orward this email to a friend



































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Estela Hernandez's Humiliating Loss

Is this the Fall of the “Rising Star”?

Oh Lord, it was a good week for freedom and liberty in Oklahoma.   This will be a short, rambling newsletter instead of our usual series of articles, something we usually…. well… never do. But we sent out four newsletters this week, something we vowed we would never do but it was a hell of a week!  I should lead off with the most important story.

Estella Hernandez suffered a humiliating defeat on Sunday, losing to Tammy Faye Baker AKA Pam Pollard, in the GOP Chairman race.  Yeah, I know, we predicted Hubbard because he was really the best man for the job but we also know it would have been a full time job keeping him from getting eaten alive and I think that some of the rural GOP county leaders understood that.  We don’t mind being wrong if we gave Hubbard a better chance of winning.


Hubbard received 77 votes, Estela Hernandez received115 notes, and Pollard received 163 votes.  But there was one small problem, there were 25 more votes than delegates present at the meeting.   That’s right folks, someone was cheating, someone packed the vote.   I wonder who was in charge of the meeting and vote?    Could it be…….Estela Hernandez, acting Chairman?   Her lieutenants of course likely pulled the deed, she was safely tucked away somewhere.

So Senorita Hernandez was down by 48 votes but IF the fraudulent votes went to Estela they were going to evaporate as everyone had their eyes on what was going on now, but even if the fraudulent votes went to Pam Pollard then Senorita Hernandez was still down by 24 votes and no one in the Hubbard camp was going to switch their vote to Senorita Hernandez so Estela really lost on that first ballot.


Senorita Hernandez being the clever tactician that she is or whoever her handlers were…someone told her to make a motion that Pollard be elected Chairman.     Mighty white of her, as Charlie Meadows might quip.   But Hernandez’s true reasons were:

A.        A revote would prove beyond doubt that vote fraud had occurred on the first round of voting

B.       Losing the second ballot was an absolute certainty

C.        Estela did not want a recorded run off loss documented because if she can’t win a Party election then what chance does she have to win Lt. Governor?

Hubbard being the man of integrity that he is stepped up and agreed, cutting short the election by electing Pollard.

During the speeches I watched the county officers applauding and before the vote was cast I remarked to a gentleman sitting next to me that Hubbard wasn’t going to win but Pollard was likely to win.   Reason was that the Estela Hernandez job site/ illegal alien video and the Estela Hernandez berating Brogdon video impacted the decisions of the normal, decent county officials but was unlikely to cause Estela’s or Pollard’s supporters to support Hubbard.   But they would likely switch from Estela Hernandez to Pam Pollard and that is exactly what happened.   The mailers up in Tulsa might have put some blow back on Hubbard, not because he had anything to do with it but it was either him or Pollard or it was Estela wanting to play the race card.  People would have expected attack ads from Pollard, no man bites dog story there.  But they wouldn’t have expected it from Hubbard and if Estela orchestrated the attack ads then it firmly backfired on her once people found out she was likely working illegal aliens.

Now here is the fun part.   Estela and Pam Pollard hate each other with a passion.   During the campaign rhetoric it was brought up that Estela Hernandez traveled with a Chamber of Commerce group to Washington D.C. a few years back in support of S744, the federal amnesty bill that failed a few years back.  Indeed her company Lone Star Construction was on the list of supporters along with mostly state and local Chamber of Commerce organizations.  Well when that became an issue Senorita Hernandez is quick to throw Pam Pollard under the bus by saying “Well she went too!”

The rivalry and hatred were set in place long ago between the two but this was chocolate syrup drizzled on the feces sandwich for Pam Pollard.

So we are going to make another prediction, Estela will chafe and sweat like the proverbial soiled dove in a ediface of religion while serving under her bitter enemy and I bet that Brogdon 2.0 is being plotted as I write this newsletter.    Talk about two wet cats tied in a tow sack, I would estimate the longevity of staff is going to be quite brief in the coming days as these two witches battle for supremacy.

But Pam Pollard is a pro and knows all the tricks so sure enough Pollard makes her acceptance speech and immediately suggests that we formulate “new rules” designed to prevent backbiting and public squabbles, firmly snubbing Senorita Hernandez to the training post with a twitch twisted tight around her lower lip, while also allowing Pollard to work in the shadows where she is the master ninja at character assassination and deceit.  Never let a good crisis go to waste you know as the liberals say.  Even better if Pam Pollard can ensure that these new rules stifle dissent and insulate incumbents from rag tag upstart challengers.

And darn, we expected to hit 10,000 hits on the Estela Hernandez Berates Brogdon link and you guys almost made the mark.   How about re posting the link on Face book and seeing if we can do better boys and girls?  You know that Estela has big plans to run for Lt. Governor so now is the time to introduce her to the public.

Click here to view the video/audio of Estela Hernandez berating Brogdon

Click here to view Estela's husband Zeke chuckling at a private investigator's attempt to speak English to what is almost certainly an illegal alien working for Estela.



Tulsa Republicans Mens Club Meeting This Week!

We welcome our guest this month Dr. Everett Piper President of Oklahoma Wesleyan University. Our lunch starts at 11:30 and our meeting starts at 12 noon. We have filled the room before with Dr. Piper so you need to book your reservation with Michael Phillips asap @ 918-760-8112...Same location LaFortune Park Golf Course Clubhouse 5501 S Yale, Tulsa. Ask Michael how you can join when you call!

$10 lunch, drink, tax, tip with rsvp...$11 at the door


If you join with a membership ($20) and buy lunch while supplies last receive an autographed Dr. Piper book (limited number, 1st come 1st serve)!


For more information please contact:

Darren Gantz - Retirement-Benefits-Insurance 





Serving Oklahoma for over 16 years.



Freedom  of Speech Partially Restored to Oklahoma citizens

I promised you rambling tonight so this one is going to be a real mulligan stew article.   The special edition newsletter earlier this week touched on the reversal of the blackmail charges, but next week we will go more in depth about the legal ramifications and how it is going to affect politics and political activism.

First we asked a few legislators on both side of the political spectrum for their confidential thoughts on the blackmail case and the subsequent reversal of the jury decision and how it might change the mindset of both elected officials and citizens:

“Legislators must always be mindful that they affirmatively choose to be in the public light.   Garrison v. Louisiana guarantees that a politician should expect to receive vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks. If an elected official can't handle that heat... they have zero business being in office.” 


“The Appellate Court decision stated:  "In reality, it is not much different from the corporate lobbyist who subtly infers the loss of campaign contributions... it brings home the often used comparison of the legislative process to a [sausage grinder]."    Shocking! They agree that the very same framework used by the donor class to keep lawmakers in line can be used by political activists.     This is a very powerful statement with a lot of new facets “ 



“There was no compelling the senator to commit an illegal act, no compelling him with violence, no blackmailing or compelling a private citizen in a private realm; his was literally non threat beyond to say "I'm going to investigate you!"    Some Google and Face book research can generally gleam a mountain of info on a person and can be a gold mine. But here's a dirty little secret about the art of aggressive campaigning: some candidates will hire private investigators.  Sometimes for finding specific things, others to build a chunky opposition research file by digging through trash, tailing the politician for days, learning from former neighbors, you get the gist. So what does this tell us? Legislators & Candidates must acknowledge that when they run for office that they have no expectation for privacy in performance of their public office, and a far reduced protection with regards to speech since they are attached to the political forum.   If your are dumb enough to leave a paper trail, your not cut out to be a player in the State House. “


“Kudos to the court for seeing this case as to what it is; making an impassioned statement in support/against public policy to your   political representative. The dissenting judges foolishly cling to the notion that somehow a little indigestion by a public figure must be guarded against; yet worst of all... they completely avoid making a statement on the legalized bribes,  uh,... contributions and PAC's.  I suspect those dissenting judges are fearful of losing support for their little fiefdom in the looming judicial showdown. Let's be perfectly clear about this, if you are genuinely nervous about having your past dug up, then you have skeletons you want hidden. The Court didn't go down that road of a compelling public interest to look at a politician’s hypocritical stances.   There are many skeletons hidden in the capital; and that building is leakier than a sieve.”    


“For the future, the citizens should be strong in stating that you want a bill heard!   Force the lawmaker to say "I'm for/against" (see how the decision noted the Senator had "yet to make a decision" and couldn't be compelled on something he hadn't declared?).   I only caution to not threaten that your going to expose ABC (defined) act... you might simply release a bombshell with no warning instead.    Those fireworks can be bigger and cost less.    The best firework of all with a guaranteed ROI?   Go on down to the capitol in Mid April every even number year, and slap your name on the filing form!    Watch that $200 force the incumbent thin-skin spend $20,000 out of his war chest and actually have to engage with constituents.”



We found one really great comment online in one of the comment sections:

“I don't know Gerhart and hold no particular brief for his brand of Tea Party politics as far as I know them, but this is a victory not so much for him as it is for the principle of free speech in general and the 1st amendment in particular for citizens of all political persuasions. I'm startled and a bit disgusted that the ruling was 3-2 instead of unanimous: that should worry free speech advocates of all ideological stripes. Indeed, had this been argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, as it no doubt would have been eventually had this appeal failed, the ruling would likely have been 9-0 to overturn the conviction.

The whiny little (former) state senator mewling like a spoiled brat about the e-mail's "tone" is a prime example of some of what is wrong with the United States of America in 2015; an example of Crybaby Nation, at it's worst. The prosecution was absurd, and a waste of taxpayer's money: there is no way the D.A.'s office didn't know that this was going to get bounced in either a state appeal's court or the U.S. Supreme Court, unless no one in that office has ever run across the plain text of the Bill of Rights (particularly that 1st item on the list); and the judge who allowed it to go forward is a disgrace to the bench and a blight on his profession. It should never have been allowed to go to trial in the first place.”



The Red Dirt Report blasted the news online with an excellent report on the overturned conviction.   RDR was one of the media organizations that stayed for all three days of the trial and while they do have some really unique writers on their roster they are honest in all of their stories.

Tim Farley wrote a story that covered the emotional reaction of the defendant, accurately reporting the quotes in comparison to the Oklahoman’s crude attempts to minimize the damage to the corrupt system.   Tim gave a few paragraphs toward bringing readers up to speed if they were not familiar with the story, then quoted parts of the decision like this one”

 “The record indicates that Appellant was somewhat of an irritant to Oklahoma lawmakers. However, the Constitution protects the rights of the political irritant to contact his elected representative and voice his concerns as much as it protects any citizen’s right to do so,” Vice Presiding Judge Gary Lumpkin wrote in the majority opinion.”

The report stated that the majority of the judges agreed that the blackmail charges were improperly applied and told of Judge Lumkin writing that the email in question didn’t urge or compel the senator to violate any law or commit an unlawful act but was simply a political ploy that employed no coercion at all.

Farley then addressed the elements of actual blackmail and the need to establish what the speaker threatens to do and provided this quote from the decision:

“Here, Appellant did not threaten to do any act prohibited by the statute. The blackmail charge in this case was premature,” .

The article wrapped up by discussing the minority dissenting opinion and included this quote from the dissenting opinion:

“Gerhart may or may not have been an irritant to Oklahoma lawmakers. However, in this communication he explicitly threatened one lawmaker, promising to investigate him and his family and expose him to ridicule, if the lawmaker did not ensure a bill was heard and passed. This conduct crosses the line from ‘irritant’ to criminal conduct,” .

A nice quote from Brady Henderson, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, summed  up the court decision:

“When the State of Oklahoma went after Al Gerhart for his political activism, they did so through a legal theory that tried to criminalize an enormous range of constitutionally protected speech. The Court of Criminal Appeals rightly shut down this attempt to suppress free speech within our communities and at our state Capitol.”


The ACLU posted a the rest of that quote from Brady on their website:

“The speech for which Al Gerhart was threatened with prison may have been crass and combative, but in the United States of America, being impolite is not illegal. The Court of Criminal Appeals made a decision today that ensures protection of the free speech rights of all Oklahomans. “

And during the research to take the online public pulse on the story we found this story written almost exactly one year ago, after the conviction, and it quite rightly compared the Texas Rick Perry witch hunt to what happened here in Oklahoma.

This excellent piece of journalism did something that few other stories bothered to do; link the Agenda 21 controversy to the charges in an effort to show just why such a ridiculous attempt was made to silence political opposition.  The article also tied in Oklahoma County D.A. David Prater’s blackmail threats to the Pardon and Parole Board, pointing out that little difference existed between the two “threats”.   The story contained the best run down on the Pardon and Parole blackmail attempt that I’ve yet seen and that section of the story ended with this statement:

“Which gets back to Gerhart’s question. What’s the difference between, on the one hand, “resign or face charges” and, on the other, “get that bill heard or I will make you the laughingstock of the Senate”? How’s what Gerhart did different from what Prater did?”

The author then switched to comments from once again Brady Henderson of the ACLU that pointed out that it appeared that politicians live under different rules than the rest of us:

““How is it that a citizen doesn’t have the right to do this, but an important, powerful public official can do it with no problem, and little if any question about it? Why is it one public official can tell another, ‘Do this or else’—but a citizen can’t?”

The story then switches to the Governor Rick Perry witch hunt down in Texas and gives a good explanation of the timeline and details.   The writer pointed out that the prosecutor in the Perry case had jurisdiction over the state Capitol, something that David Prater also shared in common, pointing out the obvious ability of such a situated D.A. to coerce the legislature very easily.  The writer then asks the crucial question:

“Still, a big problem for the prosecution on this count is going to be the part of Texas law that says it’s not a crime to coerce a public servant if you, like Perry, are a public servant yourself. But should it really be illegal to play what Al Gerhart calls “hardball politics”? If political action looks like criminal action, shouldn’t the First Amendment get to break the tie?”



The Oklahoman responded as expected, printing a story just slightly above the fold on the front page, at least my picture was above the fold, ending on the first page with a quote from Senator Brannan calling me “Evil”, misquoting me as usual by printing part of a statement, and then ran an editorial reminding everyone that two judges thought it was blackmail:

“This week the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals overturned that conviction, concluding Gerhart's statements were protected First Amendment speech. But Gerhart shouldn't feel cocky. The court's decision came on a 3-2 vote. Clearly, two judges also believed Gerhart crossed the line into blackmail.”

And amazingly it appears that the Oklahoman published the dissenting opinion of the Appellate decision but didn’t publish the actual opinion itself!   That alone tells you what a huge win this was for the Tea Party and the average citizen; so dangerous to the corrupt donor class that the public has to be misled into believing the law was just barely on the side of the First Amendment.  Of course this is also an attempt to minimize the damage to Prater, someone that has always enjoyed the Oklahoman running interference for him.

Perhaps the Oklahoman fears most what has already begun to occur?   Since the illegal trial and improper jury decision was overturned, other grassroots groups have expressed support both publically and privately and we saw a flood of new information come in from all across the state, mostly folks wanting our help with corruption or issues in their neck of the woods and yes, we have always made time for other organizations because the more of us there are, the more diverse we are, the better our chances of making real change happen.  Today at the GOP meeting it was much the same, lots of congratulations and offers to collaborate and even several cases of old enemies deciding it was time to make peace.

This was a good week for freedom and conservative values.   We won a huge win for free speech and the right to participate in legislative matters and we influenced the election of the GOP Chairman election, humiliating a player that had been declared a “rising star” in national politics by handing the election to her much older, much less attractive, and much more disliked competitor who will now be in a position to lord over Estela Hernandez.   And what is Estela going to do?   Can’t scream woman hater at another woman!   I for one think we ought to take a good picture of Estela Hernandez’s face and come back next year to count the new lines and wrinkles.



Even Standing Next to a Bike it's Hard to Look Tough with Man Boobs

and Your Pants Hitched up to your Armpits

Good vs. Evil

By Ms PM


Even with being over 2,000 miles away good news travels fast. Within 1&1/2 hours I received word that charges were reversed in Al’s blackmail case. This kind of government corruption never did set well and has weighed heavily on my heart ever since the 2013 charges were brought against him. I have always thought that what happened was wrong and corruption is why Oklahoma government doesn’t work.


It’s been two years and the memory of sitting in court listening to Cliff Branan’s attempt to gain sympathy from jurors still leaves a nauseating feeling in the pit of my stomach. To this day the first thing that comes to mind when I hear his name is something on the lines of thinking that he is one of the most pathetic and useless creatures sucking air on the planet. True there are other folks that master the art of heinous acts against mankind but this man is despicable. To be a once Senator and use that power to change the daily life of a citizen in ways that will negatively affect a person’s well-being goes beyond the description of a rotten soul. It was only fitting that he lost the race for Corporation Commissioner. One thing he isn’t is a public servant. His actions paint a picture of self-serving power.


I wonder what all the other folks are thinking now. You know who they are…the ones that threw Al under the bus because they didn’t like his tactics or have brains enough to know he is one of the few freedom fighters willing to do what it takes. All the ones that smugly snickered and if not said it but certainly implied that “maybe now he will be taken down.” Well…to all these half measured chicken shits that have shown your true colors…go F*** yourself!


During the trial the judge said that free speech is not a defense. This statement should have made everyone that is paying any resemblance of attention lose a lot of sleep. Folks should have crawled out from under the covers and if nothing else started to pay a little more attention. After all, Al was fighting for your political freedom of speech too. None of this is about popularity in the way any one gets their point across. It is about freedom…everyone’s freedom.


And…what if Al had not filed an appeal? Is there anyone out there that would have been up to that task? How many would have tucked tail and swallowed the plate of worms just because they couldn’t hack the fight? How many are too afraid? Doesn’t anyone want to fight the real fight…or is it easier to roll over and play dead? Are folks thinking they are doing something by reading about all of this corrupt power and getting pissed off?


It has been said that spending time thinking about what needs to be done and never doing any of it is how people get stuck into never putting any of it into action. I wonder what life would be like if our Founders did what the many uninformed Americans are doing right now.


This reversal is monumental…how many have thought about what it truly means?