Vote Dana Murphy!

We're voting for more than just a President next Tuesday. And the future of our country relies as much, if not more, on state and local elections than it does on the national ones.

This letter is written by Charlie Meadows, President of OCPAC, the premier Conservative PAC in Oklahoma.

Read and vote DANA MURPHY next Tuesday!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Members and friends of the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC)

I wanted to send out this special e-mail about the short term corporation commission race between Jim Roth and Dana Murphy. I am often asked if these e-mails can be forwarded? By all means please do, as I think most Oklahoman’s don’t know much about this race. Also, if this has been forwarded to you, and you would like to receive our e- mail on a weekly basis, just send me your name and e-mail address and I will add you to our list. Send to: charliemeadows@peoplepc.com.

I believe McCain and Inhofe will win in November with sizeable margins. Therefore the most contested statewide race this year will be the Corporation Commission race between Republican Dana Murphy and the Democrat incumbent Jim Roth. This is a special election as Roth was appointed to the position about a year and a half ago by Governor Henry.

There may be a small number of people who have been reading the Oklahoman closely and on a regular basis over the past 3 or 4 years who may know that Jim Roth is an out of the closet homosexual. However, most Oklahomans are unaware of his un-natural sexual perversion. I don’t believe he makes any mention of his homosexuality on his web-site nor has the liberal Tulsa World informed their readers about that information, though they have endorsed him.

In brief, the largest PAC in the nation supporting homosexual candidates considers this one the most important races in the nation (see www.victoryfund.org). In addition, Jim Roth’s Corporation Commission Campaign was a sponsor of the 2008 Gay Pride Parade held earlier this year in Oklahoma City (see www.okcpride.org). Then of course, when Roth was a County Commissioner in Oklahoma County, he supported having pro-homosexual books accessible to small children in the Oklahoma County libraries. Have you ever wondered why the homosexual community from all over America would contribute tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars to Jim Roth’s corporation commission race in OKLAHOMA?

The hyper-tolerant, anything goes liberal crowd will say, all of that character stuff, integrity and sexual preference does not matter. To talk about it is only a diversion from the business at hand. The only thing they will suggest as important, is how well a person does their job. Therefore I want to examine the job performance of Roth as a corporation commissioner.

In one of his TV adds he portrays himself as a tough advocate of the people who stood up to those BIG UTILITIES and said NO to a two billion dollar rate increase. In his silliest commercial, he portrays himself as a penny pinching paperclip counter, a conservationist wanting to save money for the ratepayers. While it is true he voted against the rate increase request, it was actually1.8 billion not 2 billion dollars, he is most likely going to cause the ratepayers to pay far more for electricity in the future. An estimated $5 billion more for electricity over the 40 year life of the generation plant he voted against.

You see, he voted against building a high-tech clean burning coal fired generation plant, next to an existing clean burning coal fired plant. As the administrating judge at the corporation said, this expansion will save the ratepayers significant money over the many years to come.

Roth, will say it was too risky and the utilities shouldn’t be allowed to collect money for the plant before it is built. Again, this is not watching out for the ratepayers as the sooner the utilities could start collecting rates to pay for the plant, the less they would have to borrow and thus this would be less interest that rate payers would eventually have to pay. By the way, what is risky about a coal fired power plant? They have been used for a long time, and the new ones are much improved and much cleaner.

Three of the state’s utilities were going into an unusual partnership in building this expansion which would have saved the ratepayers $100 million dollars in construction costs alone rather than each of them having to build or buy separate facilities. It was estimated the utilities spent up to 50 million dollars in engineering and planning costs to get the project to a vote before the commission said no in a 2 to 1 vote. However, later on, Roth voted for a rate increase to allow the utilities to recover that cost.

Without the badly needed generation capacity, American Electric Power-PSO of Oklahoma was forced to ask for a rate increase to purchase 2 smaller natural gas generation plants. Roth voted for that rate increase. OG&E was forced to purchase a gas fired plant along with the GRDA, and Roth voted for that rate increase. Commissioner Bob Anthony, always the rate payer’s friend, refused to vote on that rate increase as a protest about the higher rates consumers were going to have pay for electricity in the future.

Then of course the popular thing to do today is to be in favor of wind generation as well as other renewable energy. So OG&E requested a huge rate increase to build wind farms in far Northwest Oklahoma and the transmission lines to get that electricity to the metropolitan areas or to be able to transmit that electricity to sell out of state.

Here is the dirty little secret about electricity generated from wind. When the turbines are moving they are producing cheaper electricity. Yet, all of the significant cost to those giant windmills and perhaps much of the cost for the transmission lines is a duplication or a doubling of the cost for infrastructure.

The reason is that wind is not a reliable source of electricity. On those brutally hot days of Summer, when there isn’t a whisper of a breeze and the demand for electricity is at peak load, we have to have enough TRADITIONAL generation capacity to provide the necessary electricity. These are high demand times when the wind produces little to nothing and we must pay twice for the generation capacity.

So the question must be asked, where has Jim Roth saved the consumers any money? I would suggest he has cost the ratepayers more and in the long run, much more. If that is the case, why would Mr. Slickster shaft the ratepayers as a commissioner then tell them he was watching out for them?

You might not have to go any further for that answer than to understand who it is, besides the homosexuals, that are supporting and funding his campaign. Raising huge sums of money for him are none other than multi-millionaires and billionaires such as Aubry McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy, George Kaiser of Kaiser Oil and the Bank of Oklahoma, as well as Clay Bennett, married into the Gaylord family and managing partner of the new OKC Thunder NBA basketball team.

McClendon has spent millions in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas fighting the construction of generation plants which would use coal and therefore not buy gas to make electricity. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to suspect his reason to oppose the coal fueled plants would be to force the utilities to build or buy gas fired plants of which he will be most happy to sell them all the gas they need. I actually want them to sell a lot of gas, but to power autos with, and not to make electricity. That would actually help to make us become less dependent on foreign oil.

One of Mike McCarville’s blogs recently revealed that according to e-mails which were made public in the Seattle trial to move the NBA Sonics to OKC, Jim Roth hinted at the close alliance he shares with McClendon. In a 2007 letter which he subsequently wrote to the sports editor of the Seattle times he said, “From the beginning, Clay and Aubrey initiated a genuine kindness and friendship toward my partner and me. They have publicly and consistently supported me, even pushing back when right-wing attacks have occurred.”

It appears there is a close relationship between these powerful men and Roth, who certainly went to bat for them when the homosexual community in Seattle was attacking them while they were in the process of moving the team to Oklahoma.

Bottom line, I believe Roth is a puppet on a string for people that I believe want to control and use the regulatory power of government for their personal purposes. I also believe, if Roth wins, he will use this election as a launching pad to a future U.S. Senate race or perhaps Governor some day.

On the other hand, I believe Dana Murphy is honest, independent (can’t be bought), is supremely prepared as she has a degree in geology, law and was a hearing judge at the commission for several years. I also believe she wants to serve in this capacity with no intention to run for another office sometime in the future. I believe Dana will seek that delicate balance which is the best for the oil and gas industry and the consumers at the same time. That is the real job of a corporation commissioner. I urge folks to vote for Dana Murphy and support efficient and effective government for the benefit of all Oklahomans.

Charlie Meadows
charliemeadows@peoplepc.com

Race, Feminism and the Truth According to Hillary

An article I ran across that originally was printed during HRC’s senate campaign in 2000. Yes, it was a while ago, but sometimes we need to be reminded of things, especially when race and gender are playing such important factors in this year’s Presidential election, and since HRC can’t seem to remember the difference between a true story and a false one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

These Charges Are False – Reel No. 857

July 18, 2000

At least you could print what John Rocker said. The latest in a long list of “false” (subject to later revision) stories circulated about the Clintons comes from Jerry Oppenheimer’s page-turner State of a Union, in which he reports that Hillary called one of the people working for Bill Clinton a “f-ing Jew b-tard.” The Clinton era was once again charting new ground in television standards!

The World’s Smartest Woman did not respond to the charges by saying, “I might well have said that, but those obviously aren’t my feelings, people sometimes use ugly words when they’re angry, I’m sorry if I used those, but please judge me by my record and not by some childish tantrum I threw twenty-six years ago.”

No, what Hillary said was that it was a lie put out by her political opponents:

“You know, there’s a history of these kinds of charges coming from the people in question [author’s note: the other charges were all eventually proved true, even if it took a full federal investigation], and they’ve been false in the past [author’s note: only the denials, the excuses and the defamatory charges against the Clintons’ accusers have turned out to be “false”]. They’re false now [author’s note: that’s what she said last time]. And I don’t know what the reason behind it is, but it didn’t happen.”

For the record, I personally did not go ballistic over some baseball player’s (printable) remarks to Sports Illustrated. I personally thought that O.J. cutting off Nicole Brown Simpson’s head was worse than Mark Fuhrman using the N-word. But even stipulating that the charges aren’t career-ending – Hillary is the one who has now put the veracity of the charge at issue. Did she say it or didn’t she?

The most persuasive evidence that Hillary said it, of course, is that she denies having said it. And if that’s not enough for you, America’s most famous perjurer, President William Jefferson Clinton, denies it too.

The New York Times ran a lead editorial on Hillary’s “current complication” – as the paper called her anti-Semitic slur – titling it “Mrs. Clinton’s Credible Response.” The Times evidence that Hillary was telling the truth is that she opposed the Vietnam War and tried to get President Nixon impeached. This is normal New York Times logic. But even weirder, the editorial sportingly stressed that Ms. Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy gave “a passionate, almost teary response to the allegation of anti-Semitic language.” Huh? A Clinton denial is supposed to mean something now?

When did we make the transition from treating a Clinton denial – subsequently discredited or retracted – as just so much necessary political filler because “anyone would have lied in those circumstances” to suddenly treating it as truth because the Clintons said it? Wouldn’t anyone have lied about using the phrase “f-ing Jew b-tard,” too – particularly if that anyone was running for a Senate seat from New York? Why do we keep considering each successive denial by the Clintons as if it occurred in a vacuum? It’s as if we’re living in an eerie Twilight Zone episode in which no one can remember what happened yesterday.

It’s not as if Tipper Gore stands accused of saying “f-ing Jew b-tard.” We’re talking about Hillary. Hillary the lamp-throwing harpie whose warm Southern charm was widely credited with costing her husband his second race for Arkansas governorship and whose concern for the little guy resulted in the Travel Office bloodbath. Curiously, neither Hillary nor her husband disputed that she had used the phrase “f-ing b-tard.” But they insist Hillary would not have alluded to the religion of the f-ing b-tard. Even when cursing like a sailor, she’s ethnically sensitive.

And just by the way, there are three witnesses to the particular charming utterance of Hillary’s: Paul Fray, the campaign manager of Clinton’s failed 1974 congressional bid and target of the slur; Fray’s wife, Mary lee, who was in the room at the time; and a third campaign worker, Neil McDonald, who was standing outside the room. Fray’s wife said Hillary shouted so loud “it rattled the walls.”

Other witnesses, from Dick Morris to the Arkansas state troopers, corroborate similar statements from the Dragon Lady. Their track-records on truth-telling are somewhat more impressive than those of American’s Most Famous Perjurer and his wife. By now, the troopers have been completely vindicated on even their most bizarre charges against the Clintons. Trooper Larry Patterson has said he heard Hillary use the phrases “Jew b-tard” or “Jew boy” or “Jew MF” on numerous occasions – “four, five, six times.” Instead of a War Room to put out “bimbo eruptions,” Hillary may need a War Room to put out Hebraic-slur eruptions.

Conforming to pattern, Hillary’s accusers came under a swift attack. Clinton flacks Lanny Davis and Gail Collins showed up for work with long research packets on Hillary’s accusers. This was especially striking in Collins’s case, since, generally, she avoids including facts in her columns. But even Collins was bursting with information about the little-known Frays. As with the Clintonian denials themselves, we’re supposed to pretend this is the first time we’ve seen a rapid-response team smear witnesses against the Clintons. The rapid-response team’s denunciation of the Frays are starting to blend with earlier denunciations of Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, the Travel Office employees, and Elian’s “Miami relatives.” All witnesses against the Clintons are: trashy people looking for publicity, have a minor criminal offense in their past (such as drunk driving or shoplifting), once sent nice letters to the Clintons, have a bitter relative somewhere who doesn’t much care for them and will say so on the record, and are part of a right-wing conspiracy to bring false charges against the long-suffering, completely innocent Clintons.

I must say, I’ve been looking forward to this moment for years. You may have forgotten this, but back in the pre-Clinton era, sexual harassment was bad. It was bad even if it was just smutty remarks and there was only a single spurned woman who claimed it happened. But then Clinton was caught doing it, and it turned out sexual harassment really isn’t such a big deal. Women lie about these things all the time, everybody does it, and a real woman would have slapped the lovable rogue and walked away. Groping your female employees also used to be bad. But then Clinton did it, and Gloria Steinem announced on the New York Times op-ed page that the new standard is: The boss gets one free grope. Rape also used to be bad. But then Clinton was accused of rape by a credible woman with four corroborating witnesses. Clinton didn’t deny it, and only 18 percent of Americans polled said they thought the accusation was probably not true. But no one cared, the country wanted to “move on,” so I guess rape isn’t such a bad thing now either.

The single accusation that remained a career-killer was to be accused of using an ethnic slur. Even cutting off a white woman’s head wasn’t so bad if the cop who found the evidence against you was accused of having used the N-word almost ten years earlier. That’s why I’ve been waiting and waiting for one of the Clintons to be caught using an ethnic slur. Now there’s nothing you can’t do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, written by You Know Who. Isn’t she amazing?