Meacham not running for re-election

Just like I said a few weeks a go, Oklahoma State Treasurer Scott Meacham not running for re-election in 2010

SCOTT MEACHAM
OKLAHOMA STATE TREASURER


For Immediate Release: October 30, 2009


Treasurer Meacham Announces Future Intentions

OKLAHOMA CITY – State Treasurer Scott Meacham today announced he will not seek another term as State Treasurer following the expiration of his current term in January of 2011. He also announced that he will not seek any other elective office.

This Week is the 45th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" speech

A TIME FOR CHOOSING
(The Speech – October 27, 1964)
Ronald Reagan

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good."

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are."

And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to.

This is the last stand on earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down—[up] man's old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming—that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how—who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they've had almost 30 years of it—shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now—so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things—we're never "for" anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

Now—we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due—that the cupboard isn't bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population.

I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men—that we're to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits—not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

Rep. Steele Named Legislator of the Year by Drug and Alcohol Counselor Association

Speaker-designate Rep. Kris Steele will soon be recognized for his drug-and-alcohol prevention measures and named Legislator of the Year by the Oklahoma Drug and Alcohol Professional Counselor Association.

According to addiction recovery.net, in 2005 an average of 227,000 people were addicted to alcohol and 86,000 were addicted to drugs in Oklahoma. Of those, only 13,000 alcoholics and 6,000 drug abusers got the help they needed from an Oklahoma treatment center.

“These are alarming statistics. More needs to be done, not only to stop these addictions from the beginning but also to provide treatment to help rehabilitate addicts,” said Steele, R-Shawnee. “ODAPCA helps provide a unified voice for addiction counselors and an organizational safe-haven to encourage their work for all Oklahomans. It’s an honor to be recognized by this outstanding organization.”

In Oklahoma, ODAPCA represents certified, licensed addiction counselors and certified prevention specialists with the hope of creating one voice that will represent and advocate for the needs of addiction professionals across the state.

Steele will be recognized for his legislative efforts that helped ODAPCA at the group’s bi-annual conference on November 3. James Patterson, president of ODAPCA, will present the award.

Sen. Anthony Sykes to Tour Davis Correctional Cente

State Senator Anthony Sykes will tour the Davis Correctional Center today as part of an ongoing review of the state’s prison needs and the potential role of private prisons.

“Balancing the state budget is more than just an accounting exercise,” said state Sen. Anthony Sykes, a Moore Republican who chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Public Safety and Judiciary. ”

“A poorly designed balanced budget that doesn’t preserve public safety would be a disaster. That’s why we are gathering as much direct data as possible to determine how to best manage our prison system without furloughs or early release of violent criminals during this period of declining revenues.”

Due to declining revenue, all state agencies are in the process of reducing expenditures and the Department of Corrections recently announced that will include proportional cuts to private prison contracts. Sen. Sykes will also visit the nearby Davis work center to meet and visit with Department of Corrections’ employees at that facility.

EZ Million RIP

Found out that E.Z. Million pass away Sat night, You could not be in GOP politics for the last 40 years+ in Oklahoma with knowing the name...

Barry Switzer to host a fundraiser for Gov. Rick Perry

Barry Switzer will host a fundraiser for Gov. Rick Perry the weekend of Nov. 14 at Switzer's home in Norman.

That same weekend, the Sooners are hosting Texas A&M's football team.

Presumably the coach and the governor, a former Aggie yell leader, will take different sides in that one.

Football "is an area where they can have a disagreement," Perry spokesman Mark Miner said. Miner said Perry's fellow Aggies shouldn't be alarmed.

"Coach Switzer is a supporter of the governor," he said. "Nobody can question the governor's loyalty to the Aggies."

SENATOR SYKES QUESTIONS DOC ANALYSIS OF COSTS

Oklahoma State Senator Anthony Sykes, (R-Moore), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Public Safety and Judiciary, says a recent analysis by the Department of Corrections (DOC) of costs of public prisons vs. private prisons is based on assumptions and does not appear to take into account key factors that cannot be ignored.

“The Director of Corrections revealed a study late last week that claims that the per diem cost of public prisons is lower than the cost of operating private prisons,” Sykes said. “An initial review of this analysis raises several questions and this analysis bears closer examination in the near future.”

Sykes points out that DOC assumes capitol costs for private facilities being similar to that of state facilities in its analysis. However, capitol costs are borne by the taxpayers in maintaining public facilities whereas private facilities bear these costs in their contract.

Public facilities depend on the taxpayers to cover the cost of decaying physical plants, health care, and other indirect costs. Private facilities costs to the state are governed by the per diem contract rate that is locked in, regardless of the costs to the vendors.

Further, Sykes says, many of the factors on which DOC based its analysis appear to be assumptions for which DOC has no factual basis.

“Ultimately, any cost analysis should be weighed against what will meet our public safety goals and what it will cost the taxpayers. The State of Oklahoma has a long history of maintaining a balance between public and private facilities to meet these objectives,” Sykes said.

“It appears that DOC has used this analysis to justify having private prisons and halfway houses bear the entirety of the 5% cut ordered by the Office of State Finance and that no cuts are being imposed on public facilities. At the very least, this action by DOC places the State in potential breach of contract,” Sykes continued. “The State of Oklahoma is contractually bound to various private prison vendors to pay for their services and this unilateral action by the Director of Corrections and his board places the taxpayers at risk of a lawsuit.

“The Senate looks forward to examining this analysis further in an effort to meet Oklahoma’s public safety goals,” Sykes concluded.

For more information contact:
Senator Sykes: 405-521-5569

Inhofe backs Rubio over Crist

Hat Tip Aaron Blake


Inhofe backs Rubio over Crist
By Aaron Blake - 10/19/09 05:18 PM ET

Conservative Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has endorsed former Florida state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R) in Florida's open Senate race.

Inhofe's endorsement means he will oppose the NRSC-back candidate in the race, Gov. Charlie Crist (R).

“Like me, Marco believes that the federal government works best when it returns dollars, decisions and freedom to our local communities and families," Inhofe said in a statement. "In the Senate, Marco will stand up for America’s taxpayers, not with President Obama and dangerous big government spending."

The Inhofe endorsement comes a week after Rubio announced raising a strong $1 million in the third quarter. His campaign appears to have new life, as Crist's standing as the presumptive nominee begins to be called into question.

Jeff Cloud begins fundraising for OK-5

Republican Corporation Commissioner Jeff Cloud says he plans to raise contributions for a campaign for OK-5.

Cloud said Thursday he has formed a committee to begin soliciting campaign contributions. The seat is currently held by Rep. Mary Fallin.

Cloud, of Oklahoma City, says his campaign is only a few days old. But he says he's excited by the support and encouragement he's received.

Twice elected statewide, Cloud has a record of public service. He served as a staff member to the late former Gov. Henry Bellmon, former U.S. Reps. J.C. Watts and Mickey Edwards and former Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk Humphreys.

Schwartz drop out of GOP Lt. Governor race

Got this from Colby Schwartz today...

“Over the last 90 days it has become obvious to me that the current economic climate has hindered my ability to raise the needed financial resources to effectively fund a statewide race for Lt. Governor. Therefore, I am removing my name from consideration for the Republican nomination for Lt. Governor of Oklahoma.”

“During my past campaigns for the Oklahoma House of Representatives, my support has always come from everyday, hard-working Oklahomans. It is these same supporters who have felt the pinch of the economic downturn the hardest; and now have less disposable income to contribute to a political campaign.”

“I remain as passionate about Oklahoma and its future as I did when I entered this campaign; but I understand the political reality that an effective statewide bid for public office requires sufficient funds to communicate my message to the entire state.”

“I will continue to diligently serve the citizens of the Yukon and Mustang communities, as I have throughout my service to the House of Representatives. This is a humbling honor that has always remained my top priority even during the course of exploring a bid for Lt. Governor.”

“My wife Brenda and our family would like to thank everyone who has offered their prayers and thoughts throughout this process. I have made many new friends across this great state and will continue to work with them to move Oklahoma forward.”

“As a fourteen-year Republican Party activist, I look forward to fully supporting the Republican nominee for Lt. Governor, as well as the other slate of Republican candidates.”

Hoo-ah: The importance of social media in the Army

Commentary by Capt. Charles Barrett, 3rd HBCT, 3rd ID


FORT BENNING, Ga. — The Army was still on the sidelines stretching when the gun went off for the social media race.

The entire country was jumping on the Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter bandwagon while the Army “big brother” was just barely opening the razor-sharp jaws that have had a lockdown on internet freedom.

Last year over lunch, the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division’s public affairs team, began to throw out ideas on how to jump start the Army’s social media program. Lt. Col. James Carlisle, Staff Sgt. Natalie Hedrick, Spc. Ben Hutto and Pfc. Erik Anderson had a lot to answer; “How do we get the Directorate of Information Management to give us access to social media sites? Can a dot mil site adequately work as an official site and blog for a unit, or is a dot com the better way to go?

Who is responsible for managing the site once it’s up? What is the current Army policy on social media sites? Is there an Army policy on social media? What operational security considerations should be taken into account? Is this even a good idea?”

Two weeks, Carlisle’s own 100 dollars, and the internet savvyness of 3rd HBCT’s Sgt. Jeremy Gadd, the team was up and running with a unit website and blog, as well as Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube accounts. The overwhelming realization came that it wasn’t just a good idea; it was a great idea. The question then became, “How do we take full advantage of everything social media has to offer?”

Capturing every detail of what social media has to offer is a daunting task. Just ask Pfc. Erik Anderson, public affairs specialist for the 3rd HBCT. Anderson is now responsible for maintaining, monitoring, and updating of the brigade’s social media sites. The distribution list for www.hammerpao.com is over 5,000 Soldiers, families and friends; there are close to 1,000 3rd HBCT Facebook fans, and 2,000 Twitter followers. Anderson wasn’t trained at the Defense Information School in Fort Meade, Md., to do this, and none of these new responsibilities are part of his job description as a journalist, yet his efforts are felt across the brigade, mostly by the family members.

The real key to social media sites is they allow for feedback; two-way communication between the command and the internal audience. The command is still putting out information to their internal audience as they have been; only the medium has changed. This new medium allows for the audience to more readily respond. If the command fails to take those responses into account then they’re not really taking advantage of social media.

This is the first major benefit. For the 3rd HBCT the responses received through the social media sites have been incredibly supportive. Unit leaders know they’re on the right track and just need to make a few adjustments. Anderson is the Soldier who collects all the feedback and reports responses to his chain of command. He does all of this on top of his normal duties.

The exchange of information assists the command and its internal audience to fill in some of those information gaps. Through online surveys and website analytics, the unit is now able to collect and track a wide range of data. This data can then be used to tailor to the audience’s needs better; something that never could have been done 10 years ago, or at least not without a lot of heartache. The Defense Information School explains the Army should take more of a “glass house” approach to telling the Army story. The 3rd HBCT PAO team now knows there is no better way to do that than through social media.

Once everyone’s on board with the “glass house” approach, public affairs can take on a whole new attitude with the media. There are companies who are praised for their stellar customer service. They don’t know how to say, “No.” All customer service should be like this, and that’s where public affairs customer service should be when working with the media. Building a relationship with this mindset will enhance the social media information exchange, and will lead to very positive and long-lasting effects.

A word of caution; at some point during the reading of this an intelligence officer cringed. It’s more crucial now than ever before that we as an organization maintain operational security. Social media gives us more opportunity to violate operational security and to a much larger audience. To solve this we don’t need to ban or create stricter policy on social media sites, we need to better enforce the already existing policies.

This security begins at the source, the individual Soldier who blogs at the end of every day in Iraq or Afghanistan. Just as important are the spouses of Soldiers who also have a duty to maintain the security of the unit. If you don’t know what is or is not part of operational security then it is your responsibility to find out before you discuss something on a social media site. There are also concerns of privacy, but a Soldier’s privacy has been and will always be a top priority of public affairs operators. Just because social media changes the way we send stories to our audience, it does not change the way we write or film those stories.

Social media is here to stay, whether anyone else wants it to or not. Networks are always vulnerable to attack. It should be the duty of all Soldiers to recognize the benefits of social media and then protect that resource, just as Soldiers would protect other valuable equipment and military systems.

So, where to go from here? It’s evident there must be a change in the way Public Affairs operates. Although not everything is listed for both sides, it seems evident the benefits of social media far outweigh the risks involved. There isn’t a need to create a military occupational specialty just yet for social media, but Soldiers at the Defense Information School should be getting some training on how to set up and operate these social media sites.

For Operation Iraqi Freedom, the tip of the spear has been held by many. So much improvement has been made in Iraq, despite the violence still present, and it is more crucial now to tell the Army’s story of success. Today, there are a handful of public affair operators, such as Anderson, who are the tip of the spear. If the 3rd HBCT PAO is ever asked, “Capt. Barrett, do you seriously think one Soldier can make a difference in this war?” With a smile and an overwhelming sense of pride for his fellow Soldier, he’ll say, “You bet, and his name is Pvt. 1st Class Erik Anderson.”

Cpt. Charles Barrett, PAO, 3rd HBCT, 3rd ID.

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare

OPINION
AUGUST 12, 2009
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare

By JOHN MACKEY

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people’s money.”

—Margaret Thatcher

With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people’s money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees’ Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

• Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor’s Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an “intrinsic right to health care”? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

—Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.

Today is is voter registration deadline for House 55 special primary elections

The state Election Board says TODAY is the deadline for registering to vote in the Sept. 8 special primary elections for a vacant state House seat.

Democrats Larry Peck of Sentinel and Alex Damon of Cordell and Republicans Todd Russ of Cordell and Jeff Ledford of Hobart are running for the District 55 seat in western Oklahoma.

The Election Board says people who are not registered to vote but want to vote in one of the primaries must submit a voter registration application before the deadline.

Rep. Ryan McMullen, D-Burns Flat, resigned from the seat last month after being appointed state director of rural development with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Winners of the primaries will meet in a general election on Oct. 13.

Meacham is DOA for re-elect as Treasurer or run for AG

Thinking Oklahoma State Treasurer Scott Meacham (D) will NOT be running for re-elect as Treasurer or make a run for Attorney General.

TEXAS GRANDMAS CHASE GANG MEMBER WITH CAN OF RAID

"I just looked and saw the can of Raid.
I thought anything to get him out of here."

Gov Brad Boy sets election dates for House 55

Gov. Brad "I'm Late" Henry has scheduled special election dates to fill a vacant state House post in western Oklahoma.

Rep. Ryan McMullen resigned his House District 55 seat this month to become state director of rural development with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Under Brad Boy's proclamation the filing period for the post will be Aug. 3-5. The primary election will be Sept. 8 and the general election will be Oct. 13.

The district comprises all of Washita County and parts of Kiowa, Caddo and Canadian Counties.

American Minute - Jul. 16 - Apollo 11 Mission to the Moon

American Minute
with
Bill Federer

July 16

Apollo 11 blasted off from Cape Kennedy JULY 16, 1969, being the first mission to walk on the moon.

In Proclamation 3919, President Richard Nixon stated:

"Apollo 11 is on its way to the moon.

It carries three brave astronauts; it also carries the hopes and prayers of hundreds of millions of people...

That moment when man first sets foot on a body other than earth will stand through the centuries as one supreme in human experience...

I call upon all of our people...to join in prayer for the successful conclusion of Apollo 11's mission."

President Richard Nixon spoke to the astronauts on the moon, July 20, 1969:

"This certainly has to be the most historic telephone call ever made from the White House...

The heavens have become a part of man's world...

For one priceless moment in the whole history of man all the people on this earth are truly one...one in our prayers that you will return safely to earth."

President Nixon greeted the astronauts on the U.S.S. Hornet, July 24, 1969:

"The millions who are seeing us on television now...feel as I do, that...our prayers have been answered...

I think it would be very appropriate if Chaplain Piirto, the Chaplain of this ship, were to offer a prayer of thanksgiving."

RINO Sentor Brian Crain benefits from own bill

Crain benefits from own bill
He sponsored a measure to let county treasurers hire their own attorneys, a position he now has.

By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer

Then-freshman state Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, sponsored legislation in 2005 that eventually cleared the way for a contract with the Tulsa County Treasurer's Office that currently pays him $4,000 a month.

Senate Bill 478, cosponsored by Rep. Ron Peters, R-Tulsa, added county treasurers and county assessors to the list of county officials authorized to employ their own general counsel.

In 2007, the law firm Crain was associated with — Boone, Smith, Davis, Hurst & Dickman — was contracted to represent the Treasurer's Office in all bankruptcy proceedings for a fee of $3,000 a month, $1,000 of which went to the state senator. Crain himself contracted with the county the next year at a fee of $4,000 a month.

The Tulsa County Board of Commissioners recently agreed to renew Crain's contract under the same terms for fiscal year 2010. Thus far, Crain has been paid $60,000 for his services as an attorney.

The agreements, approved by the Board of Commissioners, do not require Crain to detail his legal work on behalf of the Treasurer's Office.

Crain said last week that he did not have future employment in mind when he sponsored the legislation, noting that the original version would have allowed for other county elected officials, including county commissioners, to hire outside legal counsel.

He sponsored the bill "because I thought it was in the best interest of Oklahoma that county treasurers could hire their own attorneys to represent them in these matters," he said.

Crain said he learned that lesson as a Tulsa County assistant district attorney from 1996 to 1999, when he occasionally did bankruptcy work on behalf of the Treasurer's Office.

"When you're a county, you really needed to have the ability to get legal services that are very specialized to your legal requirements," he said. "District attorney's offices weren't necessarily funded to do that; therefore, they were very limited in how they could provide effective legal action and do the kind of criminal work they needed to do."
$1.35 million collected

Tulsa County Treasurer Dennis Semler said he was happy to see the law changed because it allowed him to hire another former assistant district attorney, Gordon Edwards, who, like Crain, had done work for the Treasurer's Office.

Semler said he valued Edwards' work so much that for several years before the law was changed, the Treasurer's Office paid the District Attorney's Office $50,000 a year to help fund Edwards' position.

When the law took effect in 2005, Edwards — who has since retired from the DA's Office — was hired by Semler. Edwards was paid a straight retainer fee of $2,000 a month while bringing in $3 million in back taxes from 2005 to 2007, according to figures provided by the Treasurer's Office.

The $2,000 monthly fee was a "sweetheart deal" made possible by the fact that Edwards was working out of his home, Semler said. The treasurer said he measures Crain's job performance the same way he measured Edwards' job performance — by the back taxes he collects for the county. Through May, Crain had collected $1.35 million, records show.

"I'm concerned about how much money is coming in and how much he collects and are we getting good value," Semler said. "But in terms of us monitoring his day-to-day activity, of course I don't do that."

Semler said he agreed to pay Crain $4,000 a month because that is what Crain told him he would need to continue doing the job.

"I felt like, looking at the return we were getting, that justified that kind of fee," Semler said. The treasurer said he preferred the flat fee because it allowed him to control his costs.

Crain, who is paid a base salary of $38,400 for his work in the state Senate, defended the arrangement. He said that at any given time the county is involved in about 400 bankruptcy cases. Records show an average of about 400 bankruptcy accounts a year on file in the Treasurer's Office over the last three years.

"If you assume 400 cases, that's about $10 a month per case on my contract," Crain said. "I think the county is getting a pretty fair deal out of the situation."

Crain said that any other pay arrangement, such as billing each time services are rendered, could become cumbersome and time-consuming given the sheer number of cases he is involved in.
Didn't expect to benefit

"I was comfortable doing it on a fixed rate not for any other reason than I'm a better lawyer than an accountant," Crain said. He also said his hiring did not represent any kind of quid pro quo with the Treasurer's Office.

In sponsoring the bill, "I had no expectation but that this was better for county government," Crain said.

He also had an answer for those who might find it unseemly for a lawmaker to be filling a position he helped create.

"I feel very comfortable that I followed the letter and the spirit of the ethics rules and was a proponent of legislation that I didn't believe I was going to benefit from," he said.

Crain noted that he did not go looking for the job and that the agreement he signed has been vetted by not only the treasurer but all three county commissioners.

"This was not done without the knowledge and approval of four people who stand for election based on their performance," he said.

Assistant District Attorney David Iski said he could not speak on behalf of the county commissioners. But he added that, as their legal counsel, he had not "found any conflict with the state Ethics Commission rules for Brian Crain as a lawyer to represent the Treasurer's Office in federal bankruptcy court."

President Obama, what will Michelle say LOL

President Barack Obama (C) and
France's President Nicolas Sarkozy (R)

Maybe you need to buy her that,
$6,000 VBH black manila alligator clutch
LOL

Demo Senator John Sparks trash the Oklahoma Republican Party

Just FYI: The 'Hal Smith' is the President of the Hal Smith Restaurant Group. So next time you go out and eat remember how your hard earn money will be use by Mr. Smith, if you eat at one of his restaurant. Or just call Mr. Smith 405-321-2600, and tell him that you are no longer eat at his restaurants because you do NOT want your money going to Far Left Progressive Liberals.

Senator John and Beth Sparks
Dr. Joe Carter
Hal Smith

Cordially Invite You to a Fundraising Reception Benefitting
Senator Richard Lerblance

Thursday, July 2, 2009
6:00 - 7:30 pm
At the home of Senator John and Beth Sparks
2512 Walnut Road, Norman

Please RSVP to 405-701-1863

$200 Suggested Contribution per Couple

Last year the Oklahoma Republican Party got very overconfident about their prospects all over the state of Oklahoma when they kept seeing candidate Barack Obama poll so low in our state. They took a chance and spent an enormous amount of money trying to beat our friend in the State Senate, Richard Lerblance.

Sen. Lerblance has been a thorn in the side of the extreme Republican agenda at the Oklahoma legislature ever since he was first elected. Richard is an unapologetic progressive, Democrat and often finds himself among just a few Senators willing to make a tough vote on principle.

The Republicans threw a lot of money at trying to beat Richard last November-- but they lost. Richard's hard work and popularity in southeast Oklahoma earned him his re-election, and the people of his district arelucky to have him serving them another 4 years.

As is the case with many hard fought political races, Sen. Lerblance still has considerable campaign debt. I hope you will come join me in Norman this Thursday evening and help me raise money for Sen. Lerblance's efforts to reduce his campaign debt. Richard is a proud, progressive Democrat in our very "red state, " and he more than deserves our financial support.

John Sparks

Odom, Sparks & Jones, PLLC

2350 McKown Drive
Norman, OK 73072