with a 1.4 million dollar cash prize- which is close to what Obama will make in salary as President for his entire four year term. The President makes $400,000 annually. It’s unclear what the President plans to do with the prize money.

Obama is the twenty first American to be awarded the prize. Other Presidents that have received the award were Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter. Other notable Americans to be awarded the prize include former Vice President Al Gore; civil rights activist, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Obama’s selection as this year’s recipient came as a shock, evidently even to the President. Obama said, “I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear, I do not view it as recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations. To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace. “

Congressman Tom Cole- R, Oklahoma, said that Obama winning the Nobel was like awarding a player the MVP award without playing the game. Fellow blogger Nancy Millers said, “Informed sources tell me that on hearing the good news about her husband, Michelle Obama exclaimed: “Until now, I was never proud of the Nobel Peace Prize.” With the Heisman race so close this year, don’t be surprised if the Downtown NY club awards the stiff arm trophy to the prez. The jokes are piling up about the award, but just how does one win the Nobel?

The selection process starts with the Norwegian Nobel Committee inviting “qualified” people to submit nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The statutes of the Nobel Foundation specify categories of certain elitist, government intellectual types who can nominate someone for the prize. Past recipients can nominate, so perhaps Al Gore or Jimmy Carter submitted Obama’s name, but thus far neither have claimed responsibility, which you would expect.

This year 205 people were nominated for the Nobel. When you consider the deadline for this year’s nominations (February 1st) was just twelve days after President Obama was sworn into office, you have to wonder who submitted his name, but the nomination and selection process is so secretive that the files are not opened for fifty years, so we’ll have to wait for that information.

The five member committee then meets and narrows down the nominations to finalists using Alfred Nobel’s criterion as their guide. In his will, Nobel said the peace prize was to be awarded to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". The committee attempts to reach a unanimous decision but that is not always possible. The Chairman of the Committee then awards the Nobel Peace Prize in the presence of the King of Norway on December 10(the anniversary of Nobel's death) at the Oslo City Hall. A huge concert follows the next day.

So how did Barrack Hussein Obama II go from Illinois State Senator to Nobel Peace Prize winner in five years? It seems like a huge leap and Nobel committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said as much in an interview with the AP. "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early?" "Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond -- all of us." Jagland said.

The bottom line is the Nobel committee was sending a message to the world that they love this liberal American President and his pacifist foreign policies, but they acted prematurely and inappropriately. To award someone for good intentions is not following Nobel’s criterion for the prize outlined in his will. In 1901, Henry Dunant, a Swiss was awarded the first Nobel Peace Prize in 1901 at the age of 73. The Geneva-based International Red Cross was founded by the devout Calvinist, Dunant, who also helped establish the Geneva Convention, was a humanitarian whose life work was substantive. He was not a classic pacifist who advocated world peace, but recognized the nature of man would always produce conflict. Dunant sought a way to be “humane” even in times of war. We still use the principles set forth by Dunant. Obama’s award was pretentious and exaggerated and takes away from the prestige of the once noble Nobel.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

OBAMA IS NO MAVERICK!
by Steve Fair

General Stanley McChrystal has requested President Obama approve the deployment of 30-40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. Currently the U.S. has 68,000 plus troops in the country. McChrystal told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan". In a speech made in London, the General said the delay in getting troops into the country is a mistake. "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support." He told Newsweek he was firmly against half measures in Afghanistan: "You can't hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn."




It’s very rare for a commanding General to speak out so bluntly in public, but he is frustrated by the complete lack of a “sense of urgency” on the part of the administration. Why did a disciplined, service academy graduate, highly decorated General speak out so bluntly?
First, McChrystal believes in action and not indecisiveness. He delivered his formal report on Afghanistan more than a month ago, yet the debate in the Obama White House continues. Only two meetings have been held to discuss the issue. Second, since McChrystal’s appointment as the commander in Afghanistan, President Obama has only met with McChrystal twice and once was last week in Copenhagen on Air Force One. After the General made his speech, in London, he was summoned to a face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid.




When asked about the commander's public lobbying for more troops, General Jim Jones, national security adviser, said: “Ideally, it's better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.” When Jones was asked if Obama asked McChrystal to stop speaking publicly about the issue, Jones said, "I wasn't there so I can't answer that question. But it was an opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better. I am sure they exchanged direct views."
Some liberals believe the General's London comments as verging on insubordination.




Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: "As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements. It is highly unusual for a senior military officer to "pressure the president in public to adopt his strategy". New York Times columnist Frank Rich has accused the general of an attempt to "try to lock him (Obama) in" on Afghanistan.




And McChrystal is not alone, more and more senior military officials are now openly criticizing the White House for not tackling the issue quickly and decisively. They have made no secret of their view that without the vast ground force recommended by Gen McChrystal, the Afghan mission could end in failure and a return to power of the Taliban. Top US military officer Admiral Mike Mullen and the head of the regional Central Command, General David Petraeus, have publicly endorsed the manpower-intensive strategy set out in a report by McChrystal.
The military leaders are “hedging their bets.” As Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense said, "They want to make sure people know what they asked for if things go wrong."




It would appear the President is more interested in trying to play “pitch man” for the United States than “commander in chief.” After his very public failed attempt to bring to Olympics to Chicago, perhaps Obama should get back to the job the people elected him to do- lead the country. Whether you liked his policies or his decisions, no one could fault George W on the speed in which he made a decision.



In the movie, Top Gun, Lt. Pete Mitchell tells Charlie, “when you’re up there, things are happening so fast, you don’t have time to think- instinct takes over.” Our leaders must have good instincts. They must have the education, temperament and background to make quick decisions. Its obvious Obama is no Maverick- he's more like Goose.

ACORN IN OKLAHOMA
ABOUT TO BE CRACKED!

ACORN-Oklahoma was effectively shut down last September, but watch the news media for what was found on the organization's computers and in their abandoned office. Their "political strategy" included two points:

First, build powerful city organizations in Oklahoma City and Tulsa that would control those municipalities.

Second, become an influential organization by shaping a handful of strategic legislative districts that, by themselves, can change who controls the state legislature. In other words, by taking credit for controlling some swing seats that return state senate power to progressives in 2008 and the state house to progressives in 2010, ACORN may not have members in a majority of districts, but we will be seen as the force that is making Oklahoma a progressive state in the way that it was 100 years ago.

All of this with YOUR tax dollars!

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

DOGGONE DOG RETAINS ATTORNEY!
by Steve Fair

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is an office within the Office of Management and Budget that is part of the Executive branch of the federal government. OIRA is staffed by both political appointees and career civil servants, who evaluate economic and regulatory issues for the President. Last week, Cass Sunstein, a Harvard educated law professor, was confirmed to head the office by a Senate vote of 57 to 40. In committee hearings, only Senator Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, voted to not send Sunstein’s appointment to the Senate floor for a vote.

Senator Coburn didn’t vote against Sunstein’s appointment because of his position on economic issues, but because of Sunstein’s radical views on animal rights. Sunstein isn’t just your average pet lover. He is a radical animal rights advocate along the lines of PETA. Sunstein loved his pooch Perry so much that when the Rhodesian Ridgeback died, he created a scholarship at the The University of Chicago Law School in Perry’s memory. Ridgebacks are a South African breed known for their bravery. The scholarship goes to a student with an interest in animal welfare. That in and of itself is not that radical, but some of the things Sunstein has written and stated are.

In a book written in 2004 entitled Animal Rights- Current Debates and New Directions- Sunstein and then girlfriend, fellow University of Chicago prof, Martha Nussbaum, contended that animals should be allowed to sue their human owners. “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf,” Sunstein writes.

Sunstein also says in the book, “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.” He also advocates eliminating greyhound racing, cosmetic testing and meat eating. He has debated in support of veganism on several college campuses.

In 2002, Sunstein wrote, "There should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments, and agriculture.” At a Harvard lecture, he stated, “that the current treatment of livestock and other animals should be considered “a form of unconscionable barbarity not the same as, but in many ways morally akin to, slavery and mass extermination of human beings.”

Sunstein’s views mirror those of PETA who has repeatedly attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, solely because they support animal-based research aimed at curing life-threatening diseases and birth defects.

No one should be cruel to animals, but those that advocate protection for every animal no matter the cost to mankind and the animals have a distorted, humanist world view. In the scripture, man is given authority over all that was created on the earth. Man is to take care of and use the resources on the earth. We are to assume control and protection over all that was created, which includes the animal kingdom. After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, God killed animals and used their skins to cloth Adam and Eve. In Genesis 9, we see a change in the relationship between man and animals. God tells man there are certain types of animals that are acceptable for him to eat, but even with this pronouncement, He still tells man to watch over the animals.

Animal cruelty should never take place if men truly understand the command to be “caretakers” of the earth. We are to control the numbers of animals so disease and sickness do not kill them off; we are to use the animals for our needs; we are to control animals in a manner in which they are not harmful to humans; and finally we should protect them from over-killing and abuse. The problem lies in the fact that many do not understand this balance and tend to over-protect or under-protect animals. Animals were created for us to enjoy, so protecting a remnant for others to enjoy is also proper.

Sunstein’s view is not only radical, but it is frightening. When someone with this radical of a viewpoint rises to a position of influence, it should concern all Americans. If Sunstein has his way, we would all be vegetarians and your dog would have an attorney on retainer in case you purchased the wrong brand of dog food or scolded him to get off the couch.

PLATFORM SUGGESTIONS FROM

AN ORDINARY CITIZEN!

by Franklin J. Sissons

Dear Republican National Committee:
Dear Oklahoma State Republican Party:


Hello, my name is Frank Sissons. I want to propose an idea or platform if you please, for Republican candidates to run on in the upcoming mid-term elections in 2010. Below I have listed some ideas that, if put before the people, will help Republican candidates to be elected. The ideas will not be popular, but they are common sense ideas that most Americans want. I believe that Americans will vote for candidates that have the courage to run on this platform. I hope you will strongly consider these ideas as part of the Republican platform.



1) Term Limits: We need term limits for our elected senators and representatives. Once they have served two terms, they need to return to become a citizen again. Some of our senators and representatives have been in office so long they have lost touch with what it is to receive a paycheck from working an hourly job and what it is to pay social security taxes on every dollar of pay. We don’t need any more career politicians in Washington D.C. making decisions for the ordinary citizens with whom they have lost touch.



2) Social Security: The law needs to be changed so that it will require all elected senators, representatives and federal employees to pay into the social security system just as every other hard working individual in this country does. It is time they should have to give up 7.65% of their salary to support this meager entitlement retirement program. The government agency should also have to pay the 7.65% just as all businesses have to on their employees.



3) Government Retirement Programs (Civil Service): The guaranteed, plush retirement offered to government employees (especially senators and representatives) needs to be replaced with a 401K type saving and retirement system that will match the employee’s contribution up to 4% of their salary. This is the retirement program most companies offer their employees. If the government employees contribute 4% of their salary, the government employer will match the contribution up to 4%. You see, our elected senators and representatives have no idea how many of the working folks have been hurting because they have lost as much as $200K out of their 401K retirement programs, all because of some companies that ran wild with the greed of their executives. They need to see it, feel it and hurt along with all the other ordinary working citizens. If they do, they will not allow such greed to take place. It is time to end their guaranteed and lavish retirement plan that they do not contribute any money to earn.



4) Salaries: No more salary increases voted on by the senators and representative to give themselves a very nice raise. There needs to be an oversight board that decides if senators and representatives salaries should be increased. This oversight board could be made up of: one senator, one representative, six businessmen (women) appointed by the national governors' association, one appointed by the Democratic national committee and one appointed by the Republican national committee. This committee would be responsible for deciding if the senators and representatives were to receive a raise and if so, how much. No more voting themselves a raise.



5) Tax Reform: Tax reform can be accomplished by doing away with the capital gains tax. Why tax the money I risk by investing in companies, using money I have already paid taxes on, and again tax the gains I make from taking that risk? Move to a flat tax or a national sales tax. I read that the original internal revenue code was 13 pages, now it is several thousand pages. Make it simple.



Now as I stated earlier, these issues may not be popular but if Republican candidates will run on a platform similar to this, they will be elected. You see, the ordinary citizens are tired of our senators and representatives having all the special treatments and forgetting about representing their constituents that elected them to office. Once they are elected and again have the majority, they must stick to their platform and enact these changes. When that is completed, other issues can be tackled such as national security, immigration, English as the official language, smaller government, health care reform, foreign affairs, and national energy policy. Politicians must run on a platform that applies the same rules as the common citizens are required to accept. It will take integrity, character and honesty for you to step up to the podium and present a new and fair platform which represents equal treatment for all citizens.


Respectively submitted,


Franklin J. Sissons
Duncan, OK
Ordinary Working and Proud Citizen of the USA from Oklahoma