Tag Archives: ok

600px-Seal_of_Oklahoma

OK Primary is 7/27 and Why We Should ALL Care – Wherever We Are

I’m in Nebraska.

Why do I care what happens in the Oklahoma primary election on July 27?

While I do have a number of friends and contacts there, that is not what drives my concern. I have come to believe that Oklahoma is at the tip of a spear that for so many reasons, is pointing in the right direction. Oklahoma has a very strong, organic movement comprised of resolute people committed to the Constitution. It is considered by many the home of State Sovereignty and it requires less digging to find some strong legislators at their Capitol than in my own and other states.

Senator Randy Brogdon

State Representative Charles Key and State Senator Randy Brogdon, are at the top of that list; they have taken on issues like State Sovereignty and REAL ID, just to name two.

Representative Charles Key

Oklahoma has a number of excellent Constitutional, liberty-minded candidates challenging incumbents. More, it seems than in many other states, and more that are rock-solid on core principles.

Further, as noted in a piece I wrote at the end of May, the mindset of registered Republican voters in Oklahoma, at least in the one place where I walked blocks, was palpably different from what I’d experienced in Nebraska. Few NE voters asked questions when presented with literature, and then only about party affiliation. If the candidate was Republican, with few exceptions, that was good enough for them. Oklahomans consistently asked questions, voiced dissatisfaction with the GOP, and were clearly intending upon investigating challengers in a race.

Having said all that, life at the tip of the spear is a tenuous business. My understanding of infantry is they take the brunt of the battle. Rep. Key and Sen. Brogdon have had successes, but they’ve also had disappointments. Challenging candidates and their supporters have been shut out from equal access by the GOP establishment. Supporters of State Sovereignty, individual liberty, and limited government have been called radicals, liars, and even insane. Entrenched power doesn’t go down easily. It gets really ugly, as a matter of fact, the more threatened it feels.

The people at the tip of the spear can’t hold their ground forever. Others need to join them. Infantry troops need backup. I’m in a state where the incumbents were re-elected across the board, with the most successful challenger garnering 37% of the vote. I want to see the movement back to core Constitutional principles, toward limited government, and a restoration of our Republic continue. Oklahoma is key in that fight. And when you see a success in the legislature or a candidate, it’s not really the one man you see leading the charge; he has a battalion of supporters working hard behind the scenes. They deserve and need reinforcement and support.

What will happen in Oklahoma next Tuesday? Will the discontent with entrenched power translate into the ousting of some incumbents? Perhaps. If some of the challengers had just a fraction of the support thrown at Scott Brown in Massachusetts, sending establishment, bail-out voting, Progressive Republicans packing would be much more certain.

It is no too late to provide support to some of these candidates. I’ve met each of these candidates personally, and worked with three of them on a regular basis.

Over the next couple of days, I will be writing about each one in more detail. In the meantime, I will list them here. Consider giving at least one of them your support.

Congressional Candidates:

RJ Harris is running in OK’s 4th District. RJ is one of the most impressive individuals I have come to know; his thorough knowledge of the Constitution and ability to articulate core principles clearly and succinctly is unmatched in my experience. His personal character, commitment to his family, and to the country are evident in his balancing of work and family life, and through his long military service. RJ’s race next Tuesday is of key importance; there is no Democrat on the ballot.

The winner of the GOP primary will determine with finality one Congressional seat.

RJ Harris website: http://rjharris2010.com

_________________________

In OK CD02, Howard Houchen has displayed ceaseless energy in traveling his very large district to hear from voters and talk about the proper the role of government. I have personally found Howard to be not only hard working, but well read, a thorough researcher, and impressive in his reasoning. These qualities were quickly displayed while working with Howard directly on legislation development supportive of state sovereignty. Added to his many other qualities, Howard is one of the most affable, courteous personalities in politics today.

Howard Houchen’s website: http://www.houchenforcongress.com/

___________________________

1st District Candidate Nathan Dahm is wise beyond his years, some having called him “an old soul”. His on the spot recall of historical context makes clear the depth of his knowledge. He is a man who lives his faith proven by his missionary service and ongoing charitable work. To be sure, he became a favorite with me before I met him – he is a homeschool graduate. But what impressed me most was his character and humility.

Nathan Dahm’s website: http://www.nathandahm.com/

____________________________

Governor’s Race:

State Senator Randy Brogdon has already been mentioned here. Senator Brogdon sponsored the Sovereignty Resolution in the OK Senate, worked to increase transparency in taxation, and fought against the implementation of the privacy invasion that is Real ID.

Randy Brogdon’s website: http://www.randybrogdon.com/

________________________________________________________

LJS-Story-Sovereignty

Lincoln Journal Star Article on February 19 Sovereignty Hearing Requires Commments

Click on the image to go the article on LJS's site

The Lincoln Journal Star carried an article about the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee hearing that was held on Friday entitled “Bill Would Give Voice to States’ Rights”.

This article requires parsing and needs to be commented on by those who support the Constitution and a return to a truly Federalist Republic.

Before presenting an analysis of the article, I want to be sure to urge everyone to go to the Lincoln Journal Star’s online version of this article and leave a comment. As is always the case, the radical left has “staked out the joint” and descended upon the article there, spewing their usual nonsense. As part of our effort to educate and win one battle in the war of ideas, I think we need to vow from now on to make comment on these issues on the Lincoln Journal Star’s website.

LJS SOV Article with arrowTo leave a comment on any LJS article, just click on the “Discussion” tab in the upper left hand corner of the article’s frame.

Click HERE to go to Sovereignty article.

So, let the analysis begin with the title of the article and the subject of “states’ rights”.

States do not have rights, citizens do. States have powers.

The bias of The Lincoln Journal Star – its bent (not lean) to the left is laid bare – right out of the gate. Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Bill Avery used the phrase “states’ rights” repeatedly during the hearing for L.R. 292, along with every other leftist argument used in opposition to adhering to Constitutional principles. More on Senator Avery later.

Before dealing with the Committee Chairman further, it’s important to focus on words. Another phrase (or variations of it) used more than once during the hearing: “Words have meaning”. True. Words do have meaning. Using “states rights” instead of “state sovereignty” is as important a distinction as the constantly incorrectly used “democracy” instead of “republic”. After incorrectly used words are repeated often enough, important distinctions are lost and entire generations of Americans think they live in a democracy – the form of government otherwise known as tyranny of the majority.

The State Sovereignty issue has to do with the proper roles of the Federal and State governments in our Republic and questions regarding what powers have been vested in each by the people, through the Constitution. Sovereignty resolutions, such as L.R. 292, are an effort to begin the conversation about how the roles of both the Federal and States have been nearly totally reversed. As noted by the Resolution’s sponsor, Senator Tony Fulton:

“There is always tension between Washington and the states,” he said. “In my opinion the federal government exercises too much authority over our lives as senators and the lives of our constituents.”

The Journal Star framed their article based on the premise of Senator Bill Avery. When arguments are framed on false pretenses, the whole discussion is skewed.

Nebraskans should be very concerned about a public servant who clearly has no real understanding of the proper meaning for basic words and phrases that define our form of government. Nebraskans should be alarmed that this same public servant was once a professor at the largest institution of higher learning in the state. Apparently he spent his career filling the heads of young people who took his classes with the same wrong-headed notions he laid bare in Friday’s Committee hearing through his questions.

Avery’s questions made clear that states don’t have “rights” anymore. For him, the “question” was settled at the time of the Civil War. He referred to the United States as a “nation state” and asked testifiers about possible actions to follow L.R. 292, referencing succession, Civil War, and slavery. He further noted that “federalism” won out in the debate about “states rights”.

Senator Avery doesn’t understand what federalism is. Our federalist republic, as originally intended at the writing of the Constitution, was designed to prevent power from being consolidated into one central governmental entity. The Framers’ study of history had taught them that the only sustainable republics were those that were small. Anticipating America’s growth into a large nation, power was balanced and divided. Balanced by the separation of powers – divided so as to encourage local control. Federal government was to have a brief list of powers – enumerated in Article I, Section 8. To prevent that power consolidation, those powers not enumerated were reserved to the States and to the people.

Bill Avery is an intelligent man, but a mind is a terrible thing to waste. If that mind were not involved in affecting public policy and therefore Nebraskans’ liberties, the misdirection of his intelligence would be no business of mine or anyone else’s. But since he is a Nebraska legislator, it is a problem that should concern us all.

Senator Avery seems quite confident in his position regarding sovereignty. The Journal Star article ends with a quote from him:

“What makes us strong is not having dual sovereignty.”

A question for Senator Avery: “If we no longer have dual sovereignty, why do we need you, Senator?”

Nebraska does not need a Senator who doesn’t see the necessity of the governmental body in which he serves. If Nebraska were not sovereign, we wouldn’t even need a legislative body.

Our legislature needs representatives in it who understand the proper role of government and know what duties they are elected to perform. One of Senator Avery’s jobs is to stand watch over the encroachment of the Federal government within Nebraska, to guard against it’s encroachment on my liberties and yours.

Senator Avery is up for re-election this year. He represents District 28. The filing deadline for candidates is March 1. We need to find out of there is anyone planning on running against him in the next few days, and if not, find a candidate committed to the Constitution and get them to file.

We have much work to do here in Nebraska to restore the proper division between Federal and State government and we need Senators in the Unicameral who are willing to do that work.

The Lincoln Journal Star, as the second largest newspaper in the state, situated in the State’s Capital, should return to reporting news, not taking positions. Apparently the reporter didn’t talk to or choose to use any quotes from any of the 150 citizens who showed up at the hearing or to quote from any of their testimony. The only quotes included in the article, outside of those from testimony, were from Bill Avery.

And that brings us full circle. In our efforts to educate and advocate, we need to comment upon articles in the Journal Star consistently, as many of us as possible. We need to call them on their biases and we need to respond to the comments made by the loud and active opponents of Constitutionalism. Please take a moment to visit their site and if you have the time, write a letter to the Editor.