Amazing What a Little Logic Can Do

Not mine, but I wish it was. I want to give an 'Amen' at the end of every paragraph. This week's MUST READ!!
-------------------------------

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. (I was there. It was the ONLY county in which debate was allowed, and the only county where the caucus failed, even with authors of the proposal speaking in its defense.)

"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!

What Does an Effective Leader Look Like?

By Jaci Greggs, Cleveland County Precinct 50 Republican Vice-Chairman

I’ve heard the word “effective” thrown around a lot this election cycle, from the national level all the way down. And rightly so. We have had our fill of seat-warmers in the Republican Party, doing nothing for the Conservative cause and being only interested in self-promotion. A discussion of an effective leader is definitely warranted. Here are some examples of an effective leader:

An effective leader is someone who will go to bat for taxpayers. In honor of the State’s Centennial celebration, the Centennial Commission decided to spend $15 million in various projects across the state. However, most of these projects were sponsored by venture capitalists that would have directly profited from this $15 million taxpayer expenditure, and were not required to account for the money they received. A leader would say that the taxpayers deserve to know exactly where and how their money was going to be spent. Someone did, and filed a lawsuit to that effect. Also, when the legislature got away from the constitutionally mandated process of bringing every new bond and tax issue to a vote of the people, someone took a stand to hold the legislature accountable so they would not pass bond issues without a vote of the people.

http://www.okdata.net/house91/NewsClippings/CentennialPork.pdf

http://www.okdata.net/house91/NewsClippings/Stopgoingintodebt.pdf

We want a leader who will stand up for our Christian beliefs in the public arena. Governor Brad Henry created an Ethnic Advisory Council, comprised entirely of Muslims, refusing to appoint a Middle-Eastern Christian Pastor. While this may not seem like a big deal, the real story is that this Council was able to distribute Qurans at taxpayer expense, supposedly in honor of Oklahoma’s Centennial. A leader would be brave enough to tell the Governor that the taxpayers are not obligated to fund Islamic proselytizing, and that Islam and the Quran have not played any significant role in the history of our state, while our country and subsequently our state have been guided throughout history by Judeo-Christian values. Someone did just that. Someone also co-authored a bill protecting Christian students’ rights to be able to pray openly and discuss their beliefs in schoolwork without fear of censorship or biased grading. The bill passed both the House and the Senate, but the Governor vetoed it on the last day of legislative session.

http://www.okdata.net/house91/NewsClippings/EthnicCouncilQuran.pdf

http://www.okdata.net/house91/NewsClippings/RenameMuslimCouncil.pdf

http://www.okdata.net/house91/NewsClippings/ReligiousFreedom.pdf

A leader is someone who should stand up for us in any arena, even when it means facing down the State Regents and a former Oklahoma governor. When Oklahoma seniors in 2005 were being abused by OUs Housing and Admittance policies, a leader would have thought that it was worth taking a public stand against a beloved Oklahoma institution when it was in the wrong. Someone did take a stand, and created a precedent so that Oklahoma universities couldn’t require students to live on campus, forcing them (or really, their taxpaying parents) to pay housing fees whether they really lived there or not.

http://www.okdata.net/house91/NewsClippings/CollegeEducationnotHousing.pdf

A leader will work to maintain an open government that is accountable to the people. Oklahoma has to abide by the Open Records Act, making official documents available to the public. The City of Norman was infringing on the Open Records Act by charging exorbitant fees for access to public documents. Someone took the City of Norman to task, and authored a bill to keep them from profiting off of the openness of public documents.

http://www.okdata.net/house91/NewsClippings/Openrecordsmustbefree.pdf

http://www.okdata.net/house91/NewsClippings/Openrecordsmustbefast.pdf

http://www.okdata.net/house91/NewsClippings/KeepOpenRecordsFree.pdf

Of course, there are also examples of those we don’t want in positions of political power. One of my favorites is Gene Stipe. Among other endeavors, Stipe created non-profits and then legislated government money into his non-profits, which were kept unaccountable to the state (thanks to Jeff McMahan, but that’s for another time). My favorite particular story involves a train engine. The city of Guthrie has a historic train depot that is one of the city’s landmarks. Gene Stipe thought it would be a great idea if Guthrie bought a train engine and cars to sit on the tracks next to the station. He legislated $300,000 to the company that owned the train and cars, Phipps Enterprises. Guess who owned the company? Businessman Steve Phipps – and Gene Stipes. A leader should be someone willing to make sure that crooks like Gene Stipe are punished for their crimes. Someone was, and investigated independently and consequently was able turn over evidence to the FBI that destroyed Gene Stipe’s false mental incapability claim to avoid jail time after being prosecuted for acts such as the one described above. Someone also fought to keep Stipe from collecting his legislator’s retirement – which equaled more than his legislator’s salary – while he is in prison as a result of the felonies he committed using his legislative power.

http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=125762

http://www.okdata.net/house91/NewsClippings/Stipe_Cogs.pdf

http://www.okdata.net/house91/NewsClippings/StipeRetirementRipoff.pdf

The “Someone” in every situation I described was State Representative Mike Reynolds. This is a small sampling of Mike’s legislative service on your behalf, protecting your Constitutional right to vote on new taxes, your rights to express your beliefs, and routing out corruption to prevent more waste of your hard-earned tax money (For more examples, you may refer to the recent legal troubles with Jeff McMahan, Drew Edmondson, and the exposure of Brad Henry’s illegal campaign donations).

So now that we have answered the first question - what an effective leader looks like - I’ll leave it to you to answer the next one:

What are you doing to help us keep this Conservative warrior fighting for you at the Capitol? This was not created with the knowledge, cooperation or approval of Mike Reynolds. Totally on my own. Please forward or repost.

Don't Tell Me To Be Calm

Fair Warning: This will be a long one. Due to circumstances beyond my control, the subsequent installments of our discussion will be taking a slightly different direction than I had intended. So, we’re going to just jump right into it here and talk about what we conservatives have gotten ourselves into. However, I am also very encouraged. A good number of you are being proactive and seeking out the truth. The truth will set us free. Thank you for being independent and spreading the truth to others. I am less anxious about my generation because of you. I guess we have to accept that John McCain is going to be our Presidential nominee. I say this because every other viable candidate has dropped out and endorsed McCain for the sake of “unity.” Whether this is reaching out or goose-stepping, it doesn’t really matter. Now, let’s review what John McCain has done for the three branches of Conservatism. He has made this convenient for us in the three following pieces of legislation. I don’t need to comment on the fact that these are all titled McCain-“A Prominent Democrat”. As usual, sources will be listed at the end. McCain-Feingold: McCain-Feingold claims to bring campaign finance reform. It is reform, to be sure, but not for the benefit of American citizens. McCain-Feingold bans all broadcast political advocacy advertising that mentions candidates by name, beginning 60 days before an election. President Bush signed and the U.S. Supreme Court shockingly upheld McCain-Feingold. What McCain-Feingold did accomplish was opening the door for Congress to decide what is acceptable political speech. For the first time in American history, individual citizens cannot join with like-minded others as members of a variety of associations to buy a broadcast spot to criticize an incumbent congressman by name for 60 days prior to the November election. This law gives career politicians the power of government to silence their critics. It is the most effective incumbent protection act possible, short of abolishing the elections themselves. The most important reason to oppose McCain-Feingold is the way the 1st Amendment is written. "Congress shall make no law . . ." What is so hard to understand about that? McCain created a law that was in direct contradiction to the most fundamental of American rights: the right to communicate. This is stepping-stone legislation, guys. If they can control our speech about specific people and issues, they can expand that to other areas as well. See China, where a person is allowed to be a Christian – as long as he doesn’t tell anyone? This is a blow to social conservatives. McCain has already used this to his own benefit. I’ll let Rush explain: “Romney was up ten points in Florida until two things happened — until McCain started with this bulls**t about Romney being in favor of a timeline for withdrawal — he did that on a Saturday….This thing about McCain and Romney — I know it's politics. It's what it is, and I don't whine and complain about it. But I found it very interesting. It was a Saturday he made that claim. So it's three days before the election. And Romney, because of McCain-Feingold, his groups could not go out and run ads countering what McCain had said….So while McCain-Feingold prevented Romney, or Romney's groups, from responding to it [with] TV ads, McCain was free to mouth off. A little irony.” McCain-Kennedy: McCain and Kennedy created legislation that would give legal status--amnesty--to 10 million illegal aliens, and create a guest-worker program to admit even more foreign workers. In essence it is the same as the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act: amnesty up front for millions of illegal aliens, and promises to enforce immigration law. Such promises are quickly abandoned--but in 1986, people didn't know that yet. The result of the amnesty was completely predictable: a profusion of fraudulent documentation, a doubling of the illegal population (to more than 10 million), and the normalization of illegal immigration, something that had been widely considered unacceptable only a few years before. Supporters of the McCain-Kennedy proposal deny that it's an amnesty, pointing to the fact that illegals must pay a modest fine before they are legalized. But since the goal of an illegal immigrant is to enter and stay in the United States, anything that legalizes his presence is a reward; the fine is just a retroactive smuggling fee paid to the U.S. government. This does not help our national security. It is, in effect, an amnesty--which undercuts the rule of law by rewarding those who have acted wrongly and will only encourage further illegal entry. Effective internal enforcement must deter further illegal entry. Any effective deterrent must require individuals to leave and apply for admission without prejudice or advantage. This is an attack on foreign-policy conservatives. Thankfully, McCain-Kennedy failed to be ratified. However, this is still an important “front line” position McCain took and we should all take note. McCain-Lieberman: McCain-Lieberman is a bill dealing with global warming and carbon emissions in the US. I won’t spend any time here debating the science behind the global warming argument. That’s for another time. But the problem with McCain-Lieberman is not the faulty science. The problem is how it affects business. According to the study, McCain-Lieberman 2004: --will cost the average U.S. household at least $600 per year by 2010, rising to at least $1,000 per year by 2020; --will cost the U.S. economy at least 39,000 jobs in 2010, and at least 190,000 jobs by 2020; --will force at least a 13 percent rise in electricity prices by 2010, and at least a 19 percent rise in electricity prices by 2020; and --will force at least a 9 percent rise in gasoline prices by 2010, and at least a 14 percent rise in gasoline prices by 2020. Also, McCain-Leiberman: --would cost the average U.S. household at least $1,300 per year by 2010, rising to at least $2,300 per year by 2020; --would cost the U.S. economy at least 250,000 jobs in 2010, and at least 610,000 jobs by 2020; --would force at least a 31 percent rise in electricity prices by 2010, and at least a 43 percent rise in electricity prices by 2020; and --would force at least a 23 percent rise in gasoline prices by 2010, and at least a 37 percent rise in gasoline prices by 2020. The new Charles River study is especially informative for state legislators because it breaks down costs on a state-by-state basis reflecting local economic factors. For example, the study reports Illinoisans would suffer even more under McCain-Lieberman 2004 than the national average. McCain-Lieberman 2004 would cost the average Illinois household at least $700 per year by 2010 and at least $1,100 per year by 2020. Similarly, the New England governors' plan would disproportionately affect Illinoisans by forcing at least a $1,400 decline in average household income by 2010, and at least a $2,400 decline in average household income by 2020. Oh, and in interesting news, a revamped 2007 version of this bill not only was sponsored by McCain-Leiberman, but our good friend Sen. Obama put his name behind it as well. As we can see, in the interest of carbon emissions, McCain decided to make war on consumers, industry, and state and government income alike. This is against the interests of fiscal conservatives. As a result, on the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a liberal. -- He excoriated pro-life judicial nominee Samuel Alito as too "conservative." -- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants. -- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold. -- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo. -- He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. -- He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels. -- He voted in favor of using taxpayer funds to harvest stem cells from human embryos and opposes a constitutional amendment to protect human life. So, what say you? What is your thought process on this? Are we to vote for a man who seems to be fighting against us at every turn, for the sake of unity and having an ‘R’ president instead of a ‘D’ president for the next four years? Or should we simply vote against the opposing candidate? Do we vote for someone who actually admits they’re a Democrat rather than put a man in office who would hurt the party’s image? Or, as some already say they are going to, should we just not vote at all? I understand people who are of that opinion. I certainly would like to vote for someone rather than just against someone. At this point, I don’t know what I’ll do. And there are still, what, 9 months until the election? Anything can happen before then. So I don’t know. I don’t have a conclusion for this one. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4342 http://eminentdomain.blogspot.com/2007/04/mccain-feingold-still-bad-legislation.html http://www.examiner.com/a-256840~Editorial__McCain_Feingold_was_a_mistake.html http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/30/john-mccain-vs-the-right-no-easy-peace/ http://www.realcampaignreform.org/babka/rcr_man.htm http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+latest+amnesty:+McCain+and+Kennedy+make+a+bad+pair+on+immigration-a0133983352 http://www.911securitysolutions.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=38 http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15431 http://anncoulter.com/ http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1713041-2,00.html