Maybe Tommy Cole should just give up and go back to
"Mom" House off 12th Street in Moore, If thing are too
hard for him now !!!
It look like a guy I have know for most of my life, have
given up and has given in, almost a year before the
election and the Battle has begun !!!
I am a warfighter,
I do NOT give up and
I do NOT give in !!
Rep. Cole predicts Clinton will win presidency
by: Associated Press
11/30/2007 9:41 AM
NORMAN -- Rep. Tom Cole says Hillary Rodham Clinton will likely win the presidency.
Speaking at the University of Oklahoma, the Republican congressman said the Democratic frontrunner will not have a cakewalk and nothing is set in stone, but she is running strong while the GOP field is muddled.
He said she is running like a typical Republican nominee -- a frontrunner who staves off a couple of strong challenges.
But he also said eight candidates in the two parties still have legitimate shots of winning with less than three months before the major primary elections.
"We haven't had this kind of fluidity in a long time," he said. "I think the country isn't ready to make a decision, and it's going to test the candidates."
Cole, in his third term representing the Oklahoma Fourth District, chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee.
One challenge for Clinton, he said, is a voter desire for change.
With President Bush's approval rating low and the Congress rating even lower, Cole said voters are looking for a new direction.
Considering a Bush or Clinton will have been president for 20 years, Hillary Clinton could represent looking back instead of moving forward, he said.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Jett & Coates to GUT HB-1804
HOW DUMB !
Also anybody know how old Ana Jett is ?
You have to ask what is in the water in Pott County...
Updated: Thursday, November 29, 2007
Jett Pushing New Approach To State Immigration Law
By Wayne Trotter
Rep. Shane Jett is working on a new state immigration bill that would soften some of the edges on HB 1804 but not pull all the teeth from the controversial measure that took effect Nov. 1.
Jett, a Tecumseh Republican, said he drew on the “life experiences” he and his wife encountered as she became an American citizen over a six-year span. Ana Jett, originally from Brazil, was naturalized earlier this year.
At the heart of Jett's proposal will be what he feels is an innovative plan to track and tax guest workers who could be issued a tax identification card and be eligible for a driving permit provided insurance constantly remains in effect.
“Failure to comply with the voluntary guest worker taxation program would subject those undocumented to the full measures of the law provided for in HB 1804,” he said.
Jett said he is working with legislative attorneys now to draft the language of the proposed bill and plans to have it in the hopper by the Dec. 7 deadline for new legislation. He said Sen. Harry Coates (R-Seminole) has agreed to serve as Senate author.
“The purpose of my legislation is to address the unintended consequences of HB 1804,” Jett said in a back-and-forth e-mail interview with The Countywide News and The Shawnee Sun. Jett has been in Africa for the past week.
He said HB 1804 is capable of doing serious damage to Oklahoma's economy. “I expect this new legislation to curb some of the extremes. What we are looking for is a well-balanced approach to immigration reform.”
He said his plan would not automatically make immigrants eligible for state benefits. “The whole plan is predicated upon the program being designed for ‘workers,'” said Jett. “There should be no need for state welfare benefits. This program is designed to put people to work.”
In an accompanying position draft, Jett made it plain that he is opposed to illegal immigration and believes it is essential for the federal government to secure the nation's borders. He also said amnesty is not a solution. “Amnesty was granted in the 1980s and we are again with another 11 to 12 million undocumented immigrants,” he commented.
He said a well-regulated immigration and guest worker program “is far more desirable than a laissez-faire border policy and periodical amnesty program.”
Jett said a key to making any program work is a system of identification, classification and taxation. In addition, he said, that will help “get a handle on those who area already here.”
He was harshly critical of the federal government for allowing the immigration situation to get out of hand and said the Mexican government has not made “a sincere good-faith effort or even a discernable attempt to curtail the flow of undocumented workers crossing the U.S.-Mexican border.”
Some of the shortcomings of the present law, he said, are that it makes Oklahoma responsible for enforcing federal law, doesn't differentiate between undocumented criminals and undocumented workers, piles a new burden on Oklahoma businesses and subjects some to potential lawsuits. He said it also puts landlords in the middle.
http://www.countywidenews.com/articles/2007/11/29/news/04jett%20immiration.txt
Also anybody know how old Ana Jett is ?
You have to ask what is in the water in Pott County...
Updated: Thursday, November 29, 2007
Jett Pushing New Approach To State Immigration Law
By Wayne Trotter
Rep. Shane Jett is working on a new state immigration bill that would soften some of the edges on HB 1804 but not pull all the teeth from the controversial measure that took effect Nov. 1.
Jett, a Tecumseh Republican, said he drew on the “life experiences” he and his wife encountered as she became an American citizen over a six-year span. Ana Jett, originally from Brazil, was naturalized earlier this year.
At the heart of Jett's proposal will be what he feels is an innovative plan to track and tax guest workers who could be issued a tax identification card and be eligible for a driving permit provided insurance constantly remains in effect.
“Failure to comply with the voluntary guest worker taxation program would subject those undocumented to the full measures of the law provided for in HB 1804,” he said.
Jett said he is working with legislative attorneys now to draft the language of the proposed bill and plans to have it in the hopper by the Dec. 7 deadline for new legislation. He said Sen. Harry Coates (R-Seminole) has agreed to serve as Senate author.
“The purpose of my legislation is to address the unintended consequences of HB 1804,” Jett said in a back-and-forth e-mail interview with The Countywide News and The Shawnee Sun. Jett has been in Africa for the past week.
He said HB 1804 is capable of doing serious damage to Oklahoma's economy. “I expect this new legislation to curb some of the extremes. What we are looking for is a well-balanced approach to immigration reform.”
He said his plan would not automatically make immigrants eligible for state benefits. “The whole plan is predicated upon the program being designed for ‘workers,'” said Jett. “There should be no need for state welfare benefits. This program is designed to put people to work.”
In an accompanying position draft, Jett made it plain that he is opposed to illegal immigration and believes it is essential for the federal government to secure the nation's borders. He also said amnesty is not a solution. “Amnesty was granted in the 1980s and we are again with another 11 to 12 million undocumented immigrants,” he commented.
He said a well-regulated immigration and guest worker program “is far more desirable than a laissez-faire border policy and periodical amnesty program.”
Jett said a key to making any program work is a system of identification, classification and taxation. In addition, he said, that will help “get a handle on those who area already here.”
He was harshly critical of the federal government for allowing the immigration situation to get out of hand and said the Mexican government has not made “a sincere good-faith effort or even a discernable attempt to curtail the flow of undocumented workers crossing the U.S.-Mexican border.”
Some of the shortcomings of the present law, he said, are that it makes Oklahoma responsible for enforcing federal law, doesn't differentiate between undocumented criminals and undocumented workers, piles a new burden on Oklahoma businesses and subjects some to potential lawsuits. He said it also puts landlords in the middle.
http://www.countywidenews.com/articles/2007/11/29/news/04jett%20immiration.txt
Monday, November 26, 2007
Sen. Randy Brogdon Questions Edmondson's TABOR Motives
Oklahoma State Senator Randy Brogdon (Owasso, R-34) questioned Oklahoma AG Drew Edmondson’s motives in his effort to prosecute three participants in the 2005 Taxpayer Bill of Rights petition drive.
Sen. Brogdon noted that when asked by reporters whether his prosecution was politically-motivated, Edmondson stated that the indictment of the petition workers did not come from his office, but was the work of a multi-county grand jury. The Attorney General recently filed a motion to dismiss the multi-county grand jury’s indictment against the three petition activists, making a statement that a new indictment would be issued directly from the office of the Attorney General.
Brogdon also pointed to recent negative news coverage of the Attorney General’s prosecution against the “Oklahoma 3”. Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and Forbes magazine compared Oklahoma’s justice system to that of Pakistan and North Korea, respectively.
“Drew Edmondson and this outrageous prosecution are an embarrassment to the state,” Brogdon said. “His politically motivated decision to prosecute three innocent people has cast the state in a negative light and has been criticized by publications read throughout the nation and world.”
“Amazingly, there was no news coverage when the Attorney General quietly dismissed his once trumpeted indictment,” said Sen. Brogdon, “Attorney General Edmondson needs to come clean. Is there something so wrong with his grand jury process or with the indictments themselves that he has to re-issue the indictments from his office after dismissing them from the grand jury?"
Calling the actions of the Edmondson an embarrassment to the state, Sen. Brogdon urged the AGn to end his “politically motivated” prosecution.
“This is a good time of the year for our Attorney General to reflect on what is at stake and end the persecution of three innocent people,” Brogdon stated. “This politically motivated prosecution sends a chilling message to our citizens to never buck the political system.”
The “Oklahoma 3” are Rick Carpenter of Tulsa, Paul Jacob of Virginia and Susan Carpenter of Michigan, president of National Voter Outreach, a petition management company. The three worked to gather signatures for a Taxpayer Bill of Rights initiative in 2005.
Sen. Brogdon noted that when asked by reporters whether his prosecution was politically-motivated, Edmondson stated that the indictment of the petition workers did not come from his office, but was the work of a multi-county grand jury. The Attorney General recently filed a motion to dismiss the multi-county grand jury’s indictment against the three petition activists, making a statement that a new indictment would be issued directly from the office of the Attorney General.
Brogdon also pointed to recent negative news coverage of the Attorney General’s prosecution against the “Oklahoma 3”. Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and Forbes magazine compared Oklahoma’s justice system to that of Pakistan and North Korea, respectively.
“Drew Edmondson and this outrageous prosecution are an embarrassment to the state,” Brogdon said. “His politically motivated decision to prosecute three innocent people has cast the state in a negative light and has been criticized by publications read throughout the nation and world.”
“Amazingly, there was no news coverage when the Attorney General quietly dismissed his once trumpeted indictment,” said Sen. Brogdon, “Attorney General Edmondson needs to come clean. Is there something so wrong with his grand jury process or with the indictments themselves that he has to re-issue the indictments from his office after dismissing them from the grand jury?"
Calling the actions of the Edmondson an embarrassment to the state, Sen. Brogdon urged the AGn to end his “politically motivated” prosecution.
“This is a good time of the year for our Attorney General to reflect on what is at stake and end the persecution of three innocent people,” Brogdon stated. “This politically motivated prosecution sends a chilling message to our citizens to never buck the political system.”
The “Oklahoma 3” are Rick Carpenter of Tulsa, Paul Jacob of Virginia and Susan Carpenter of Michigan, president of National Voter Outreach, a petition management company. The three worked to gather signatures for a Taxpayer Bill of Rights initiative in 2005.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Mainstream Media's Selective Reporting Noted
Speaking Up for Talk Radio
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
By Ken McIntyre
The mainstream media likes to brag about bringing us all the news that’s fit to print. Remember these recent stories?
Public schools in California next year will be required to teach 5-year-olds that homosexuality is normal and healthy — and that kids pick their "gender."
Television meteorologist John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel, published a scathing article dismissing global warming as "the greatest scam in history."
Rocket and mortar attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq fell in October to the lowest level in 21 months, after peaking in June before the "surge" in forces got under way.
Draw a blank? It could be because the mainstream media mostly ignored these stories, or briefed them on page A13. To hear about them, you likely had to rely on talk radio.
Buried speech isn’t free.
That’s one more blessing to be thankful for this Thanksgiving: Ordinary parents, taxpayers and voters still can get news that matters to their lives. Talk radio remains one of few places to hear a trustworthy voice probing subjects of consequence — whether Rush Limbaugh or Alan Colmes is our cup of tea.
And no thanks to some in Washington.
Just this summer, liberals such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin complained that conservative media bias killed amnesty for illegal immigrants. Their remedy for the non-existent problem: resurrect the misnamed Fairness Doctrine to force the same "balance" on government-licensed broadcasters that had stifled public affairs programming until 20 years ago.
Talk radio began to prepare its audience for battle, but the liberals fell silent, biding their time. Perhaps they’re calculating it’ll be easier to clamp down on free speech once Democrats take back the White House and strengthen their hold on Congress.
Not everyone got the memo about keeping quiet. An Oregon newspaper, the Bend Bulletin, quotes a spokesman for Rep. Maurice Hinchey saying the New York Democrat will fold a new Fairness Doctrine into legislation to limit consolidation of media ownership.
Washington then could impose on talk radio what liberals couldn’t earn strong ratings for in the free marketplace of ideas: equal time for their voices and tradition-mocking views.
Such a post-election scenario is “an existential threat to talk radio as we know it,” says Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican.
Pence, determined to confound the Democrats’ stealth strategy, wants a House vote before the election on the Broadcaster Freedom Act. That’s the bill he sponsored to forbid future presidents from re-imposing Fairness Doctrine-style constraints on broadcasters unless authorized by an act of Congress.
Speaker Pelosi, the House’s top Democrat, has bottled up the Broadcaster Freedom Act. So on Oct. 17, Pence filed what lawmakers call a discharge petition, seeking signatures from 218 members (a simple majority) to mandate an up-or-down vote on his bill.
Pence needs 24 more signatures. So far, 194 of 200 Republicans have signed. But not one of 233 Democrats has had the courage to break ranks in favor of debate, amendments and a vote.
The stakes are huge, says Pence, a former radio talker himself. If liberals succeed in setting the standards for political content on the public airwaves, he warns, "free talk radio would wither on the vine." Most stations would switch to country music or another format to escape a tangle of red tape dictated by Washington.
Pence’s prediction is based on past performance: In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission fashioned a rule that broadcast radio and television stations — a fraction of today’s media mix — must "afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial matters of public importance."
Station owners and managers eventually retreated to bland programming to avoid all the paperwork, costly legal challenges and political pressure from the White House down. In 1987, the FCC rescinded the Fairness Doctrine, calling it a “government intrusion” serving neither the Constitution nor the public. Little wonder that, since then, the number of talk radio stations more than tripled — to 1,400.
The standoff is awkward for Democrats, since 107 of them joined Pence and the Republicans in June to forbid the FCC from reviving the Fairness Doctrine on its own. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), who supports the Broadcaster Freedom Act, told Roll Call newspaper he’s not certain the bill warrants bypassing procedure and bucking leadership.
But Republican strategists think Pence has a shot at breaking the logjam by arguing the merits of unfettered talk radio to Altmire and other Democratic freshmen in Republican-leaning districts.
"They don’t want to be the reason some day,” as one House aide puts it, “that their district’s favorite talk shows are gone."
Ken McIntyre is the Marilyn and Fred Guardabassi Fellow in Media and Public Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312489,00.html
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
By Ken McIntyre
The mainstream media likes to brag about bringing us all the news that’s fit to print. Remember these recent stories?
Public schools in California next year will be required to teach 5-year-olds that homosexuality is normal and healthy — and that kids pick their "gender."
Television meteorologist John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel, published a scathing article dismissing global warming as "the greatest scam in history."
Rocket and mortar attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq fell in October to the lowest level in 21 months, after peaking in June before the "surge" in forces got under way.
Draw a blank? It could be because the mainstream media mostly ignored these stories, or briefed them on page A13. To hear about them, you likely had to rely on talk radio.
Buried speech isn’t free.
That’s one more blessing to be thankful for this Thanksgiving: Ordinary parents, taxpayers and voters still can get news that matters to their lives. Talk radio remains one of few places to hear a trustworthy voice probing subjects of consequence — whether Rush Limbaugh or Alan Colmes is our cup of tea.
And no thanks to some in Washington.
Just this summer, liberals such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin complained that conservative media bias killed amnesty for illegal immigrants. Their remedy for the non-existent problem: resurrect the misnamed Fairness Doctrine to force the same "balance" on government-licensed broadcasters that had stifled public affairs programming until 20 years ago.
Talk radio began to prepare its audience for battle, but the liberals fell silent, biding their time. Perhaps they’re calculating it’ll be easier to clamp down on free speech once Democrats take back the White House and strengthen their hold on Congress.
Not everyone got the memo about keeping quiet. An Oregon newspaper, the Bend Bulletin, quotes a spokesman for Rep. Maurice Hinchey saying the New York Democrat will fold a new Fairness Doctrine into legislation to limit consolidation of media ownership.
Washington then could impose on talk radio what liberals couldn’t earn strong ratings for in the free marketplace of ideas: equal time for their voices and tradition-mocking views.
Such a post-election scenario is “an existential threat to talk radio as we know it,” says Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican.
Pence, determined to confound the Democrats’ stealth strategy, wants a House vote before the election on the Broadcaster Freedom Act. That’s the bill he sponsored to forbid future presidents from re-imposing Fairness Doctrine-style constraints on broadcasters unless authorized by an act of Congress.
Speaker Pelosi, the House’s top Democrat, has bottled up the Broadcaster Freedom Act. So on Oct. 17, Pence filed what lawmakers call a discharge petition, seeking signatures from 218 members (a simple majority) to mandate an up-or-down vote on his bill.
Pence needs 24 more signatures. So far, 194 of 200 Republicans have signed. But not one of 233 Democrats has had the courage to break ranks in favor of debate, amendments and a vote.
The stakes are huge, says Pence, a former radio talker himself. If liberals succeed in setting the standards for political content on the public airwaves, he warns, "free talk radio would wither on the vine." Most stations would switch to country music or another format to escape a tangle of red tape dictated by Washington.
Pence’s prediction is based on past performance: In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission fashioned a rule that broadcast radio and television stations — a fraction of today’s media mix — must "afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial matters of public importance."
Station owners and managers eventually retreated to bland programming to avoid all the paperwork, costly legal challenges and political pressure from the White House down. In 1987, the FCC rescinded the Fairness Doctrine, calling it a “government intrusion” serving neither the Constitution nor the public. Little wonder that, since then, the number of talk radio stations more than tripled — to 1,400.
The standoff is awkward for Democrats, since 107 of them joined Pence and the Republicans in June to forbid the FCC from reviving the Fairness Doctrine on its own. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), who supports the Broadcaster Freedom Act, told Roll Call newspaper he’s not certain the bill warrants bypassing procedure and bucking leadership.
But Republican strategists think Pence has a shot at breaking the logjam by arguing the merits of unfettered talk radio to Altmire and other Democratic freshmen in Republican-leaning districts.
"They don’t want to be the reason some day,” as one House aide puts it, “that their district’s favorite talk shows are gone."
Ken McIntyre is the Marilyn and Fred Guardabassi Fellow in Media and Public Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312489,00.html
Big Content asks presidential candidates for more restrictive copyright laws
http://tinyurl.com/yo8oqz
Big Content asks presidential candidates for more restrictive copyright laws
By Ryan Paul | Published: November 21, 2007 - 09:33AM CT
The Copyright Alliance, which counts the MPAA and RIAA amongst its members, has sent letters and questionnaires to presidential candidates in an effort to determine where they stand on issues relating to intellectual property law. In a copy of the letter seen by Ars, Copyright Alliance executive director Patrick Ross says he speaks "on behalf of the 11 million Americans employed in the creative industries," and asserts that piracy reduction is essential.
"The future of our creative output in the United States is at stake in the 2008 presidential election," the letter to the candidates says. "It is critical not only for members of the creative community but also for the US economy to ensure that copyrights are respected and piracy is reduced. We are asking you to let us know what you would do to help preserve one of America's greatest strengths, its creative community."
A questionnaire attached to the letter is written in a manner that reflects the Copyright Alliance's agenda and is clearly intended to serve as an instrument of persuasion. The introduction to the questionnaire states that "the livelihood of the next generation, and America's global competitiveness, will increasingly depend on the strong copyright protection that allows creativity to be rewarded."
The questions include calls for stronger laws and stricter enforcement. "How would you promote the progress of science and creativity, as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, by upholding and strengthening copyright law and preventing its diminishment?" one question says.
It is ironic that the content industry invokes the Constitution to support their position. Copyright law, as laid out in the Constitution, attempts to maximize the potential for creativity and innovation by balancing the rights of content creators and content consumers. The Constitution established this balance by mandating limited terms for copyrights, and US copyright law recognizes fair use. Recent changes to copyright law influenced by the content industry—most notably the egregious Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act—have undermined the balance by restricting fair use and expanding the length of copyright protection to preposterous durations.
The steady expansion of copyright law poses a grave risk to creativity and innovation because it threatens to further erode the public domain. Artistic creation will suffer gravely when the cultural heritage of America can be chained down and held ransom. Consider Disney, one of the prominent members of the Copyright Alliance and a vocal supporter of copyright extension. Some of Disney's most prodigiously creative and profitable animated films are based on folk tales and stories from classical literature that were taken directly from the public domain. When the public domain shrinks, the potential for modern adaptation of classic works is severely constrained. In the future, innovative companies that want to bring older content into new mediums will be deterred by excessive and unjustifiable licensing costs as a result of copyright expansion.
"How would you protect the incentive to create by committing sufficient resources to support effective civil and criminal enforcement of copyright laws domestically and internationally?" another question asks.
The Copyright Alliance's assumption that criminal enforcement deters piracy is dubious at best. Litigation and enforcement have done little to stop file sharing. But investigation and litigation costs a lot of money. The record labels have already made it clear that the RIAA's litigious campaign against alleged file-sharers is money-loser. Now they want the government to "commit resources" to their futile crusade too.
Recent studies indicate that excessively broad copyright laws make virtually all of us infringers; stronger laws will make that worse.
The language used in the letter and questionnaire is blatantly deceptive and reflects the egregious self interest of Big Content. One can only hope that the candidate who eventually takes office is sensible enough to cut through the spin and recognize that the greatest threat to creativity and innovation in America is copyright extension, the erosion of fair use, and the abusive behavior of the Big Content industry—not piracy.
Big Content asks presidential candidates for more restrictive copyright laws
By Ryan Paul | Published: November 21, 2007 - 09:33AM CT
The Copyright Alliance, which counts the MPAA and RIAA amongst its members, has sent letters and questionnaires to presidential candidates in an effort to determine where they stand on issues relating to intellectual property law. In a copy of the letter seen by Ars, Copyright Alliance executive director Patrick Ross says he speaks "on behalf of the 11 million Americans employed in the creative industries," and asserts that piracy reduction is essential.
"The future of our creative output in the United States is at stake in the 2008 presidential election," the letter to the candidates says. "It is critical not only for members of the creative community but also for the US economy to ensure that copyrights are respected and piracy is reduced. We are asking you to let us know what you would do to help preserve one of America's greatest strengths, its creative community."
A questionnaire attached to the letter is written in a manner that reflects the Copyright Alliance's agenda and is clearly intended to serve as an instrument of persuasion. The introduction to the questionnaire states that "the livelihood of the next generation, and America's global competitiveness, will increasingly depend on the strong copyright protection that allows creativity to be rewarded."
The questions include calls for stronger laws and stricter enforcement. "How would you promote the progress of science and creativity, as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, by upholding and strengthening copyright law and preventing its diminishment?" one question says.
It is ironic that the content industry invokes the Constitution to support their position. Copyright law, as laid out in the Constitution, attempts to maximize the potential for creativity and innovation by balancing the rights of content creators and content consumers. The Constitution established this balance by mandating limited terms for copyrights, and US copyright law recognizes fair use. Recent changes to copyright law influenced by the content industry—most notably the egregious Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act—have undermined the balance by restricting fair use and expanding the length of copyright protection to preposterous durations.
The steady expansion of copyright law poses a grave risk to creativity and innovation because it threatens to further erode the public domain. Artistic creation will suffer gravely when the cultural heritage of America can be chained down and held ransom. Consider Disney, one of the prominent members of the Copyright Alliance and a vocal supporter of copyright extension. Some of Disney's most prodigiously creative and profitable animated films are based on folk tales and stories from classical literature that were taken directly from the public domain. When the public domain shrinks, the potential for modern adaptation of classic works is severely constrained. In the future, innovative companies that want to bring older content into new mediums will be deterred by excessive and unjustifiable licensing costs as a result of copyright expansion.
"How would you protect the incentive to create by committing sufficient resources to support effective civil and criminal enforcement of copyright laws domestically and internationally?" another question asks.
The Copyright Alliance's assumption that criminal enforcement deters piracy is dubious at best. Litigation and enforcement have done little to stop file sharing. But investigation and litigation costs a lot of money. The record labels have already made it clear that the RIAA's litigious campaign against alleged file-sharers is money-loser. Now they want the government to "commit resources" to their futile crusade too.
Recent studies indicate that excessively broad copyright laws make virtually all of us infringers; stronger laws will make that worse.
The language used in the letter and questionnaire is blatantly deceptive and reflects the egregious self interest of Big Content. One can only hope that the candidate who eventually takes office is sensible enough to cut through the spin and recognize that the greatest threat to creativity and innovation in America is copyright extension, the erosion of fair use, and the abusive behavior of the Big Content industry—not piracy.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
FEC Adopts Rule to Interpret WRTL
Posted November 20, 2007 by Paul S. Ryan
The FEC today unanimously adopted the substance of a rule interpreting the Supreme Court’s June decision in Wisconsin Right to Life, establishing the contours of a new exemption from BCRA’s “electioneering communication” corporation/union funding restrictions. The Commission then voted 4-1 to apply this new exemption only to the corporation/union funding restrictions and not go further than the Court required by likewise exempting WRTL-type ads from BCRA’s disclosure requirements. (Commission von Spakovsky voted against the motion.)
The new rule is based on Chairman Lenhard’s proposed amendment (criticized here) of “Draft B” published by the Commission’s General Counsel on Friday (criticized here)—with an important amendment offered during today’s meeting by Commissioner Weintraub. Commissioner Weintraub is to be commended for fashioning a compromise that significantly improved a seriously-flawed proposal.
The problem with Chairman Lenhard’s original proposal was that it could have exempted from federal campaign finance law any ad that “focuses on a public policy issue and either urges a candidate to take a position on the issue or urges the public to contact the candidate about the issue”—even if the ad contained all of the “indicia of express advocacy” that was absent from the WRTL ads that the Supreme Court considered. Chairman Lenhard’s original proposed 11 C.F.R. § 114.15 read:
"(a) . . . Corporations and labor organizations may make an electioneering communication . . . unless the communication is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate.
. . . .
(c)(2) A communication has an interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate if it:
(i) Focuses on a public policy issue and either urges a candidate to take a position on the issue or urges the public to contact the candidate about the issue; . . . ."
Commissioner Weintraub proposed an important amendment to this critical provision (above in bold), so that subsection (c)(2) now begins: “Content that would support a determination that a communication has an interpretation . . . .” Commissioner Weintraub’s amendment eliminated the per se determination that ads focused on a public policy issue are exempt and, instead, more accurately reflects the Supreme Court’s approach—considering both whether an ad contains “indicia of express advocacy” and whether the ad’s content is “consistent with that of a genuine issue ad” in determining whether the ad is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a candidate.
Though Commissioner Weintraub’s amendment was an important one, many important questions remain unanswered. The rule approved today directs the reader to the Commission’s Web site for examples of ads that are/are not permissible under the new exemption, but the Commission has yet to post such example ads on its Web site. These examples will reveal a great deal about how the Commission interprets its own new rule.
Further, the Commission has yet to produce an “Explanation and Justification” for the new rule, which will invariably shine more light on the Commission’s interpretation of its new rule.
Finally, at least one important question pertaining to disclosure requirements remains unanswered. The rule approved today requires a corporation or union to report the name and address of each person who made a donation aggregating $1,000 or more to the organization “for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” It is unclear how the Commission will interpret this requirement. Without strict funding source reporting requirements, wealthy individuals and others will be able to be able to evade disclosure by routing funds through shell corporations (e.g., 501(c)(4) advocacy organizations).
For these reasons, the Campaign Legal Center reserves final judgment on the rule adopted by the Commission today. Only time will tell how the Commission will interpret and enforce its new rule and, consequently, how large the flood of corporation and union dollars into the 2008 federal elections will be.
http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-194.html
Posted November 20, 2007 by Paul S. Ryan
The FEC today unanimously adopted the substance of a rule interpreting the Supreme Court’s June decision in Wisconsin Right to Life, establishing the contours of a new exemption from BCRA’s “electioneering communication” corporation/union funding restrictions. The Commission then voted 4-1 to apply this new exemption only to the corporation/union funding restrictions and not go further than the Court required by likewise exempting WRTL-type ads from BCRA’s disclosure requirements. (Commission von Spakovsky voted against the motion.)
The new rule is based on Chairman Lenhard’s proposed amendment (criticized here) of “Draft B” published by the Commission’s General Counsel on Friday (criticized here)—with an important amendment offered during today’s meeting by Commissioner Weintraub. Commissioner Weintraub is to be commended for fashioning a compromise that significantly improved a seriously-flawed proposal.
The problem with Chairman Lenhard’s original proposal was that it could have exempted from federal campaign finance law any ad that “focuses on a public policy issue and either urges a candidate to take a position on the issue or urges the public to contact the candidate about the issue”—even if the ad contained all of the “indicia of express advocacy” that was absent from the WRTL ads that the Supreme Court considered. Chairman Lenhard’s original proposed 11 C.F.R. § 114.15 read:
"(a) . . . Corporations and labor organizations may make an electioneering communication . . . unless the communication is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate.
. . . .
(c)(2) A communication has an interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate if it:
(i) Focuses on a public policy issue and either urges a candidate to take a position on the issue or urges the public to contact the candidate about the issue; . . . ."
Commissioner Weintraub proposed an important amendment to this critical provision (above in bold), so that subsection (c)(2) now begins: “Content that would support a determination that a communication has an interpretation . . . .” Commissioner Weintraub’s amendment eliminated the per se determination that ads focused on a public policy issue are exempt and, instead, more accurately reflects the Supreme Court’s approach—considering both whether an ad contains “indicia of express advocacy” and whether the ad’s content is “consistent with that of a genuine issue ad” in determining whether the ad is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a candidate.
Though Commissioner Weintraub’s amendment was an important one, many important questions remain unanswered. The rule approved today directs the reader to the Commission’s Web site for examples of ads that are/are not permissible under the new exemption, but the Commission has yet to post such example ads on its Web site. These examples will reveal a great deal about how the Commission interprets its own new rule.
Further, the Commission has yet to produce an “Explanation and Justification” for the new rule, which will invariably shine more light on the Commission’s interpretation of its new rule.
Finally, at least one important question pertaining to disclosure requirements remains unanswered. The rule approved today requires a corporation or union to report the name and address of each person who made a donation aggregating $1,000 or more to the organization “for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” It is unclear how the Commission will interpret this requirement. Without strict funding source reporting requirements, wealthy individuals and others will be able to be able to evade disclosure by routing funds through shell corporations (e.g., 501(c)(4) advocacy organizations).
For these reasons, the Campaign Legal Center reserves final judgment on the rule adopted by the Commission today. Only time will tell how the Commission will interpret and enforce its new rule and, consequently, how large the flood of corporation and union dollars into the 2008 federal elections will be.
http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-194.html
Democrat Partisans Behind Quran Attack Ad?
Hat Tip to Mike @ http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/11/democrat-partisans-behind-quran-attack.html
The signers of a half-page ad attacking state lawmakers for declining copies of the Quran are largely partisan Democrats, State Rep. Mike Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City, said today.
"Virtually every person involved in this attack ad is a Democrat or Democratic campaign contributor," said Reynolds, who monitors political dollars with an intensity few can match.
Headed "A Letter to Oklahomans," the advertisement is signed by more than 100 individuals, including
Attorney General Drew Edmondson and his wife Linda,
and
Secretary of State Susan Savage, a former Tulsa mayor.
Others signing the letter include
former Treasurer Robert Butkin, now a University of Tulsa law professor;
Energy Secretary David Fleischaker;
former Senate President Pro Tem Cal Hobson;
Pulitzer Prize-winning author N. Scott Momaday;
Norman Mayor Cindy Rosenthal;
Secretary of Environment Miles Tolbert;
former Attorney General Mike Turpen; and
former Tulsa lawmaker Penny Williams.
A spokesman said those signing the letter belong to no formal organization, although many of them met through the Oklahoma Symposium, a three-day event held every year at Quartz Mountain State Park.
"It's clear this group is simply throwing up a smokescreen to divert attention from Governor Brad Henry's sponsorship of Muslim activists in state government."
The Governor's Ethnic American Advisory Council, which consists of Muslim activists, recently received national attention for its efforts to provide "Centennial edition" copies of the Quran (the holy book of Islam) to Oklahoma state lawmakers. Several legislators did not accept copies of the book.
The council's official efforts have included "outreach" programs targeting Oklahoma school children and efforts to introduce Muslim content into school textbooks endorsed by state regulators, Reynolds said.
On Sunday, a half-page ad signed by 147 individuals ran in the state's two largest newspapers attacking lawmakers who did not cave in to the demands of council members, Reynolds said. Of the 147 signers, 123 are registered Democrats, seven are registered independents and seven are Republicans according to voter registration records, Reynolds said.
He said 10 individuals could not be found in state voter registration records. Records show that four of the 14 signers registered as Republicans or independents have contributed money exclusively to Democratic candidates, Reynolds said. Over half of those 14 individuals also share an address with one of the registered Democrat signatories.
"This ad is nothing more than a partisan attack funded by Democrats to benefit Governor Henry. If they don't have the backbone to criticize the militant strain of Islam that resulted in the murder of thousands of our fellow citizens on American soil, that's their right, but I think it's sad that they have allowed political considerations to cloud their judgment," Reynolds said.
He noted that campaign records indicate Ethnic American Advisory Council member Mohammad Farzaneh and members of his family have donated more than $100,000 to Oklahoma candidates, including Henry.
Reynolds renewed his call for Henry to disband or at least reform the council so its membership will include a "truly diverse group of people of Middle Eastern heritage who represent all faiths in that region, not just one."
Hat Tip to Mike @ http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/11/democrat-partisans-behind-quran-attack.html
The signers of a half-page ad attacking state lawmakers for declining copies of the Quran are largely partisan Democrats, State Rep. Mike Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City, said today.
"Virtually every person involved in this attack ad is a Democrat or Democratic campaign contributor," said Reynolds, who monitors political dollars with an intensity few can match.
Headed "A Letter to Oklahomans," the advertisement is signed by more than 100 individuals, including
Attorney General Drew Edmondson and his wife Linda,
and
Secretary of State Susan Savage, a former Tulsa mayor.
Others signing the letter include
former Treasurer Robert Butkin, now a University of Tulsa law professor;
Energy Secretary David Fleischaker;
former Senate President Pro Tem Cal Hobson;
Pulitzer Prize-winning author N. Scott Momaday;
Norman Mayor Cindy Rosenthal;
Secretary of Environment Miles Tolbert;
former Attorney General Mike Turpen; and
former Tulsa lawmaker Penny Williams.
A spokesman said those signing the letter belong to no formal organization, although many of them met through the Oklahoma Symposium, a three-day event held every year at Quartz Mountain State Park.
"It's clear this group is simply throwing up a smokescreen to divert attention from Governor Brad Henry's sponsorship of Muslim activists in state government."
The Governor's Ethnic American Advisory Council, which consists of Muslim activists, recently received national attention for its efforts to provide "Centennial edition" copies of the Quran (the holy book of Islam) to Oklahoma state lawmakers. Several legislators did not accept copies of the book.
The council's official efforts have included "outreach" programs targeting Oklahoma school children and efforts to introduce Muslim content into school textbooks endorsed by state regulators, Reynolds said.
On Sunday, a half-page ad signed by 147 individuals ran in the state's two largest newspapers attacking lawmakers who did not cave in to the demands of council members, Reynolds said. Of the 147 signers, 123 are registered Democrats, seven are registered independents and seven are Republicans according to voter registration records, Reynolds said.
He said 10 individuals could not be found in state voter registration records. Records show that four of the 14 signers registered as Republicans or independents have contributed money exclusively to Democratic candidates, Reynolds said. Over half of those 14 individuals also share an address with one of the registered Democrat signatories.
"This ad is nothing more than a partisan attack funded by Democrats to benefit Governor Henry. If they don't have the backbone to criticize the militant strain of Islam that resulted in the murder of thousands of our fellow citizens on American soil, that's their right, but I think it's sad that they have allowed political considerations to cloud their judgment," Reynolds said.
He noted that campaign records indicate Ethnic American Advisory Council member Mohammad Farzaneh and members of his family have donated more than $100,000 to Oklahoma candidates, including Henry.
Reynolds renewed his call for Henry to disband or at least reform the council so its membership will include a "truly diverse group of people of Middle Eastern heritage who represent all faiths in that region, not just one."
The state appears to be inconsistent on its Oklahomans-only rule
Published October 17, 2007 05:55 pm
Initiative fairness
Oklahoma cockfighters — former cockfighters, that is — bring up an excellent point about recent state indictments of out-of-state petitioners.
Attorney General Drew Edmondson defended the indictments of three petitioners seeking to put a taxpayer bill of rights on the ballot in Oklahoma.
"... we expect the laws to be followed and we will take action when they are violated," Edmondson said in a state story last Sunday.
The week before, a Virginia man, a Michigan woman, and the Tulsa head of a citizen advocacy group were charged with conspiracy to defraud the state by using petition circulators for the TABOR proposal who were not state residents.
Cockfighters are contending the same standard was not applied leading up to the 2002 petition initiative vote that made cockfighting a felony in Oklahoma. They say out-of-state organizers and circulators were used in that initiative drive.
In fact, according to stories published on the Humane Society of the United States' Web site, the organization and one other one were involved in organizing the Oklahoma initiative petition against cockfighting.
"The Oklahoma Coalition Against Cockfighting, an alliance of local and national animal protection, law enforcement and civic organizations, including The Humane Society of the United States and The Fund for Animals, submitted 99,750 signatures in December 1999, in support of a petition to make cockfighting illegal," a Nov. 13, 2001 HSUS story reads.
Muskogee resident Tony Villalobos claims that circulators were relocated here by the HSUS to collect signatures, and in fact, a Supreme Court referee invalidated thousands of those signatures.
That same referee, Gregory Albert, ruled on the TABOR initiative, invalidating nearly 57,000 signatures that involved out-of-state circulators. The difference in the two initiatives is that the Supreme Court overruled Albert's disqualification of signatures, which placed the cockfighting ban on the state ballot.
We are not encouraging a revisit of the 2002 state vote, but the state appears to be inconsistent on its Oklahomans-only rule. That's not good for Oklahomans just as it's not good for outsiders to dictate what happens in Oklahoma.
http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/opinion/local_story_290175525.html
Published October 17, 2007 05:55 pm
Initiative fairness
Oklahoma cockfighters — former cockfighters, that is — bring up an excellent point about recent state indictments of out-of-state petitioners.
Attorney General Drew Edmondson defended the indictments of three petitioners seeking to put a taxpayer bill of rights on the ballot in Oklahoma.
"... we expect the laws to be followed and we will take action when they are violated," Edmondson said in a state story last Sunday.
The week before, a Virginia man, a Michigan woman, and the Tulsa head of a citizen advocacy group were charged with conspiracy to defraud the state by using petition circulators for the TABOR proposal who were not state residents.
Cockfighters are contending the same standard was not applied leading up to the 2002 petition initiative vote that made cockfighting a felony in Oklahoma. They say out-of-state organizers and circulators were used in that initiative drive.
In fact, according to stories published on the Humane Society of the United States' Web site, the organization and one other one were involved in organizing the Oklahoma initiative petition against cockfighting.
"The Oklahoma Coalition Against Cockfighting, an alliance of local and national animal protection, law enforcement and civic organizations, including The Humane Society of the United States and The Fund for Animals, submitted 99,750 signatures in December 1999, in support of a petition to make cockfighting illegal," a Nov. 13, 2001 HSUS story reads.
Muskogee resident Tony Villalobos claims that circulators were relocated here by the HSUS to collect signatures, and in fact, a Supreme Court referee invalidated thousands of those signatures.
That same referee, Gregory Albert, ruled on the TABOR initiative, invalidating nearly 57,000 signatures that involved out-of-state circulators. The difference in the two initiatives is that the Supreme Court overruled Albert's disqualification of signatures, which placed the cockfighting ban on the state ballot.
We are not encouraging a revisit of the 2002 state vote, but the state appears to be inconsistent on its Oklahomans-only rule. That's not good for Oklahomans just as it's not good for outsiders to dictate what happens in Oklahoma.
http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/opinion/local_story_290175525.html
Monday, November 19, 2007
Mike Reynolds Chides Edmondson, Henry, McMahan
Hat Tip to Mike @ http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/
State Rep. Mike Reynolds said today that Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who recently admitted receiving illegal campaign contributions, has yet to correct all the “mistakes” his campaign finance reports show.
“Several months ago I questioned whether Attorney General Edmondson truly cared about Ethics laws in Oklahoma. I don’t know if he asked the State Auditor to help him clean up his errors, but it appears that he has many additional mistakes that have not been corrected,” said Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City.
“While Edmondson decided that he disagreed with the Ethics Commission’s interpretation of its own rules, he apparently thought it best to comply. After taking a week’s vacation to sort the mess out, he wrote a note to the commission saying he was paying back his own campaign for the money he had taken from it.
“When other people that don’t have their own law enforcement branch make these mistakes, they suffer far greater consequences. They may wind up paying legal fees, accounting fees, or fines to the commission – fines that are supposed to be triple the amount of the illegal contribution.
“I would like to thank the AG for correcting his mistakes – OR at least some of them. I have been waiting to see when he would find additional errors that seem to be all too obvious. In addition to the 12 illegal contributions already reported by Edmondson, he might add these to the list.”
(First date is "expense date," second is "contribution date")
09/14/06 $250.00 Brad Henry 09/22/06 Tickets to event;
12/12/06 $500.00 Jari Askins 12/21/06 Event-Campaign Expense;
03/08/06 $100.00 Sandy Garrett 03/14/06 Registration Event;
03/29/06 $100.00 Robbie Kerr 04/17/06 Registration Event;
02/01/06 $100.00 Neil Brannon 02/08/06 Tickets Event;
01/28/06 $100.00 RC Pruett 01/30/06 Tickets Event;
01/24/06 $100.00 Terry Harrison 02/02/06 Tickets Event;
03/13/06 $100.00 Wade Rousselot 03/13/06 Tickets Event;
05/16/06 $100.00 Casey Davis 05/16/06 Tickets Event;
06/14/06 $100.00 Steve Gallo 06/24/06 Registration Event;
07/19/06 $100.00 Eric Proctor 07/31/06 Sponsorship Event;
01/30/06 $100.00 Glen Smithson 01/30/06 Unreimbursed Expense;
09/29/06 $100.00 Wallace Collins 10/15/06 Tickets Event
“When the AG finishes with these corrections, he might also want to see if he received any illegal corporate contributions,” Reynolds said. “I bet if he looks hard enough he can find at least one.
“After taking care of these oversights he might explain to Governor Brad Henry that $5,000 is the maximum that can be legally received.
Friends of Brad Henry 11/12/06 $4000.00 Harry Wilson;
Friends of Brad Henry 11/02/06 $4000.00 Harry Wilson
“And last, but certainly not least, are the contributions to Jeff McMahan. Since his campaign is broke (although he does have enough to repay his personal loan) and cannot refund the excessive contributions received from Gene Stipe, Steve Phipps and their cronies, there must surely be another way to solve this problem,” Reynolds said. “Although he probably would not have his job today if he hadn’t taken these illegal contributions, please add the following to the growing illegal debt. As a certified fraud examiner and State Auditor, I’m sure McMahan will have no problem finding the paperwork.”
Mark Bilbrey* 12/17/03 $1000.00;
Mark Bilbrey 12/29/05 $5000.00
Randy Dittman* 12/17/03 $1200.00;
Randy Dittman 01/01/05 $5000.00
Beverly Jones* 12/17/03 $1000.00;
Beverly Jones 08/07/03 $500.00;
Beverly Jones 06/03/04 $500.00;
Beverly Jones 04/29/03 $500.00;
Beverly Jones 08/16/05 $3000.00;
Beverly Jones 05/15/05 $500.00;
Beverly Jones 05/25/05 $1000.00
“Each of the above is an abstractor, one of the industries the Auditor oversees!” Reynolds said.
“In addition to these oversights there was $12,500 in Campaign Loans that were on the Dec. 31 report that have disappeared on the Report for March 2007.”
Supporting ethics documents, Reynolds said, may be found at www.oklahomadata.com/EthicsProblems.pdf
Hat Tip to Mike @ http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/
State Rep. Mike Reynolds said today that Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who recently admitted receiving illegal campaign contributions, has yet to correct all the “mistakes” his campaign finance reports show.
“Several months ago I questioned whether Attorney General Edmondson truly cared about Ethics laws in Oklahoma. I don’t know if he asked the State Auditor to help him clean up his errors, but it appears that he has many additional mistakes that have not been corrected,” said Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City.
“While Edmondson decided that he disagreed with the Ethics Commission’s interpretation of its own rules, he apparently thought it best to comply. After taking a week’s vacation to sort the mess out, he wrote a note to the commission saying he was paying back his own campaign for the money he had taken from it.
“When other people that don’t have their own law enforcement branch make these mistakes, they suffer far greater consequences. They may wind up paying legal fees, accounting fees, or fines to the commission – fines that are supposed to be triple the amount of the illegal contribution.
“I would like to thank the AG for correcting his mistakes – OR at least some of them. I have been waiting to see when he would find additional errors that seem to be all too obvious. In addition to the 12 illegal contributions already reported by Edmondson, he might add these to the list.”
(First date is "expense date," second is "contribution date")
09/14/06 $250.00 Brad Henry 09/22/06 Tickets to event;
12/12/06 $500.00 Jari Askins 12/21/06 Event-Campaign Expense;
03/08/06 $100.00 Sandy Garrett 03/14/06 Registration Event;
03/29/06 $100.00 Robbie Kerr 04/17/06 Registration Event;
02/01/06 $100.00 Neil Brannon 02/08/06 Tickets Event;
01/28/06 $100.00 RC Pruett 01/30/06 Tickets Event;
01/24/06 $100.00 Terry Harrison 02/02/06 Tickets Event;
03/13/06 $100.00 Wade Rousselot 03/13/06 Tickets Event;
05/16/06 $100.00 Casey Davis 05/16/06 Tickets Event;
06/14/06 $100.00 Steve Gallo 06/24/06 Registration Event;
07/19/06 $100.00 Eric Proctor 07/31/06 Sponsorship Event;
01/30/06 $100.00 Glen Smithson 01/30/06 Unreimbursed Expense;
09/29/06 $100.00 Wallace Collins 10/15/06 Tickets Event
“When the AG finishes with these corrections, he might also want to see if he received any illegal corporate contributions,” Reynolds said. “I bet if he looks hard enough he can find at least one.
“After taking care of these oversights he might explain to Governor Brad Henry that $5,000 is the maximum that can be legally received.
Friends of Brad Henry 11/12/06 $4000.00 Harry Wilson;
Friends of Brad Henry 11/02/06 $4000.00 Harry Wilson
“And last, but certainly not least, are the contributions to Jeff McMahan. Since his campaign is broke (although he does have enough to repay his personal loan) and cannot refund the excessive contributions received from Gene Stipe, Steve Phipps and their cronies, there must surely be another way to solve this problem,” Reynolds said. “Although he probably would not have his job today if he hadn’t taken these illegal contributions, please add the following to the growing illegal debt. As a certified fraud examiner and State Auditor, I’m sure McMahan will have no problem finding the paperwork.”
Mark Bilbrey* 12/17/03 $1000.00;
Mark Bilbrey 12/29/05 $5000.00
Randy Dittman* 12/17/03 $1200.00;
Randy Dittman 01/01/05 $5000.00
Beverly Jones* 12/17/03 $1000.00;
Beverly Jones 08/07/03 $500.00;
Beverly Jones 06/03/04 $500.00;
Beverly Jones 04/29/03 $500.00;
Beverly Jones 08/16/05 $3000.00;
Beverly Jones 05/15/05 $500.00;
Beverly Jones 05/25/05 $1000.00
“Each of the above is an abstractor, one of the industries the Auditor oversees!” Reynolds said.
“In addition to these oversights there was $12,500 in Campaign Loans that were on the Dec. 31 report that have disappeared on the Report for March 2007.”
Supporting ethics documents, Reynolds said, may be found at www.oklahomadata.com/EthicsProblems.pdf
Oklahoma's Most Wanted
The latest thing in political felonies: a petition drive.
Monday, November 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
A veteran political activist is facing 10 years in prison and a hefty fine for attempting to petition government for redress of grievances. The latest news from Pakistan? No, this is happening in Oklahoma.
Last month Paul Jacob, the former head of U.S. Term Limits and current head of Citizens in Charge, was led out of an Oklahoma City courtroom in handcuffs after pleading not guilty to charges that he conspired to defraud the state. Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who's overseeing this bizarre prosecution, has accused Mr. Jacob and two fellow petition organizers--Rick Carpenter of Oklahomans in Action and Susan Johnson of National Voter Outreach--of bringing out-of-state petition gatherers to Oklahoma to collect signatures.
In 2005 Mr. Carpenter, a Tulsan, launched a signature campaign to get a state-wide vote on a Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Tabor, as it is known, would cap the rate at which state government spending could increase. Mr. Jacob and Ms. Johnson were later brought on board to assist the effort. Not surprisingly, politicians and interest groups that favor big government have developed an intense dislike for Tabor spending limits, even though, like lawmaker term limits, they tend to be popular with voters.
This certainly proved to be the case in Oklahoma. Despite strong opposition from organized labor especially, Tabor petition advocates managed to gather some 300,000 signatures from registered voters, far more than the 219,000 needed to get the measure on the state ballot. Following a court challenge, however, the signatures were invalidated, not because the signers weren't legitimate but because the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined that nonresidents of the state had collected signatures.
Ironically, it is perfectly legal for opponents of a petition to solicit money and manpower from out-of-state. And sure enough, public sector unions opposed to the Tabor initiative recruited people from outfits like the Oregon-based Voter Education Project, an offshoot of the AFL-CIO that specializes in countering signature drives. They also set up Web sites that advertised the location of signature-gathers and urged their members to harass them.
After the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled, Attorney General Edmondson could have let the matter die. Instead, he decided that the best use of scarce prosecutorial resources was to indict the petition campaigners. There's reason to believe his decision has less to do with enforcing the law and more to do with warning activists to think twice before challenging political elites.
Mr. Jacob says petition organizers consulted with both the board of elections and the secretary of state's office and were told that the residency rule could be met by anyone who moved to the state and declared himself a resident. In any case, that residency requirement is currently being challenged in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Mr. Edmondson might have at least waited for that outcome before pursuing felony counts against three people acting in good faith.
"The response is draconian and intended to scare and intimidate," says Mr. Jacob, who also faces a fine of up to $25,000 if convicted. "To get 10 years in prison for following what you understand to be the rules of the petition drive would send a chilling message, not only throughout Oklahoma but throughout the country. That's not what we want people to be thinking about when they consider whether to join a campaign to reform their government."
The Democratic AG has denied that his actions are politically motivated, telling reporters that "we're charged with enforcing the laws that are on the books." But every prosecutor has to make judgment calls about how to deploy limited manpower. And in other areas, Mr. Edmondson has opted not to act while legal challenges are pending. Upon learning that the Supreme Court had agreed to review a challenge to the death penalty, for example, he recently requested that all executions be halted until the High Court speaks.
Like many other ambitious AGs, Mr. Edmondson has his eye on higher office, and indicting Tabor supporters will win him friends among the unions and liberal interest groups that can sway a fight for the Democratic nomination. With so many other real crimes to deter, his pursuit of citizen petitioners is not the kind of prosecutorial zeal we need.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010882
The latest thing in political felonies: a petition drive.
Monday, November 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
A veteran political activist is facing 10 years in prison and a hefty fine for attempting to petition government for redress of grievances. The latest news from Pakistan? No, this is happening in Oklahoma.
Last month Paul Jacob, the former head of U.S. Term Limits and current head of Citizens in Charge, was led out of an Oklahoma City courtroom in handcuffs after pleading not guilty to charges that he conspired to defraud the state. Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who's overseeing this bizarre prosecution, has accused Mr. Jacob and two fellow petition organizers--Rick Carpenter of Oklahomans in Action and Susan Johnson of National Voter Outreach--of bringing out-of-state petition gatherers to Oklahoma to collect signatures.
In 2005 Mr. Carpenter, a Tulsan, launched a signature campaign to get a state-wide vote on a Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Tabor, as it is known, would cap the rate at which state government spending could increase. Mr. Jacob and Ms. Johnson were later brought on board to assist the effort. Not surprisingly, politicians and interest groups that favor big government have developed an intense dislike for Tabor spending limits, even though, like lawmaker term limits, they tend to be popular with voters.
This certainly proved to be the case in Oklahoma. Despite strong opposition from organized labor especially, Tabor petition advocates managed to gather some 300,000 signatures from registered voters, far more than the 219,000 needed to get the measure on the state ballot. Following a court challenge, however, the signatures were invalidated, not because the signers weren't legitimate but because the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined that nonresidents of the state had collected signatures.
Ironically, it is perfectly legal for opponents of a petition to solicit money and manpower from out-of-state. And sure enough, public sector unions opposed to the Tabor initiative recruited people from outfits like the Oregon-based Voter Education Project, an offshoot of the AFL-CIO that specializes in countering signature drives. They also set up Web sites that advertised the location of signature-gathers and urged their members to harass them.
After the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled, Attorney General Edmondson could have let the matter die. Instead, he decided that the best use of scarce prosecutorial resources was to indict the petition campaigners. There's reason to believe his decision has less to do with enforcing the law and more to do with warning activists to think twice before challenging political elites.
Mr. Jacob says petition organizers consulted with both the board of elections and the secretary of state's office and were told that the residency rule could be met by anyone who moved to the state and declared himself a resident. In any case, that residency requirement is currently being challenged in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Mr. Edmondson might have at least waited for that outcome before pursuing felony counts against three people acting in good faith.
"The response is draconian and intended to scare and intimidate," says Mr. Jacob, who also faces a fine of up to $25,000 if convicted. "To get 10 years in prison for following what you understand to be the rules of the petition drive would send a chilling message, not only throughout Oklahoma but throughout the country. That's not what we want people to be thinking about when they consider whether to join a campaign to reform their government."
The Democratic AG has denied that his actions are politically motivated, telling reporters that "we're charged with enforcing the laws that are on the books." But every prosecutor has to make judgment calls about how to deploy limited manpower. And in other areas, Mr. Edmondson has opted not to act while legal challenges are pending. Upon learning that the Supreme Court had agreed to review a challenge to the death penalty, for example, he recently requested that all executions be halted until the High Court speaks.
Like many other ambitious AGs, Mr. Edmondson has his eye on higher office, and indicting Tabor supporters will win him friends among the unions and liberal interest groups that can sway a fight for the Democratic nomination. With so many other real crimes to deter, his pursuit of citizen petitioners is not the kind of prosecutorial zeal we need.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010882
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Rinehart, Pope, Pelfrey Bound Over For Trial
County Commissioner Brent Rinehart, former State
Rep. Tim Pope and Midwest City businessman
Ray Pelfrey were bound over for trial in Oklahoma
County District Court today.
The charges they face grew out of an investigation
into the financing of Rinehart's campaign.
Special Judge James Paddleford announced the
decision after a long weekend of reviewing the
case presented by the Attorney General's office.
Paddleford said in his opinion that there is
sufficient evidence to put Rinehart, former
legislator turned political consultant Pope and
Pelfrey on trial.
Stephen Jones of Enid, Tim Pope’s attorney,
responded to the court finding: "The prosecution
of Tim Pope is dishonest, unfair and political. Tim
has tremendous community support from his
friends in the Legislature and in politics, his clients,
his family and his church. They stand by him and
his day of vindication is coming. We intend to show
in the weeks and months ahead that this charge is
politically inspired, selective prosecution, and is
based upon a house of cards which will crumble."
County Commissioner Brent Rinehart, former State
Rep. Tim Pope and Midwest City businessman
Ray Pelfrey were bound over for trial in Oklahoma
County District Court today.
The charges they face grew out of an investigation
into the financing of Rinehart's campaign.
Special Judge James Paddleford announced the
decision after a long weekend of reviewing the
case presented by the Attorney General's office.
Paddleford said in his opinion that there is
sufficient evidence to put Rinehart, former
legislator turned political consultant Pope and
Pelfrey on trial.
Stephen Jones of Enid, Tim Pope’s attorney,
responded to the court finding: "The prosecution
of Tim Pope is dishonest, unfair and political. Tim
has tremendous community support from his
friends in the Legislature and in politics, his clients,
his family and his church. They stand by him and
his day of vindication is coming. We intend to show
in the weeks and months ahead that this charge is
politically inspired, selective prosecution, and is
based upon a house of cards which will crumble."
Monday, November 12, 2007
Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-Penn)
speaking about "The Gathering Storm of the
21st Century: America's War Against Islamic
Fascism"
A mediasnack at a time...
Ok, I had some people email me
and say that a 1 hour video was to long.
So I made mediasnack out of it.
7 parts, on a YouTube play list
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6C9B3A8FB647DE8A
http://tinyurl.com/2rh3y7
The video are from 7 min to just over 9 min long, just bookmark the
playlist. One bite at a time.
BTW: What's a mediasnacker?
Folks who consume small bits of information,
data or entertainment when, where, and how
they want.
One bite at a time...
speaking about "The Gathering Storm of the
21st Century: America's War Against Islamic
Fascism"
A mediasnack at a time...
Ok, I had some people email me
and say that a 1 hour video was to long.
So I made mediasnack out of it.
7 parts, on a YouTube play list
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6C9B3A8FB647DE8A
http://tinyurl.com/2rh3y7
The video are from 7 min to just over 9 min long, just bookmark the
playlist. One bite at a time.
BTW: What's a mediasnacker?
Folks who consume small bits of information,
data or entertainment when, where, and how
they want.
One bite at a time...
Should Private Companies Be Allowed To Own Our Roads?
As a member of the House of Representative's
Transportation Committee I was able to closely
observe one of the most controversial issues of
the past legislative session. At issue is
Oklahoma's membership in a group known as
the North America SuperCorridor Coalition
(NASCO), the desire of big corporations to
enhance the movement of Chinese-manufactured
goods throughout North America, the possible
privatization of new state and federal highways,
NASCO's desire to deploy sophisticated tracking
devices along I-35 and clear attempts towards
the creation of a closer economic and political
union between Canada, the United States and
Mexico.
The depth of this subject matter is nearly
overwhelming and because of it's complexity I
only have time to talk about a small segment of it
in this update. I take the duty of informing my
constituents of these events very seriously and thus
look forward to continuing to update you on these
issues in the future.
In last week's update I talked about what I feel is
the inappropriate and frightening alliance of big
business with big government. Nowhere is this
abuse more clear than when big companies buy
long term leases of public roads. You can only
imagine how your power as a citizen is minimized
when a big (and likely foreign owned) corporation has
complete control over a public road on which you
depend in order to get where you need to go.
The issue of private ownership of public roads is in its
infancy in Oklahoma but growing after Texas has
planned out the construction of the Trans-Texas
Corridor (TTC) network over the next 50 years to be
financed by Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras
de Transporte, S.A., (Cintra) a foreign investment
consortium based in Spain. Cintra will own the
leasing and operating rights on TTC highways for
50 years after the construction is complete.
The TTC initiative begun in 2002 focused on building a
superhighway parallel to Interstate 35. It seems that
proponents of this privately owned super transit
corridor intend on linking Mexican ports through
Oklahoma to an inland port to be located in Kansas
City and from there to various distribution points
throughout North America.
A communist Chinese owned company known as
Hutchison Ports Holdings is paying billions to
deepen the Mexican ports of Manzanillo and
Lazaro Cardenas in anticipation of the arrival of
container mega-ships capable of holding up to
12,500 containers currently being built for
Chinese shipping lines. These ports would likely
serve as a starting point for Chinese goods that
would be distributed into the United States along
the super highway corridor.
The aforementioned group, NASCO, is not only
advocating for an I-35 trade corridor but is also
pushing for the creation of a tracking system
known as NAFTRACS to be put in place along
I-35. This technology would be developed in
part by a joint venture owned by Hutchison
Ports Holdings. NAFTRACS has been described
by NASCO as a program that provides
management tools for mitigating or minimizing
traffic congestion and collecting the status of
certain items in transit. The data generated by
these sensors would be shared with the joint
venture although it is not clear if the data would
be shared with the Chinese government owners
of the joint interest. In May of this year, NASCO
requested that the Oklahoma Department of
Transportation sign a letter stating that ODOT
was looking forward to participating in the
tracking program.
During the last legislative session it was discovered
that Oklahoma is a dues paying member of NASCO.
In other words your taxpayer dollars are helping
finance this organization. In the next few weeks
Senator Randy Brogden (R-Owasso) will be filing a
bill which I intend to co-sponsor that will remove
Oklahoma from theNASCO coalition. And, as your
Representative I am committed to opposing any
attempts to allow private ownership of public roads.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
State Representative Jason W. Murphey
Vice-Chairman Homeland Security Committee
State Capitol Building Room #400B
2300 North Lincoln Blvd
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
1(405) 557-7350 (Phone)
1(800) 522-8502 X 350
1(405) 962-7660 (Fax)
www.HouseDistrict31.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
As a member of the House of Representative's
Transportation Committee I was able to closely
observe one of the most controversial issues of
the past legislative session. At issue is
Oklahoma's membership in a group known as
the North America SuperCorridor Coalition
(NASCO), the desire of big corporations to
enhance the movement of Chinese-manufactured
goods throughout North America, the possible
privatization of new state and federal highways,
NASCO's desire to deploy sophisticated tracking
devices along I-35 and clear attempts towards
the creation of a closer economic and political
union between Canada, the United States and
Mexico.
The depth of this subject matter is nearly
overwhelming and because of it's complexity I
only have time to talk about a small segment of it
in this update. I take the duty of informing my
constituents of these events very seriously and thus
look forward to continuing to update you on these
issues in the future.
In last week's update I talked about what I feel is
the inappropriate and frightening alliance of big
business with big government. Nowhere is this
abuse more clear than when big companies buy
long term leases of public roads. You can only
imagine how your power as a citizen is minimized
when a big (and likely foreign owned) corporation has
complete control over a public road on which you
depend in order to get where you need to go.
The issue of private ownership of public roads is in its
infancy in Oklahoma but growing after Texas has
planned out the construction of the Trans-Texas
Corridor (TTC) network over the next 50 years to be
financed by Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras
de Transporte, S.A., (Cintra) a foreign investment
consortium based in Spain. Cintra will own the
leasing and operating rights on TTC highways for
50 years after the construction is complete.
The TTC initiative begun in 2002 focused on building a
superhighway parallel to Interstate 35. It seems that
proponents of this privately owned super transit
corridor intend on linking Mexican ports through
Oklahoma to an inland port to be located in Kansas
City and from there to various distribution points
throughout North America.
A communist Chinese owned company known as
Hutchison Ports Holdings is paying billions to
deepen the Mexican ports of Manzanillo and
Lazaro Cardenas in anticipation of the arrival of
container mega-ships capable of holding up to
12,500 containers currently being built for
Chinese shipping lines. These ports would likely
serve as a starting point for Chinese goods that
would be distributed into the United States along
the super highway corridor.
The aforementioned group, NASCO, is not only
advocating for an I-35 trade corridor but is also
pushing for the creation of a tracking system
known as NAFTRACS to be put in place along
I-35. This technology would be developed in
part by a joint venture owned by Hutchison
Ports Holdings. NAFTRACS has been described
by NASCO as a program that provides
management tools for mitigating or minimizing
traffic congestion and collecting the status of
certain items in transit. The data generated by
these sensors would be shared with the joint
venture although it is not clear if the data would
be shared with the Chinese government owners
of the joint interest. In May of this year, NASCO
requested that the Oklahoma Department of
Transportation sign a letter stating that ODOT
was looking forward to participating in the
tracking program.
During the last legislative session it was discovered
that Oklahoma is a dues paying member of NASCO.
In other words your taxpayer dollars are helping
finance this organization. In the next few weeks
Senator Randy Brogden (R-Owasso) will be filing a
bill which I intend to co-sponsor that will remove
Oklahoma from theNASCO coalition. And, as your
Representative I am committed to opposing any
attempts to allow private ownership of public roads.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
State Representative Jason W. Murphey
Vice-Chairman Homeland Security Committee
State Capitol Building Room #400B
2300 North Lincoln Blvd
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
1(405) 557-7350 (Phone)
1(800) 522-8502 X 350
1(405) 962-7660 (Fax)
www.HouseDistrict31.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Hefleys ride quietly into retirement
Longtime political pair enjoying life on Oklahoma ranch
By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News
October 29, 2007
Ever heard of Purcell, Okla.?
It's down from Slaughterville, up from Wayne. About a 15- minute drive south of Norman.
It's also the nearest town to the 80-acre horse ranch where the former dean of Colorado's congressional delegation has been lying low.
Joel Hefley and his wife, former Colorado state Rep. Lynn Hefley, quietly moved just outside the town of 6,000 in July.
No announcements. No goodbye party. Just Joel and Lynn, riding into the sunset. Like everyone who knows them well figured they might.
"I'm sitting in my shorts out here," the state's longest-serving congressman teased during a phone interview last week while it snowed in Denver.
Hefley, 72, retired last year after serving southern Colorado's 5th Congressional District for 20 years. His departure touched off a scramble that became one of the nastiest Republican primary battles in recent state history.
Former state Sen. Doug Lamborn squeaked past former Hefley staffer Jeff Crank in the 2006 primary and easily won the general election in the solidly Republican district. Crank and retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Bentley Rayburn have lined up for a primary rematch to try to pick off the now-sitting congressman.
Hefley still supports Crank's candidacy and remains available occasionally by phone. But he said for now he's content to tend to horses instead of political shouting matches.
"I'm happy to take a breather," he said. "For 30 years I was up to my ears in all of that and loved it. But there's a lot I didn't enjoy about it, when I think about it."
The Hefleys, who both grew up in Oklahoma City and are University of Oklahoma alumni, said they began looking for a big spread to retire on about five years ago.
Last year, after Joel retired from Congress and Lynn was term-limited out of the Statehouse, the couple visited ranch properties from northern El Paso County to central Oklahoma.
"We just found what we were looking for here," the retired congressman said.
Lynn Hefley said about 15 different groups tried to throw them a going-away party before they left Colorado.
"Joel just said, 'That's not who we are,' " she said. "And that's not who Joel is. He has never tried to grab the limelight."
So the Hefleys called a few close friends, packed up their house and headed out of town.
"Usually, people in politics are egomaniacs," Crank said. "They want 15 parties instead of none. Joel has always been very unassuming."
State GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams still hasn't heard personally from the Hefleys, whose home phone number in Colorado Springs is now disconnected.
"I'd heard they'd moved," he said.
The Hefleys raised the bar for ethical standards in Colorado politics, Wadhams said.
Joel Hefley chaired the House Ethics Committee when it formally admonished fellow Republican and then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay three times over actions that went "beyond the bounds of acceptable conduct."
And Lynn Hefley carved out her own identity as a statehouse representative - a hard thing for a congressman's wife to do, according to Wadhams.
Lynn Hefley said she and her husband appreciate the kind words from their friends and supporters. She said they plan to visit with many of them in Colorado over Christmas. But for now, she said, they are enjoying their "little bit of heaven" in a sprawling valley with two stream-fed ponds stocked for fishing.
"Now it's time to move on and to let us ride off into the sunset and just enjoy life," she said before hanging up her cell phone to watch a warm rain fall.
bargec@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5059
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5733976,00.html
Longtime political pair enjoying life on Oklahoma ranch
By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News
October 29, 2007
Ever heard of Purcell, Okla.?
It's down from Slaughterville, up from Wayne. About a 15- minute drive south of Norman.
It's also the nearest town to the 80-acre horse ranch where the former dean of Colorado's congressional delegation has been lying low.
Joel Hefley and his wife, former Colorado state Rep. Lynn Hefley, quietly moved just outside the town of 6,000 in July.
No announcements. No goodbye party. Just Joel and Lynn, riding into the sunset. Like everyone who knows them well figured they might.
"I'm sitting in my shorts out here," the state's longest-serving congressman teased during a phone interview last week while it snowed in Denver.
Hefley, 72, retired last year after serving southern Colorado's 5th Congressional District for 20 years. His departure touched off a scramble that became one of the nastiest Republican primary battles in recent state history.
Former state Sen. Doug Lamborn squeaked past former Hefley staffer Jeff Crank in the 2006 primary and easily won the general election in the solidly Republican district. Crank and retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Bentley Rayburn have lined up for a primary rematch to try to pick off the now-sitting congressman.
Hefley still supports Crank's candidacy and remains available occasionally by phone. But he said for now he's content to tend to horses instead of political shouting matches.
"I'm happy to take a breather," he said. "For 30 years I was up to my ears in all of that and loved it. But there's a lot I didn't enjoy about it, when I think about it."
The Hefleys, who both grew up in Oklahoma City and are University of Oklahoma alumni, said they began looking for a big spread to retire on about five years ago.
Last year, after Joel retired from Congress and Lynn was term-limited out of the Statehouse, the couple visited ranch properties from northern El Paso County to central Oklahoma.
"We just found what we were looking for here," the retired congressman said.
Lynn Hefley said about 15 different groups tried to throw them a going-away party before they left Colorado.
"Joel just said, 'That's not who we are,' " she said. "And that's not who Joel is. He has never tried to grab the limelight."
So the Hefleys called a few close friends, packed up their house and headed out of town.
"Usually, people in politics are egomaniacs," Crank said. "They want 15 parties instead of none. Joel has always been very unassuming."
State GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams still hasn't heard personally from the Hefleys, whose home phone number in Colorado Springs is now disconnected.
"I'd heard they'd moved," he said.
The Hefleys raised the bar for ethical standards in Colorado politics, Wadhams said.
Joel Hefley chaired the House Ethics Committee when it formally admonished fellow Republican and then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay three times over actions that went "beyond the bounds of acceptable conduct."
And Lynn Hefley carved out her own identity as a statehouse representative - a hard thing for a congressman's wife to do, according to Wadhams.
Lynn Hefley said she and her husband appreciate the kind words from their friends and supporters. She said they plan to visit with many of them in Colorado over Christmas. But for now, she said, they are enjoying their "little bit of heaven" in a sprawling valley with two stream-fed ponds stocked for fishing.
"Now it's time to move on and to let us ride off into the sunset and just enjoy life," she said before hanging up her cell phone to watch a warm rain fall.
bargec@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5059
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5733976,00.html
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
Tax Relief Vrs. Pork
Last week I was surprised when the leadership of
one of the groups which has traditionally supported
smaller government came out in opposition to
reducing taxes. The comments were made by leaders
of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce
and the Broken Arrow Chamber of Commerce at a
recent hearing of the House of Representative's
Economic Development and Financial Services
Committee.
I have always articulated the common sense
belief that the best way to reduce the size of
government is through reducing the level of
taxation. With less money, the government
will naturally tend to prioritize the limited
number of functions it should be involved in
and leave the rest to the free market. I have
also observed that groups who oppose tax
relief are probably afraid of having a pet
program of their own de-funded by this
prioritization process.
It has become clear that the leadership of
the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of
Commerce understands this viewpoint all
too well. And, shockingly, they appear to fear
that if state government continues to cut taxes,
one of their pet programs may not be funded to
their level of satisfaction.
The pet program is known as the Oklahoma
Opportunity Fund. It is funded with $45 million
of our taxpayer dollars. Most of that money has
already been spent. Because the manner in which
the fund was created has been ruled unconstitutional,
the sole discretion for how the money is spent appears
to have been left to Governor Brad Henry. Henry
recently approved spending $10 million out of the
fund on improvements benefiting a privately owned
airline.
In opposing the continuation of tax relief for
Oklahomans, the economic development director
of the Broken Arrow Chamber of Commerce said, "I
would take the Opportunity Fund over future tax
cuts in a heartbeat."
I do not believe it is right for the government to
take money away from taxpayers and give it to
targeted businesses. I certainly do not think it is
right that politicians are given the power to play
God when it comes to deciding who the winners
are in the business world. The process of
government subsidizing business operations is
completely contrary to the important free market
principles that empower consumers to decide who
will be successful, based on which business is
providing the best product at the best price.
I do not believe it is appropriate for chambers of
commerce to advocate for a fund that benefits
such a small number of business. This is at the
expense of all the hard working business owners
across Oklahoma who are forced to pay high taxes
which inhibit their abilityto grow their own businesses.
And, I do not think it is right or fair for Opportunity
Fund money to be used to entice new businesses to
move to Oklahoma when they will be competing with
businesses that are already in Oklahoma. Taxing one
business and then giving money to a competitor is not
right.
This latest position reflects one more step in what
is becoming a disturbing trend. Big business is
partnering with and being empowered by big
government. I believe it is important for the small
business members of the Chambers of Commerce
across Oklahoma to reassert themselves and reclaim
control of the organization that is supposed to
represent all Oklahoma businessmen, not a select
few.
--~--~---------~--~----~--------
State Representative Jason W. Murphey
Vice-Chairman Homeland Security Committee
State Capitol Building Room #400B
2300 North Lincoln Blvd
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
1(405) 557-7350 (Phone)
1(800) 522-8502 X 350
1(405) 962-7660 (Fax)
www.HouseDistrict31.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Last week I was surprised when the leadership of
one of the groups which has traditionally supported
smaller government came out in opposition to
reducing taxes. The comments were made by leaders
of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce
and the Broken Arrow Chamber of Commerce at a
recent hearing of the House of Representative's
Economic Development and Financial Services
Committee.
I have always articulated the common sense
belief that the best way to reduce the size of
government is through reducing the level of
taxation. With less money, the government
will naturally tend to prioritize the limited
number of functions it should be involved in
and leave the rest to the free market. I have
also observed that groups who oppose tax
relief are probably afraid of having a pet
program of their own de-funded by this
prioritization process.
It has become clear that the leadership of
the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of
Commerce understands this viewpoint all
too well. And, shockingly, they appear to fear
that if state government continues to cut taxes,
one of their pet programs may not be funded to
their level of satisfaction.
The pet program is known as the Oklahoma
Opportunity Fund. It is funded with $45 million
of our taxpayer dollars. Most of that money has
already been spent. Because the manner in which
the fund was created has been ruled unconstitutional,
the sole discretion for how the money is spent appears
to have been left to Governor Brad Henry. Henry
recently approved spending $10 million out of the
fund on improvements benefiting a privately owned
airline.
In opposing the continuation of tax relief for
Oklahomans, the economic development director
of the Broken Arrow Chamber of Commerce said, "I
would take the Opportunity Fund over future tax
cuts in a heartbeat."
I do not believe it is right for the government to
take money away from taxpayers and give it to
targeted businesses. I certainly do not think it is
right that politicians are given the power to play
God when it comes to deciding who the winners
are in the business world. The process of
government subsidizing business operations is
completely contrary to the important free market
principles that empower consumers to decide who
will be successful, based on which business is
providing the best product at the best price.
I do not believe it is appropriate for chambers of
commerce to advocate for a fund that benefits
such a small number of business. This is at the
expense of all the hard working business owners
across Oklahoma who are forced to pay high taxes
which inhibit their abilityto grow their own businesses.
And, I do not think it is right or fair for Opportunity
Fund money to be used to entice new businesses to
move to Oklahoma when they will be competing with
businesses that are already in Oklahoma. Taxing one
business and then giving money to a competitor is not
right.
This latest position reflects one more step in what
is becoming a disturbing trend. Big business is
partnering with and being empowered by big
government. I believe it is important for the small
business members of the Chambers of Commerce
across Oklahoma to reassert themselves and reclaim
control of the organization that is supposed to
represent all Oklahoma businessmen, not a select
few.
--~--~---------~--~----~--------
State Representative Jason W. Murphey
Vice-Chairman Homeland Security Committee
State Capitol Building Room #400B
2300 North Lincoln Blvd
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
1(405) 557-7350 (Phone)
1(800) 522-8502 X 350
1(405) 962-7660 (Fax)
www.HouseDistrict31.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Coburn Says Spending Eclipses Abortion Concerns
By Amanda Carpenter
Thursday, November 1, 2007
A reliable pro-life Republican told a small group of reporters that reckless spending is so rampant that it is now more of an ethical concern than abortion Thursday morning.
In a backroom of the National Press Club, Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn answered a broad range of questions dealing with his self-declared war on federal spending, healthcare and the state of Congress.
While answering a question about social policy, Coburn, who is an obstetrician by training, said “Abortion is not the greatest moral issue of our day. Spending is the greatest moral issue.”
“You are going to save a child from being aborted so they can be imprisoned in a debtor’s prison?” he asked rhetorically. “This generation says ‘screw the grandchildren. I want it now!’”
In a rapidly-delivered explanation of his position Coburn said: “A child born today, if you look at our unfunded liabilities, is born holding $400,000 worth of unfunded liabilities. If you figure that at a six percent interest rate and what it takes for them to carry that how many of them are going to go to college? How many of them ever even going to own a home? How many are their kids are going to get an education when we start out with a married couple by the time they get to the age of being married, they are holding a million dollars in debt to pay for stuff we didn’t pay for ourselves? It’s totally antithetical!”
To find examples of the burden being imposed on future taxpayers Coburn said, “All you have to do is look at Medicare part D, $8.3 trillion. No one ever paid a thing into that. The money going to pay for that is coming from the next generation. The same thing with Medicare. On Social Security we’ve stolen $1.6 trillion. It’s got to be paid back, who do you think is going to pay it back? Tell me where there is any honor, or principle or integrity when we look at these big issues?”
While serving in both the House and the Senate, Coburn has received the lowest possible rating from NARAL Pro-choice America, 0 percent.
In his morning media meeting, Coburn spent most of his time discussing the need to curb wasteful spending by detailing his ongoing struggles to exercise oversight over agencies like the Pentagon, NASA, the United Nations and the Small Business Administration as well as his willingness to publicly embarrass his colleagues over earmarks.
He joked if he were appointed to become a “war czar” he could find between $50 and $60 billion in wasteful spending inside the Pentagon and that his office had been leaked information that “43 percent of everything the UN buys is corrupt.”
Coburn also offered an abrasive comment on the management of the Iraq War, which he said showed “arrogance” at times.
“Our foreign policy needs a dose of humble pie,” he said.
Amanda Carpenter is National Political Reporter for Townhall.com
By Amanda Carpenter
Thursday, November 1, 2007
A reliable pro-life Republican told a small group of reporters that reckless spending is so rampant that it is now more of an ethical concern than abortion Thursday morning.
In a backroom of the National Press Club, Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn answered a broad range of questions dealing with his self-declared war on federal spending, healthcare and the state of Congress.
While answering a question about social policy, Coburn, who is an obstetrician by training, said “Abortion is not the greatest moral issue of our day. Spending is the greatest moral issue.”
“You are going to save a child from being aborted so they can be imprisoned in a debtor’s prison?” he asked rhetorically. “This generation says ‘screw the grandchildren. I want it now!’”
In a rapidly-delivered explanation of his position Coburn said: “A child born today, if you look at our unfunded liabilities, is born holding $400,000 worth of unfunded liabilities. If you figure that at a six percent interest rate and what it takes for them to carry that how many of them are going to go to college? How many of them ever even going to own a home? How many are their kids are going to get an education when we start out with a married couple by the time they get to the age of being married, they are holding a million dollars in debt to pay for stuff we didn’t pay for ourselves? It’s totally antithetical!”
To find examples of the burden being imposed on future taxpayers Coburn said, “All you have to do is look at Medicare part D, $8.3 trillion. No one ever paid a thing into that. The money going to pay for that is coming from the next generation. The same thing with Medicare. On Social Security we’ve stolen $1.6 trillion. It’s got to be paid back, who do you think is going to pay it back? Tell me where there is any honor, or principle or integrity when we look at these big issues?”
While serving in both the House and the Senate, Coburn has received the lowest possible rating from NARAL Pro-choice America, 0 percent.
In his morning media meeting, Coburn spent most of his time discussing the need to curb wasteful spending by detailing his ongoing struggles to exercise oversight over agencies like the Pentagon, NASA, the United Nations and the Small Business Administration as well as his willingness to publicly embarrass his colleagues over earmarks.
He joked if he were appointed to become a “war czar” he could find between $50 and $60 billion in wasteful spending inside the Pentagon and that his office had been leaked information that “43 percent of everything the UN buys is corrupt.”
Coburn also offered an abrasive comment on the management of the Iraq War, which he said showed “arrogance” at times.
“Our foreign policy needs a dose of humble pie,” he said.
Amanda Carpenter is National Political Reporter for Townhall.com
Rick Santorum to speak at OU
Please note this special announcement.
This Wednesday evening former U.S. Senator Rick
Santorum (R-Penn) will be speaking about "The
Gathering Storm of the 21st Century: America's
War Against Islamic Fascism."The speech is open
to the public and will begin at 7:00 p.m.
The location will be at the University of Oklahoma
in the Oklahoma Memorial Union's Molly Shi Boren
Ballroom (900 Asp Avenue) in Norman. While the
speech is open to the public, seating is limited to
about 200 so early arrival is recommended.
Senator Santorum is being brought to OU by the
College Republicans and the Intercollegiate Studies
Institute (ISI), an organization which educates college
students in the principles of Western civilization.
Please note this special announcement.
This Wednesday evening former U.S. Senator Rick
Santorum (R-Penn) will be speaking about "The
Gathering Storm of the 21st Century: America's
War Against Islamic Fascism."The speech is open
to the public and will begin at 7:00 p.m.
The location will be at the University of Oklahoma
in the Oklahoma Memorial Union's Molly Shi Boren
Ballroom (900 Asp Avenue) in Norman. While the
speech is open to the public, seating is limited to
about 200 so early arrival is recommended.
Senator Santorum is being brought to OU by the
College Republicans and the Intercollegiate Studies
Institute (ISI), an organization which educates college
students in the principles of Western civilization.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
HUNTER CALLS ON ROMNEY TO OPPOSE BAIN PARTNERSHIP WITH CHINESE COMPANY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 2, 2007
CONTACT: Gary Becks (619) 334-1655, dlhunter08@yahoo.com
San Diego, CA - - - Presidential candidate and current Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Duncan Hunter, today called on former Governor Mitt Romney to send a "clear statement" to the leadership of the company he founded, Bain Capital, to terminate a proposed business deal with a controversial Chinese corporation seeking to acquire U.S. defense contractor 3COM. Bain Capital is attempting to form a business arrangement with Huawei Corporation, a Chinese corporation founded by an officer of the Peoples Liberation Army of Communist China, which faces allegations of assisting Saddam Hussein in the targeting of U.S. aircraft and in helping the Taliban develop surveillance equipment.
"I am extremely concerned that Governor Romney's company would tout a highly suspect Chinese corporation as a strategic partner," stated Hunter. "Forming a business partnership with a corporation known to have direct ties with terrorists and dictators while, at the same time, openly seeking to acquire a major U.S. corporation that performs vital cyber security work for the Department of Defense, can only be characterized as irresponsible."
A resolution has been introduced in Congress, H.Res. 730, which states; "The preponderance of publicly available evidence clearly suggests that as currently structured, the proposed transaction involving Huawei threatens the national security of the United States and should not be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ." A copy of this resolution is provided.
Hunter stated in his letter to Governor Romney, "…while it is true that you no longer control Bain Capital, the contributions you have received from its principals as its founding member indicate that your influence within the company remains strong.
"Further, while the Committee on Foreign Investment has yet to rule on the Huawei transaction, this corporation's connection to Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and the Army of Communist China should clearly disqualify them from becoming, in the words of your former company, "a strategic partner" in acquiring a U.S. firm such as 3COM, which performs vital cyber-security work for the U.S. Department of Defense.
"This letter is a request that you immediately issue a statement of policy that this transaction should be terminated on the grounds of national security. Please let me know what you intend to do."
A copy of Congressman Hunter's letter, as well as two articles regarding Huawei acquisition efforts are provided. Media are encouraged to contact Gary Becks at (619) 334-1655 for additional information or to arrange an interview with Hunter.
# # #
Hunter for President, Inc.
9340 Fuerte Drive
La Mesa, California 91941
United States
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 2, 2007
CONTACT: Gary Becks (619) 334-1655, dlhunter08@yahoo.com
San Diego, CA - - - Presidential candidate and current Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Duncan Hunter, today called on former Governor Mitt Romney to send a "clear statement" to the leadership of the company he founded, Bain Capital, to terminate a proposed business deal with a controversial Chinese corporation seeking to acquire U.S. defense contractor 3COM. Bain Capital is attempting to form a business arrangement with Huawei Corporation, a Chinese corporation founded by an officer of the Peoples Liberation Army of Communist China, which faces allegations of assisting Saddam Hussein in the targeting of U.S. aircraft and in helping the Taliban develop surveillance equipment.
"I am extremely concerned that Governor Romney's company would tout a highly suspect Chinese corporation as a strategic partner," stated Hunter. "Forming a business partnership with a corporation known to have direct ties with terrorists and dictators while, at the same time, openly seeking to acquire a major U.S. corporation that performs vital cyber security work for the Department of Defense, can only be characterized as irresponsible."
A resolution has been introduced in Congress, H.Res. 730, which states; "The preponderance of publicly available evidence clearly suggests that as currently structured, the proposed transaction involving Huawei threatens the national security of the United States and should not be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ." A copy of this resolution is provided.
Hunter stated in his letter to Governor Romney, "…while it is true that you no longer control Bain Capital, the contributions you have received from its principals as its founding member indicate that your influence within the company remains strong.
"Further, while the Committee on Foreign Investment has yet to rule on the Huawei transaction, this corporation's connection to Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and the Army of Communist China should clearly disqualify them from becoming, in the words of your former company, "a strategic partner" in acquiring a U.S. firm such as 3COM, which performs vital cyber-security work for the U.S. Department of Defense.
"This letter is a request that you immediately issue a statement of policy that this transaction should be terminated on the grounds of national security. Please let me know what you intend to do."
A copy of Congressman Hunter's letter, as well as two articles regarding Huawei acquisition efforts are provided. Media are encouraged to contact Gary Becks at (619) 334-1655 for additional information or to arrange an interview with Hunter.
# # #
Hunter for President, Inc.
9340 Fuerte Drive
La Mesa, California 91941
United States
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)