Tag Archives: #oktcot

IMG_6630-300x200

Oklahoma Republican Voters Vocal and Not Happy. What does that mean?

Of course one night walking blocks for a couple of candidates isn’t necessarily an indicator of a trend. But it’s interesting when it coincides with national polling results in at least one important aspect. (See this Gallup poll regarding party affiliation.)

While out walking blocks yesterday in two Oklahoma neighborhoods, several folks either indicated they were no longer Republicans or would not be voting. In one instance, a gentleman who is known to be more liberty-oriented by his neighbors flatly refused to change his registration back to Republican even to vote for liberty-minded candidates. Perhaps that particular fellow is a rarity, its one thing to answer “Independent” to a pollster, it’s another matter to go to the trouble of actually changing one’s voter registration.

Maybe it’s just the particular neighborhoods walked, maybe it’s just Oklahomans as compared to Nebraskans, but when out walking a good chunk of a legislative district in Nebraska in April and May, the people who engaged in conversation didn’t indicate dissatisfaction with the Republican party. In fact, it was largely the opposite. Most simply wanted to know that the candidate was a Republican. It becomes more interesting when another fact is taken into account – because it was a legislative race and Nebraska’s legislature is a Unicameral (purportedly non-partisan), we knocked on EVERY door in neighborhoods. (Of course because we weren’t targeting just registered Republicans, we did get a few negative reactions, but a very few.)

In addition to some OK Republican voters saying that they are no longer Republican, I also encountered another interesting contrast; the number of people who went beyond simply politely accepting the material I was giving them was higher – people wanted to know more. When the candidates’ websites were highlighted on the handouts, there was general interest in visiting those sites.

From my perspective then, the OK voters listed as registered Republicans are either fed up with the party or are at least interested in putting some effort into investigating candidates. Many weren’t aware of the primary election on July 27 but were interested once told.

Of course I can’t be sure what all of this may mean for the July 27 election in Oklahoma, but it seems it might mean one of two things; enough Republicans are so disgruntled they now consider themselves Independents, they may just stay home, or challengers may stand a better chance of pulling off wins in OK than they did in NE. Apparently that seems to hinge upon voters knowing there is a primary and whether the challengers get their names and good information about themselves to those voters.

Voter turnout was low in Nebraska’s May 11 primary. There was clearly a trend by voters there to accept a person with an “R” behind their name. A general lack of inquisitiveness would readily lend itself to a trend that people would vote for the most recognizable name on a ballot and that would be an incumbent. And that’s exactly what happened. Incumbent Republicans won all of the major seats in Nebraska.

Oklahoma state law has set a 60 day deadline in advance of an election for voter registration and that happens to be this Friday.  IF many Republicans actually went to the trouble of changing their party affiliation, it would seem a priority to ensure they change it back to vote for Constitutional, limited government candidates.

Beyond that, anyone who knows of solid candidates, particularly challengers, needs to make an effort to help them get their names and information out to voters, particularly the disgruntled bunch, and motivate them to get to the polls on July 27.

Oklahomans tired of insanely out of control spending and extra-Constitutional governance seem to have some opportunities. The question is…will they take them?

It would be silly of me not to take the opportunity to pitch for the candidates that motivated me to get out and walk. They are Nathan Dahm, who is running for OK’s First Congressional District, and State Senator Randy Brogdon, who is running for Governor. Two other candidates whom I know and heartily support in OK are CD04 Candidate RJ Harris and CD02 Candidate Howard Houchen.

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.